Talk:India/Archive 36

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

Need opinion on Nikkul's North Block image

This is the photoshopped image by user Nikkul: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:NorthBlock.jpg

This is the original image: http://flickr.com/photos/nimrodbar/31437132/

I have serious quality issues with the photoshopped image: tacky and cgi "fake" looking - like one of those concept images for a new building that is planned. Nikkul mirrored one half of the image and pasted it on the other half to "get rid of the people" - and also did some lighting effects. So now we have people who should not be there + the image looks fake on inspection - because well it is fake! I discussed this with Nikkul about it but we seem to disagree on this. I would like to know what other people think. I find the original image just fine (with the people). --Blacksun 09:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure those two links you provided above are exactly the same picture? I understand the people may have been edited out but the cars in the parking area are different. Regarding which image is better, I think the Flickr is because it looks more natural as well as not as blurry and dull. GizzaDiscuss © 09:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Nikkul took the left half of the image and pasted it on the right half. That is why you have the soldier in the front on both sides. --Blacksun 09:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Haha, after realising that you tend to notice how freakishly and unrealistically symmetrical Nikkul's image is. GizzaDiscuss © 10:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Nikkul, you should be ashamed of yourself. After all you've been through on the India page, you go back to the goofy stuff. Why? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC) PS. Nikkul, I apologize for my choice of words. I didn't mean to be demeaning. You are someone who is clearly interested in improving the image content on India-related pages, and everyone can see that you have talent and drive, so why not use them more productively? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
He's lucky that there wasn't a distintive cloud formation or something. Having said that, shrubs that do not exist magically appear in Nikkul's version. Such an image has no place at all on Wikipedia, let alone the India page. GizzaDiscuss © 10:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
That was my feeling to on the matter. I have uploaded the original image over the edited one as it is used in various other articles too. Hopefully, user Nikkul will see where we are coming from. It is a good image he obtained from the photographer and there is no need for editing it. --Blacksun 11:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Please Nikkul, don't put that mirrored image back - or other heavily photoshopped images. The non-tweaked images are fine, and I for one appreciate the effort you put into finding good images. Just try and restrain your artistic impulses... ॐ Priyanath talk 15:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Again, I just thought taking out the people would make the image look cleaner. The image hasnt been changed besides that (no clouds added or anything). And since the building is symetrical, i dont think it really matters. Seriously, I dont think people really care if there is an extra bush on one side of the Parliament building. Personally, I think the mirrored image looks very similar to the actual and is much cleaner. Still, if there is such an opposition to mirroring it, I have no problem at all leaving it the way it is now. Afterall, I am the one who uploaded it. Anyway, dont try to demean me. I have contributed a lot to wiki, much more than one realizes (see my userpage if u want proof). Nikkul 01:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I most sincerely appreciate that you've put so much effort into finding and uploading so many good images. Images are extremely important to articles, as the never-ending image disputes here prove. Thanks, ॐ Priyanath talk 02:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I don't think anybody doubts your good intentions Nikkul. I just hope you realise that editing an image so much makes it look fake. Why do we have to change things when there is so much real beauty in India? GizzaDiscuss © 04:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Yakshagana Redux

Why are we calling Yakshagana a dance form when it is a type of theater as shown by Fowler with half a dozen credible citations? If you want to mention Yakshagana then hammer out an acceptable line for folk theater in the culture section instead of giving false information to the reader. If you disagree with categorizing Yakshagana as folk theater instead of dance then please provide some evidence. I might have missed the dance form sides reasoning in all the other things that came up recently.--Blacksun 11:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

How about something like this, which is the most accurate?
“ Indian music covers a wide range of traditions and regional styles. Classical music is split mainly between the North Indian Hindustani and South Indian Carnatic traditions. Famous representatives of Hindustani tradition are shehnai-player Ustad Bismillah Khan and sitarist Pandit Ravi Shankar and of the Carnatic tradition, vocalist M. S. Subbulakshmi and mridangam-player Palghat Mani Iyer. Highly regionalised forms of popular music include filmi and folk music; the syncretic tradition of the bauls of Bengal is one of the best known forms of the latter.

Indian dance too has diverse folk and classical forms. Among the well-known folk dances are the bhangra of the Punjab, the bihu of Assam, the chhau of Bihar and Orissa and the ghoomar of Rajasthan. Eight dance forms, many with narrative forms and infused with devotional and mythological elements have been accorded classical dance status by the Sangeet Natak Academi, India's National Academy of Music, Dance, and Drama. These are: bharatanatyam of the state of Tamil Nadu, kathak of Uttar Pradesh, kathakali and mohiniattam of Kerala, kuchipudi of Andhra Pradesh, manipuri of Manipur, odissi of the state of Orissa, and sattriya of Assam.[1] The last named, traditionally performed by celibate monks of the Vaishnavite tradition, most notably on Majuli island in the Brahmaputra, is now performed by both women and laymen.[1]

India has many forms of traditional and folk theatre, which include music, dance, and improvised or written dialogue. Often based in Hindu mythology, but, in addition, incorporating elements from medieval romances, and news of social and political events, these forms include the bhavai of state of Gujarat, the jatra of West Bengal, the nautanki and ramlila of North India, the tamasha of Maharashtra, the terukkuttu of Tamil Nadu, and the yakshagana of Karanataka.[2] Yakshagana, in particular, has undergone innovation in dance and theatre, which includes performances of Shakespeare.[3]

 ”
  1. ^ a b 1.Sivaramamurti, Calambur, J. A. B. van Buitenen, Edward C. Dimock, C.M. Naim, A.K. Ramanujan, Nazir Ali Jairazbhoy, Balwant Gargi, Pramod Chandra "South Asian arts: Techniques and Types of Classical Dance" From: Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 12 Oct. 2007. 2. Sangeet Natak Academi (National Academy of Music, Dance, and Drama, New Delhi, India). 2007. Dance Programmes. 3. Kothari, Sunil. 2007. Sattriya dance of the celibate monks of Assam, India. Royal Holloway College, University of London.
  2. ^ Karanth, K. Shivarama. (1997). Yakṣagāna (Forward by H. Y. Sharada Prasad). Abhinav Publications. 252 pages. ISBN 8170173574. Quote: "The Yakṣagāna folk-theatre is no isolated theatrical form in India. We have a number of such theatrical traditions all around Karnataka... In far off Assam we have similar plays going on by the name of Ankia Nat, in neighouring Bengal we have the very popular Jatra plays. Maharashtra has Tamasa. (p. 26) In some Indian folk plays we find songs and speeches interwoven as in Yakṣagāna or Tamasa.
  3. ^ Hapgood, Robert. 1983. "Macbeth distilled: A Yakshagana production in Delhi," Shakespeare Quarterly, Vol. 31, No. 3. (Autumn, 1980), pp. 439-440.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC) Last update: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. Now thats what you call, accurate and appropriate detailing. Please improve Indian dances & Indian folk dances with this piece of information. KnowledgeHegemony 13:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Excellent - can we get a comment from the people who were edit warring over Yaksagana? --Blacksun 13:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Yakshagana is a dance-drama first and then 'folk theater'( whatever that is supposed to mean). Yes, it is folk theater but it is a dance form, dance-drama to be precise. "Theater" just doesnt cut it. Shadow play performances is a form of folk theater too; so is pantomime; so are the performing arts of our gypsy tribes. I can give any number of references that Yakshagana is "dance-drama". Also, Kathakali is dance-drama too(the net is rife with references for this too). If Kathakali is "dance", then Yakshagana is "dance" too. I can give references which put both Kathakali and Y in the same genre - ie., "dance-drama".
  • Also, Yakshagana is as much classical as it is folk. When I use classical, I use it in the sense that serious researchers use, ie., as classical. The reason I am making this point is because researchers treat Yakshagana and the other "folk-arts" listed above differently. For instance (correct me if I am wrong), I've never seen anybody describe terukkoothu a 'classical' art form. Same with jatra, nautanki, ramlila etc.,. Same with 'tamasha'. Talking of 'tamasha', it is also nominally "dance", not "theater".
  • That Bharatanatya is of TamilNadu is loose. And POV. Yes, Bharatanatya was revived in the early-mid decades of the 20th century in TN.. before that it was practised by Devadasis all over India(atleast south India)... and much before that it had a following all over the south(atleast). Hoysala Queen Shantala was a well known exponent 1000 or so years ago.
This much for now. gtg. Sarvagnya 16:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, let's have your references then. The word for "classical folk theatre," is "traditional theatre," not classical dance. Folk theatre, as you indicated earlier is not a perjorative term. Your primary reference Shivarama Karanth, which you touted earlier, clearly not only thinks of it as folk theatre, but also doesn't think Yakshagana is as well developed a dance form (in terms of its stylized gestures) as Kathakali or Kuchipudi, as I have shown in the quotes from his book above in the subsection on his book above. Be aware though that I have also already looked at a dozen other references on JSTOR and other academic catalogs that classify Yakshagana as very much theatre. The main point being the presence of spoken prose lines, which Kathakali and Kuchipudi don't have and the absence of an elaborate syntax of stylized gestures, which K & K do have. I will await your references. And please only academic papers or scholarly books or .edu web sites. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
PS I don't know in what sense you are using the word classical, but if you mean the age of the art form, it is no older than Jatra or Tamasa. According to Karanth (and EB) the first known performances go back to the 15th century AD. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Protected

Whatever you guys used to end the "new additions" dispute, you should use it for the Shakuntala-Tagore dispute. Saravask 05:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

What dispute? Everyone including Priyanath is ok with using Shakuntala image. Do you have a problem with it?--Blacksun 10:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Never mind - I see that we had another edit war.--Blacksun 10:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
As long as completely subjective standards are used for images ('I like it', 'I don't like it') we will continue having an endless edit war over them. We need to use subjective standards: i.e., most notable and relevant to the article. Images like Gandhi, Taj, the main national government building, Tagore, all meet the only subjective standards on images - notability and relevance. The other option is rotation, which will allow regional and less familiar (but perhaps notable in some specific way) images to have their time in the article.
I move that we use this time to implement rotation, which has worked so well in the Flora and Fauna section. ॐ Priyanath talk 15:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Again, the painting is an illustration of The Recognition of Śakuntalā, one of the great works of world literature. That Raja Ravi Varma is no slouch himself (please see the new footnotes I have added in the Straw poll section below) only adds to the illustration. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you - I'm pleased that the community is getting to decide which of two good images is most appropriate for the article. ॐ Priyanath talk 18:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
PS As for the Flora and Fauna images, some are too low-res, and at least one of the tigers (the one licking its paw or about to lick it) might not be a Bengal tiger. The coloring and body proportion looks Siberian to me, but I could be wrong. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Sarvagnya's unclear and inaccurate edit summaries

User:Sarvagnya made a number of edits yesterday whose edit summaries once again fail to rise to an acceptable level of clarity or accuracy. Here are the edit summaries:

  • Edit summary1: "removed condescending "regional" crap. all languages are equally national or regional. also removed peacock about most recogniseable face - "show" dont "tell") for this edit.
    • No, all languages in India are not equally regional. As we found out in the long-drawn out dispute over the infobox languages (see my exhaustive secondary sources here, Hindi (spoken by 40% of the population) and English are lingua francas for different regions of the country in ways that the other "regional" languages are not. For example, Kannada, in contrast, is spoken by only 4.3% of India's population.
  • oh.. you want to play the 'percentage' game? Fine. Lets start with "..Hindus form 80% of India's population..".. now let's get an image of a 'fine example' of "Hindu" architecture to replace the Taj (there's plenty of them and they're even on the World Heritage list, just like the taj). And how about qualifying every non-Hindu entity with terms like "minority", "miniscule minority", "regional" etc., every step of the way. Sarvagnya 21:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Fowler - I think you have your own explaining to do in justifying the continued addition of less than notable and relevant images to this article. Your circular 'logic' in explaining the addition of the Verma painting as being more notable than all the combined works and achievements of Tagore is a bit of a stretch, to put it civilly. An need I remind readers that you have systematically reverted and attacked any 'outside' editors who attempt to edit the India article, violating WP:OWN? Does anyone here wonder why a major country article has so few editors, and so few new editors? ॐ Priyanath talk 20:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Dear user:Priyanath, As I have patiently explained above once already, the painting is about The Recognition of Śakuntalā, which is not only the greatest work of Sanskrit drama, but also one of the great works of world literature. There is nothing in Tagore that compares with Kalidasa's masterpiece. See the references in the straw poll below. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


A Straw Poll for choosing between two images for the culture section: Śakuntalā and Tagore

Scene from Kalidasa's The Recognition of Śakuntalā, the "supreme work of Sanskrit drama,"a and "usually judged the best Indian literary effort of any period."b Painting by Raja Ravi Varmac, d, e (1848-1906) of Kilimanoor, Kerala
Scene from Kalidasa's The Recognition of Śakuntalā, the "supreme work of Sanskrit drama,"a and "usually judged the best Indian literary effort of any period."b Painting by Raja Ravi Varmac, d, e (1848-1906) of Kilimanoor, Kerala
Rabindranath Tagore - Asia's firstf Nobel laureateg and composer of India's national anthem, played a major role in reviving several art forms such as the Manipuri.h
Rabindranath Tagore - Asia's firstf Nobel laureateg and composer of India's national anthem, played a major role in reviving several art forms such as the Manipuri.h
Footnotes
  • a. Kalidasa. 2001. The Recognition of Śakuntalā: A Play in Seven Acts. (edited by W. J. Johnson. Oxford World's Classics. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. 192 pages. ISBN 0192839114. Quote: "Kalidasa's play about the love of King Dusyanta and Sakuntala, a hermitage girl, their separation by a curse, and eventual reunion, is the supreme work of Sanskrit drama by its greatest poet and playwright (c.4th century CE)... The pioneering English translation of Sakuntala in 1789 caused a sensation among European composers and writers (including Goethe), and it continues to be performed around the world."
  • b. Encyclopædia Britannica (Gerow, Edwin; signed article). (2007) Kalidasa. (2007). In Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Retrieved October 20, 2007. Quote: "Kalidasa: Sanskrit poet and dramatist, probably the greatest Indian writer of any epoch... In drama, his Abhijñanasakuntala ("The Recognition of Śakuntalā") is the most famous and is usually judged the best Indian literary effort of any period... As in all of Kalidasa's works, the beauty of nature is depicted with a precise elegance of metaphor that would be difficult to match in any of the world's literatures."
  • c. Tagore, Rabindranath. 1893. Chhinna Patrabali. Quote: "I spent the entire morning looking at Ravi Varma's pictures. I must confess I find them really attractive. After all, these pictures prove to us how dear our own stories, our own images and expressions are to us. In some paintings, the figures are not quite in proportion. Never mind! The total effect is compelling." (Quoted in Mitter, Partha. 1995. Art and Nationalism in Colonial India 1850-1922: Occidental Orientations. Cambridge University Press. p. 179)
  • d. Mitter, Partha. 1995. Art and Nationalism in Colonial India 1850-1922: Occidental Orientations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. xxix, 505. ISBN 0521443547. From: Chapter 5. The artist as charismatic individual: Raja Ravi Varma, pp. 179-218. Quote: "The glittering career of Raja Ravi Varma (1848-1906) is a striking case of study of salon art in India – the 'artistic genius' who embodied the virtues expected of an academic artist. In the year following his death, Modern Review (Calcutta) described him as the greatest artist of modern India, a nation builder, who showed the moral courage of a gifted 'high-born' in taking up the 'degrading profession of painting'. It is curious in retrospect that the artist also hailed by the Raj as the finest in India, never crossed the threshold of an art school. Nor did he originate in an urban environment. Ravi Varma Koil Tampuran was born on 29 April 1848 into an aristocratic family in the remote province of Kerala. The Varmas of Killimanoor were allied by marriage with the rulers of Travancore... Ravi Varma's spectacular canvases influenced the pioneers of the Indian cinema, Dadasaheb Phalke and Baburao Painter, much as Victorian art inspired the Hollywood director D. W. Griffith. The opulent beauties of Indian cinema and calendars can lay claim to their descent from Varma's heroines."
  • e. Guha-Thakurta, Tapati. Monuments, Objects, Histories: Institutions of Art in Colonial and Post-Colonial India. New York: Columbia University Press. Pp. xxv, 432. ISBN 023112998X. Quote (p. 338): "Srimani, in particular, anticipates the art criticism of Balendranath Tagore, published in the journal Sadhana in the early 1890s, where, applauding the new mythological paintings of Ravi Varma, he discovered in them the "right" combination of academic realism and the lyric emotions of the Sanskrit texts. (See Balendranath Tagore, Chitra o kabya (Calcutta: Brahmo Samaj, 1894), pp. 97-113.)"
Comment: That is because by "Indian literature," the Columbia Encyclopedia means the literature in the modern "vernacular languages of India." It has separate pages for Sanskrit Literature, Pali Sacred Literature, and Prakrit Literature; the first two are much longer than their page on Indian literature. Kalidasa and Sakuntala are both mentioned in the page on Sanskrit literature. In addition, Columbia's page on Tagore, clearly states, "Tagore drew on the classical literature of India, especially the ancient Sanskrit scriptures and the writings of Kalidasa." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Vote

For The Recognition of Śakuntalā image

  1. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC) Last updated: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. Arvind 22:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC) (see here)
  3. GizzaDiscuss © 06:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  4. --Blacksun 12:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  5. Keynes.john.maynard 11:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  6. Sundar \talk \contribs 14:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment:I dont understand why anyone would pick an image of the person that is Tagore over an example of art and literature that is Recognition of Sakuntala. Adding an image of Tagore does very little to the overall value of the article. Why? Because the image does not increase the value of the text regarding Tagore. The picture is just an image of a man. He is not famous for his picture but his great literature and deeds which are already mentioned in the article. I just dont understand why this is so hard to understand?? --Blacksun 12:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Note that in the Culture section of the England article, two out of the three images are of England's greatest poet/author, Shakespeare (a painting of him, no photographs available), and a statue of a composer. Images of great artists do add to the value of an article, especially when they are as notable as a Shakespeare or Tagore. The Sakuntala painting is also an attractive addition to the article—less notable than Tagore, certainly, but a big improvement over the image that, unbelievably, held that spot for the last year. ॐ Priyanath talk 16:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Priyanath, England is not a FA article and I do not agree with putting Shakespeare picture in culture section either. Please, please, please - explain to me how does putting a mug shot of Tagore (or Shakespeare) add to the value of the article. They are not famous for how they LOOKED but for their work. For example, I would rather have an image of a play written by Shakespeare than his picture. If you can explain to me this I have no problem supporting you. --Blacksun 21:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
The picture is there not to educate people about how Tagore looked! It is there to pay tribute to a person who rendered yeoman service towards enriching and propagating 'Indian culture'. For that matter, every "mugshot" that we have on wikipedia is because those people have signal contributions in their own fields to their name. I could use your argument to get rid of each of those mugshots. Sarvagnya 22:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I see - so we are supporting inclusion of image of Tagore not to educate people but to pay tribute to Tagore. Stupid me of thinking that this was an encyclopedia. --Blacksun 22:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Even if we are to assume equal cultural significance of the two images, the Sakuntala painting is more pleasing aesthetically. The Tagore image stands out, and looks odd with the rest of the page. Mug shots on the page would make it look ugly, and would take something away from the page. Would we ever consider changing the Gandhi-Nehru image to Gandhi's mugshot in the History section? --Keynes.john.maynard 11:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

For Tagore image

  1. Priyanath (talk · contribs)
  2. Fundamental metric tensor (talk · contribs)
  3. Sarvagnya (talk · contribs)

Comment: The fact that a few people have studied something (like the todas or shak) and published something on the internet doesnt mean it has to be included on wiki india.Image is also unclear. I'd prefer a temple or diwali image, but if that cant be done, i prefer tagore over shak Nikkul 23:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Recognition of Sakuntala is not only a great illustration of Indian art history but also an example of literature in Hinduism. It is a very nice image that conveys the place of art and religion in Indian society. I am surprised you do not find value in it. --Blacksun 12:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: Nikkul didn't say that he did 'not find value' in the Sakuntala image - he's only saying, like many others, that he would 'prefer' the Tagore image since it is more relevant, notable, and appropriate for this article. ॐ Priyanath talk 20:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I have replaced the old image by a clearer one. Also, I have added more footnotes, which make the point that both the popular Hindu art and Indian cinema art of the 20th-century (and today) have been profoundly influenced by Varma's work. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Nobody here needs any education in Kalidasa's stature and standing and we could do with a little less dumping of random info and filling of pages by Fowler. That said, the fallacy lies in even pitting Tagore and Kalidasa against each other. Thats comparing apples and oranges and downright ridiculous. It is the likes of Tagore that have saved the Kalidasas and the Ravi Varmas and the Manipuri dance and other art forms for posterity. Tagore brought the 'out of sight, out of mind' northeast into the national mainstream through his efforts in rejuvenating Manipuri dance. Kalidasa did no such thing. Kalidasa may have been a great poet and all that, but saying that he was the greatest of any age to write anything is streching it too far. I could argue that Sangita Ratnakara by Sharngadeva is the greatest literary work pertaining to "Culture". As far as pure literary content goes, Kalidasa may have few peers but it can easily be argued that the Sangita Ratnakara had a far more profound impact on Indian culture than abhignyanashakuntalam. It is, after all, the bible of all classical music in India - all of India. Both Hindustani and Carnatic traditions revere it and draw their most basic concepts from it.

The point I'm trying to make is, if we kept fishing, we can keep adding names and works to the article. And then, we can backdoor images like the "recognition" of shakuntala which ride solely on contrived and clumsily fitted sentences. Yes, I am arguing that not just the image but even the very mention of Kalidasa doesnt belong in this article. Kalidasa's works, towering as he is/was, dont compare with the the Ramayana or the Mahabharata. I would have no problem with the Kalidasa pic once we have rotation in place. If we cant have rotation, then we cant have Kalidasa. Not unless the the article is expanded. We cant have selective expansion just to suit somebody's POV. These are the same people who come up with word counts of other people's contributions and troll no end on talk pages about why it shouldnt be kept. So its time they walk the talk. We dont keep humoring nonsense forever. Sarvagnya 19:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear user:Sarvagnya: Wikipedia values reliable secondary sources – academic monographs, university level textbooks, signed articles by experts in tertiary sources, and internationally recognized academic journal articles – not what we believe or think. I would kindly request you to provide for your assertions the kind of sources and citations (such as monographs published by Cambridge University Press or Columbia University Press, or signed articles in Britannica) that I have provided for mine in the footnotes above. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Sarvagnya, Shakuntala is a character from Mahabharat. Any user who is interested in the image will click on it and then see that it is part of Mahabharat and become interested in it. That is why I support this image - in one stroke you have a sampling of a lot of things important to Indian culture. Image of Tagore however adds NOTHING more than what is already present in text - it is just a picture of a man. If Tagore was considered the most handsome man of last century, it might make sense to put his image. However, this is not the case. This has nothing to do with Kalidas or Tagore but the fact that we are presenting a work of art that requires being seen to enhance the value of the text. I have absolutely nothing against Tagore, having actually worked on getting that article to FA status even. --Blacksun 22:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for enlightening me with that factoid about Shakuntala. It was news to me. huh. And if Shakuntala can open up the reader to the Mahabharata and Hindu mythology in general, then both Rabindranath Tagore and Manipuri dance can open up the reader to various other facets of Indian culture. For that matter, Manipuri dance is also steeped in Hindu mythology. Sarvagnya 22:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • sigh* - I would support a good image of Manipuri dance over Tagore too. Not because I think Tagore is not important but -as I have stated few times now- he is not famous for how he looks. Looking at his image does not enhance the text in the article. However, image of Shakuntala or Manipuri dance helps the reader picture what it actually is. It is just that simple - I feel like this has nothing to do with the image but chronic need to oppose everything and anything that is Fowler. --Blacksun 22:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Blacksun, I understand your argument, and respect and appreciate it. I just don't agree with it. For one, I don't think Tagore's is a 'mug shot'. It's actually a striking image, imo. I also believe that an image leads the reader to learn more about the subject of the image (just like you do). I don't think images are just for visual interest. Otherwise I would support adding Featured Pictures even when they aren't relevant to an article.
I am not opposed to the Sakuntala image, I just think the Tagore is more appropriate. I know you aren't against Tagore the person, and haven't made the belittling comments about him that fowler has.[1][2] If the community supports Sakuntala here, I will not remove it. As I said above, it's a huge improvement from the pic that's been here for the last year. When I originally 'supported' the Sakuntala image, it was only tacit support since nobody had opposed it yet. When there was opposition, then it was time to get more feedback. I've learned that it's better to trust the larger community than one editor's wordy campaigns for certain images. I think with some editors here, it's less a matter of opposing all things fowler than a matter of lack of trust, after toda and alot of uncivil comments and specious arguments on f's part. If the community supports Sakuntala, then I would happily and sincerely accept, even if it's not a strong consensus (i.e., only the slimmest majority). And I think it would end this image discussion once and for all. ॐ Priyanath talk 22:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I fully agree that it is a striking pose. I love that image but just don't find it suitable in the culture section. But I will accept your decision - I hope people vote for Shakuntala :P --Blacksun 23:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I do see Blacksuns point that he is not known for how he looked, hence his works would be more relevant than his photo. This is why I prefer having an image of something else like a diwali picture or a dance or something that shows india and not just indian architecture like the taj and toda image did because there is more to culture than architecture. Nikkul 06:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
[shameless promotion] Why not vote for Recognition of Shakuntala then? It is a great image that shows that art exists outside of western hemisphere and has deep roots in religious culture. [/shameless promotion] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blacksun (talk • contribs) 09:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

For A Hindu temple or Diwali image

  1. Nikkul (talk · contribs)

For another image in the Culture section

  1. myname (talk · contribs)

Bengal or Siberian?

The "Bengal Tiger" appearing in the rotation
The "Bengal Tiger" appearing in the rotation

Hi, Do we know for sure that the tiger is a Bengal tiger? The coloring, the paw-size, and body proportion look Siberian to me, but I could be wrong. If we don't know that it is a Bengal tiger, then it should be removed. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Guess this edit stops the relentless nitpicking and abuse of process in the tracks. Sarvagnya 19:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the "edit protected" template to get this article out of Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests. Basically, since the article isn't protected now, the template doesn't belong here. -- Arvind 22:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Image Files

Okay so I've been seeing random images of animals and now of culture under something called an imagefile. I'd just like to know

  • when this was started,
  • why it hasnt been discussed on the talk india page,
  • who chose the images
  • what criteria is used to evaluate quality of images
  • where the image bank is
  • why paintings are now appearing in the fauna section
  • how many images there are
  • how can one insert the images

Nikkul 06:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what is going on with that. --Blacksun 11:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't know either, but the template is Template:Image_file. I have left a number of messages on its talk page: Template_talk:Image_file. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I'll reply in ~8 hours. Saravask 16:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Answers:
  • With this
  • See this
  • Anyone can choose images. We're informally building a test pool now. Eventually all the selections/removals will be done at WP:PINSPC.
  • We're using our best judgment per WP:IMAGE. Eventually we'll judge pics at WP:PINSPC.
  • See {{image file}}
  • If you don't like it, you can remove it or debate against it.
  • As many as people decide at WP:PINSPC.
  • Like this
We're starting this new thing the way WP:FA began: at first, articles were hand-selected by good-faith contributors based on "refreshing, brilliant prose". Then, as more people got interested, the consensus-based WP:FAC and WP:FAR processes matured. Thanks. Saravask 01:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I have tried adding a couple images under people...If you could please tell me in detail how to add images,that would be great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikkul (talk • contribs) 02:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Do what Sarvagnya did in this edit:
  1. Add the image code under the right section at the end of the list. Number it.
  2. Update the modulo operation number. If you're adding two images, increase it by two. If removing three, subtract three. Saravask 02:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Saravask - I don't think there's a Barnstar big enough for you. ॐ Priyanath talk 03:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I second that.  :) Sarvagnya 03:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I think we should take things slowly. I am not sure if I like the idea of having a pool of dozens of images for one placeholder. My two cents. --Blacksun 19:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

A Straw Poll on the inclusion of Yakshagana in the list of classical dances

This follows up on earlier discussions in the sections Yakshagana, Reliable Sources Not YouTube on Yakshagana, Shivarama Karanth's Book on Yakshagana, and Yakshagana Redux. The current sentence on music and dance in the culture section, which includes Yakshagana in its list of classical dances, reads:

“ Indian music covers a wide range of traditions and regional styles. Classical music is mainly split between the North Indian Hindustani and South Indian Carnatic traditions. Highly regionalised forms of popular music include filmi and folk music like bhangra. Many classical dance forms exist, including bharatanatyam, kathakali, kathak, kuchipudi, manipuri, odissi and yakshagana. They often have a narrative form and are usually infused with devotional and mythological elements. ”

The three choices for voting are:

Choice A: Expanded version with separate paragraphs on Music, Dance, and Theatre

This choice replaces the current paragraph above with the three short paragraphs (one each for music, dance and theatre) shown in Fowler&fowler's post (immediately following Blacksun's post) here

Votes:

  1. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Choice B: Remove Yakshagana from the list of classical dances

This choice removes only Yakshagana from the list of classical dances in the current version displayed above.

Votes:

  1. MyNameHere (talk · contribs)

Choice C: Keep current version with Yakshagana listed as classical dance

This choice keeps the current version of the paragraph (unaltered).

Votes:

  1. MynameHere (talk · contribs)

Rotation So Far

From what I have observed, I think rotation is great. Over the last few visits to the actual article, I saw different faces of India esp the fauna section and also the culture section that I had never known existed (like the longtail squirrel) . I know that we have some ways to go before the image files are finalized, but I think this concept is very very progressive.

I think its the only way to solve the problem of showing India in all its forms instead of limiting Indian culture to just the Taj Mahal and the Toda Hut. And being one of the first people who brought this concept to the India page, I am very happy that of its success. I am actually very impressed by how much I can learn each time I visit the culture section or the fauna section.

To anyone who opposes the rotation, I'd like to ask them how they intend to solve the problem of showing India's cuisine, dress, dance, festivals, architecture, literature, sports, traditions, etc. etc. etc. in 2 pictures. Nikkul 07:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

eh, I know I supported rotation but I am not happy with the implementation so far. Also, I dont know if I am happy with using a high number of images for each place holder. In my opinion that takes away from the more relevant images as they dont get shown as often. When I supported rotation, I had imagined a scenario where each addition to the pool would be discussed first and we would agree as a community on a small pool of images to be shown. Lets see how it goes. On a more technical note, I find the method of addition bit confusing - I know user Saravask explained it above but I am still confused heh. --Blacksun 08:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that is going to happen pretty soon...thats also what i had imagined and I think that we're going to do that very soon. I love how the rotation has virtually eliminated the debate about Tagore, something else, or Toda. It has ended edit wars, etc. Nikkul 14:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Its well programmed by Saravask. But the images ain't regulated. There should be a nom procedure. But its looking fine. Lets hope this works out well.KnowledgeHegemony 14:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I think it's an excellent start, considering the history. People's good will has been noteworthy. Everyone here probably sees a few images they think should be removed, and I bet they are different images for each person. That must mean it's working :-). ॐ Priyanath talk 16:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The potential emptiness about rotations

This is an involved point, so please bear with me. Although I had suggested rotation on this page in November 2006 (see F&f rotation1, F&f rotation2, F&f rotation3), I hadn't then thought about it with any care. More recently I came to oppose rotation because I didn't see it solving the so-called problem of balanced image content for the average reader, who likely doesn't go to the article enough times to catch all the images. This was the subject of my post Why rotation doesn't make sense; Ragib made the same point more eloquently in his post here. In the end, I voted to support rotation with the FP-quality condition in the straw poll above, thinking that image quality was the biggest problem related to rotation. However, even if all our images were Featured Pictures, there potentially is an even bigger problem looming ahead: the danger of all images becoming vanilla images, and leaving no affect or memory in the typical reader.

This struck me only this morning, when I was looking again at some of the images in the Encarta article on India. One of them, in particular, had struck me many months before when I first saw it. The picture shows a music class in the Veena in progress in Chennai, with four girls, each holding their instrument, and listening to their teacher. Under it was this caption:

“ "The Kalakshetras school of dance and music is located in Chennai (formerly Madras), India. These students are learning to play the vina, a traditional instrument in classical Indian music. This school is for the wealthier members of Indian society. Education for the majority of the population remains a problem due to lack of funds and the large number of different languages and cultures within the country." ”

One of the points that the caption makes, that "classical culture" is the province increasingly of the wealthy few, is a subtle point and bears repetition when it is made visually. I, most certainly, had almost forgotten the image, even though it was one of my more vivid experiences from that Encarta article. The image's many points would most certainly have been lost, had the image been replaced by another image making some other point. Memorable images require return visits. They require stability within the text, for them to settle in, as it were, in our consciousness. This to me potentially is the ultimate emptiness about rotations; they could turn even well-crafted images into vanilla images. Either the complex points like that in the Veena caption will not be made, or, when made, will not stick, because of their profusion.

People don't have to reply to this post, since it is a conjecture; however, I would be happy if they think about this possibility as this rotation trial unfolds this week. Meanwhile, however, I am changing my vote to "against rotation." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

People come here to get information now, not in the future. Most people are not like you. If someone likes an image, they will note down what it is showing. If they really like it, they will save the image to their computer. I have done that so many times when I used to be a reader on Wikipedia. Wikipedia changes. It isnt made so that the same things stay forever. Also, given that India has 1 billion people, each contributing his or her bit to Indian culture making it awfully hard to show all aspects of Indian culture in one or two images. The Toda image, that you support as being placed where the rotation is, for sure does not show aspects of majority Indian culture. This is an encyclopedia. Unlike what you think, Readers dont come here to carefully examine images to see the "vernacular" aspects of India (which dont represent India at all, but rather .0001 percent of it). This is an encyclopedia. People want quick and relevant information. They dont care what .001 percent of India is doing when the 99.999 percent doesnt follow that at all. I dont see how anyone can support the Toda image with a straight face. Anyway, to conclude, this is an encyclopedia. This is not an art exhibition. Wikipedia changes. That is why we have that edit this page button on the top that encarta doesnt. Dont expect images to stay forever. Nikkul 01:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

"[citation needed]" for "In larger states, districts may be grouped together to form a division."

Could this Encyclopedia Britannica article about Bihar that states "The state is divided into seven administrative divisions and 39 districts.", along with similar ones work as citations for "In larger states, districts may be grouped together to form a division." that has been tagged with a [citation needed].--KeynesJohnMaynard 20:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

More Links - The Bihar Govt Website shows 9 divions. The UP Govt web site under the "District and Divisional Administration" section states "Each division consists of certain districts". Is this remove-[citation needed]-tag-worthy? Could somebody cite, please? --KeynesJohnMaynard 20:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Coastline

When it comes to facts about India, govt of India should and willl be the final authority. Somebody (seemingly peeved at the fact that 7500 > 7000) has changed the statement concerning the length of Indian coast line. That guy ( I beleive green-something) thibks that since CIA website says that the length of Indian coastline is 7000, that figure should be there. That green-something should refer the following govt of India link to get his facts right: http://india.gov.in/knowindia/profile.php. The coastline lenght is 7500 and not 7000. I am presently not able to see the edit button (blv the article is in semi-protected state courtesy overzealous and numerous incursions from the likes of Green-something) ELSE would have restoed sanity at once.

An aside for green-something: In addition to being an enviro friendly color, green also signifies something else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Texankudiya (talk • contribs) 16:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

When it comes to facts for any topic on Wikipedia, all you need is a reliable source and there is nothing wrong in quoting the CIA Factbook. Do you really think the CIA wants to mislead people about the length of the Indian coast? Since you have provided a source, I have changed the figure accordingly. An aside for you, why get so worked up about this that you feel the need to make crass remarks? All you had to do was to offer the source and request the number be changed. If you are that concerned about this article, your account wouldn't have a grand total of two edits. Grow up little boy/girl and don't be so territorial. Green Giant 02:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Green*, with the kind of activity that can be seen around your name, it will be naivete to presume that your are not aware of Govt of India resources. Your misplaced zeal reminds me of an old incident wherein one of our neighbours started shouting that Indian Ocean needs to be renamed coz it has 'India' in its name. You were so very prompt to change the stat of 7.5k to 7k. Good alacrity!! Whether CIA wants to mislead or not is besides the point, what is important to note here is that whatever an institution of CIA'a calibre and stature does is not without reason or agenda. Definitely, when they do it, there will be reasons behind seemingly the most inoccuous ommissions or commissions. Get out of your unifocality, dear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.135.192 (talk) 04:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

What in perdition are you waffling on about? What "activity" around my name? What "misplaced zeal" are you talking about? To be honest I don't really spend my spare time trawling through Gov't of India resources. Do you really imagine that the Gov't of India doesn't have agendas, in the same way every other government has it's agendas? Your high opinions of it's resources suggests you are the unifocal one here. You won't find me heaping praise on the UK Gov't websites. Just stick to facts from reliable sources and quit being partisan. Green Giant 05:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Green Guys are not expected to be so restive. Y, on universe, r u being so touchy. My "...so much of activity " stuff seems to have ignited incomprehensible ferocity. Stay cool, uncle. As for your 'partisan' rejoinders, my research seems to point otherwise. Anyways, authenticity has been the beneficiary of this spat. I am glad that my activism has paid expected and positive dividends.Texankudiya 11:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

No reason to regard a Government of India web site a reliable source for everything. And the CIA is probably not the best either, when it comes to the precision we aspire to in Wikipedia. :) Reliability here really belongs to the academic literature of geography, oceanography and allied fields where the coastline is studied. Their view seems to be that both estimates above are wrong: From: "Loss of marine biodiversity - Conservation of sea turtles along the Orissa coast," by Nayak, L., Journal of Indian Ocean Studies. Vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 141-146. 2005. "The coastline is one of the most spectacular gradients on earth since it forms the transition between the saline, aquatic environment of the ocean to the dry, air-exposed land over a distance of several metres. The total length of the world's coastline amounts to several million kilometres, India's coastline is about 8129 km and Orissa's coastline is 480 km." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I can't guarantee that 8129 figure above, since that paper was being read by a "character reading" software and there are many misprints in the version that I got to view. However, here are two reliable references, the first being the most accurate:
  • From: "Coastal processes along the Indian coastline" V. Sanil Kumar*, K. C. Pathak, P. Pednekar, N. S. N. Raju and R. Gowthaman (Ocean Engineering Division, National Institute of Oceanography, Dona Paula, Goa 403 004 India), in Current Science VOL. 91, NO. 4, 25 AUGUST 2006, pages 530-536. "The Indian coastline is about 7517 km, about 5423 km along the mainland and 2094 km the Andaman and Nicobar, and Lakshadweep Islands (Table 1). The coastline comprises of headlands, promontories, rocky shores, sandy spits, barrier beaches, open beaches, embayment, estuaries, inlets, bays, marshy land and offshore islands. According to the naval hydrographic charts, the Indian mainland consists nearly 43% sandy beaches, 11% rocky coast with cliffs and 46% mud flats and marshy coast. Oscillation of the shoreline along the Indian coast is seasonal."
  • From: Government of India, Ministry of Environments and Forests. 2005. REPORT OF THE EXPERT COMMITTEE ON COASTAL REGULATION ZONE NOTIFICTION, 1991 (Chair: Prof. M. S. Swaminathan). "India has a coastline of about 7,500 kms of which the mainland accounts for 5,400 kms, Lakshadweep coasts extend to 132 kms and Andaman & Nicobar islands have a coastline of about 1,900 kms." (From the introduction, p.3)
So, I think, 7500 would be an accurate figure for the general mention. Which means that the Govt. of India website numbers are pretty accurate, although they don't give the breakdown for mainland and islands. I'll add the more detailed reference in the geography section. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Buddha Image

Isn't this Image of the same statue better? --Lokantha 03:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

CITATION REQUIRED - OFFICIAL MAP HAS A CUT ON TOP

Shown in green is the region under Pakistani administration. The dark-brown region is the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh under Indian administration, while the Aksai Chin is the area of Kashmir that is under Chinese administration.
Shown in green is the region under Pakistani administration. The dark-brown region is the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh under Indian administration, while the Aksai Chin is the area of Kashmir that is under Chinese administration.

Did anyone observed that the offical map of India has a cut on its top? Samething carried out in "Free Access To All Human Knowledge” A Video Appeal From Wikipedia Founder Jimmy Wales " video clipping too. Has Indian govt. accepted the new map or what? The maps displayed along with the article are fine but the map displayed as offical locator on earth has a cut on the top, same also in the video clipping of wikipedia... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.236.243.16 (talk) 01:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Origin of Chicken (food)

  • user:Sarvagna's edit summary: "removed dubious "chicken" claim. what? people around the world werent eating chicken before Indiians taught them?"
  • Encyclopaedia Britannica's article on Fowl (lead sentences): "Chickens are descended from the wild red jungle fowl of India and belong to the species Gallus gallus. They have been domesticated for at least 4,000 years." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Aren't we talking about chicken as a food product here? That apart, why did you revert all of Sarvagnya's edits which were reasonable and productive? Care to explain addition of WP:UNDUE in the article? Gnanapiti 20:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
DFTT. Its obviously a pretext to continue revert-warring.Bakaman 23:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I am talking about chicken as a food product. They were domesticated first in South Asia. Haven't you guys understood by now that I don't put things down unless I've checked the sources. Amazing! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
LOL! Your source does not necessarily imply that Chicken (food) originated in India. It only says that Chickens descended from wild red jungle fowl of India. Now, obviously the first thing early humans thought of on seeing an animal was food! If your source said that Chickens were first domesticated in India, then your claim was valid. God.. its commonsense. --Lokantha 04:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
They were not even domesticated first in South Asia. This book says it is Thailand. And even this one says the same thing. And even this one. - I think I have said enough. So much for self-glorification and checking of sources, huh... -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 04:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
To user:Amarrg and user:Lokantha: There are two issues involved here: (a) which is the original domesticated breed (in poultry farming terms) that produced the breeds that are eaten around the world, and (b) which is the ancestral progenitor(s) (in phylogeographic terms) in the wild of all the breeds. They are both further treated on my subpage: User:Fowler&fowler/Chicken. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I swear I thought this was the talk India page where people discuss things about this article. If you have a problem with Sarvagnyas edits about chikens, discuss them on the chicken page which is not this one (i think) Nikkul 07:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
(unindent)hey KNM, why did you have to change the section heading? you just robbed the poor guy the chance to wallow in his adolescence. hmm.. never mind, I'm sure he will come up with another gem. for now, this chicken and fowl spectacle sure is enough to keep us amused for the next few days.  :) Sarvagnya 16:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Is it chicken and fowl spectacle or cock and bull spectacle? -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 16:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we leave out the mention that chicken sugar etc originated in India. Such a fact (contentious/little known) needs to be backed by more references, and we could very well expand on it on the article of cuisine of India. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, Nichalp, no problem. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Subdivisions of India

Why is "Subdivisions of India" required as a separate section on the page? There is a navigation box for "States and territories of India". The map with all the states marked on it, along with the three column list of states and UTs, does not look good on the page and doesn't really inform a reader much about India, other than the first sentence, which could simply be integrated to another section. The list is really not required there, is it? Has there been a discussion on these lines before? I'll shut up if there has been one. The US page doesn't have a similar list, and countries like Australia with just a few states, or UK with its mention of its four parts can't be the reference. Then again, there could be many arguments in favor of sticking to the list that is in place, like somebody is going to point out. --KeynesJohnMaynard 21:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This really requires a response from someone more experienced on this page (like user:Nichalp or user:Ragib), however, I will note that some pages like FAs Peru and Germany that do have the subdivision sections, have more sophisticated navigation options there. I made a post about it on this page here, but got no response. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
The answer lies here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries =Nichalp «Talk»= 02:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Amba Vilas palace image + Caption

1) I find Amba vilas place image not important enough to be part of the rotation system.
2) I find the image quality to be poor. Only thing you can tell is that it is a big structure with small domes on top.
3) It has very suspicious and non-qualified caption: "Most visited tourist attraction in India"
If rotation is going to be used to put images like this with captions like that in the article, I am afraid I made a mistake supporting it. --Blacksun 13:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

A monument which was estimated to have attracted more visitors than the Taj aint important? Good luck with your argument. Sarvagnya 17:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I guess we pause the rotation for now and first screen all images through consensus and filter out the poor ones. Only after this procedure, should we continue the rotation. KnowledgeHegemony (talk • contribs) 13:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with both Blacksun and KH. To user:Sarvagnya, According to this article, over a hundred "paintings by Raja Ravi Varma are the prized possessions" of the Mysore Palace. Since user:Sarvagnya has just seen fit to remove the painting of Sakuntala by Raja Ravi Varma, might he also consider removing a fake Maharaja's 1912 monument to poor taste that houses over a hundred such paintings? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Sakuntala image was removed from rotation? I dont really understand how the rotation code works. However, Sakuntata image better be in rotation or I am going to be upset. --Blacksun 15:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Someone wanted to remove it and did it. The reason - one photo per state. Smart isn't it. Wow! Now I am really starting to like Wikipedia. KnowledgeHegemony 15:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Very smart indeed. Just the way somebody removed a significant effort like rotation from the article today without having the courtesy to inform the relevant people that it is going to be removed. Wow! Amazing! We all better start liking Wikipedia for the way it is, we dont have an option -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 16:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • sigh*. I dont need a tribune article to tell me that the Mysore palace houses RV's paintings. I've been visiting the Amba Vilas and other palaces in Mysore for as long as I can remember. And each time, a good part of my visit is spent staring in awe at the paintings. Anyway, which part of "one pic per state - rm shakuntala image. the trissur pooram is more typically picture postcard Kerala." do you have trouble understanding? As for your pathetic "..monument to ugliness/poor taste", you might want to impress that upon the millions who throng to even just get a glimpse of the palace each year. huh. dont know why I bother dignifying your BS with responses. you troll me into it. dont you? Sarvagnya 20:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Can you get a RS for your claim that it is the most visited in India and only then put a caption like that or else its an empty statement.
And dude, I have been to Amba Vilas and Taj Mahal both. Obviously, theres no comparison between the two. So plz don't compare the WONDER with Ambas.

KnowledgeHegemony 11:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Well KH, for one, I am not comparing the two. I leave such inanities to the likes of you and fowler. More importanly though, I have a sense of history which you clearly dont seem to share. The Mysore palace was where the likes of Nalvadi Krishnaraja Wodeyar, Sir MV, JC Wodeyar, Sir Mirza Ismail and such other visionaries held court. The Mysore palace is where the seeds of Indian democracy were sown through their pioneering attempts at creating institutions which today have morphed into our legislative assemblies and councils. The deeds of these gentlemen serve India richly to this day. They changed the history of Karnataka and India in ways the begum who rests in your WONDER wouldnt even have dreamt of. In short, its surely a far cry from the hapless begum of yours who died trying in vain to add to her litter. Like I said, it calls for a bit of objectivity and knowledge of history to appreciate things like this. Come back when you've done some reading. Or better still, go back(to the palace) after you've done some reading. Places of historical interest arent zoological gardens where you go, gape at the monkeys and come back. Sarvagnya 19:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
user:Sarvagnya said: "In short, its surely a far cry from the hapless begum of yours who died trying in vain to add to her litter."
"add to her litter?" That doesn't display a "sense of history;" it does, however, constitute misogyny, since Mumtaz Mahal likely had no choice in the matter when she became pregnant for the 14th time and later died in childbirth. I implore you to retract those words. They are ugly and uncalled for. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Your prejudice is showing. You can chose to live your life with hate. Just dont bother to use wikipedia to spread it because you will be stopped. And I still do not see any evidence for "most visited tourist site" in India claim of yours. Maybe I missed it? --Blacksun 10:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
What venom dude! By the way whats this- "your Begum" and "your Taj Mahal"?? Why do make (and take) things so "personal(ly)"?
Also stick to the debate. I never talked on historical aspect about the Amba Vilas and clearly was talking in terms of architecture (since photos put up in Culture section are concerned with architecture). So please don't bother to flaunt your historical knowledge on a debate which concerns with architecture. Cause that amounts to BS (as you call it). KnowledgeHegemony 10:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Also where is source for "the most visited monument in India" ? KnowledgeHegemony 10:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

"Haven't you guys understood by now that I don't put things down unless I've checked the sources. Amazing!". It is just that I dont spin "cock and bull"(as Amar puts it) stories from my sources as someone here is wont to. Sarvagnya 19:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear user:Sarvagnya:
  • The incorrectly worded and grammatically shabby report from The Hindu, that you have yourself quoted incorrectly, says, "Better known as the “Mysore Palace”, the Amba Vilas is among the most visited monuments in India and attracts more number of tourists than the Taj Mahal. Well, almost. The number of visitors to the Mysore Palace in 2006 was 25,25,687 and as per the Archaeological Survey of India figures while the figure was 25,39,471 tourists visited the Taj Mahal in Agra."
  • What the report doesn't tell you is that the Mysore Palace is not a ticketed monument of the Archeological Survey of India. In fact, the ASI has no interest in the Mysore Palace, because the latter, having been completed in 1912, is not old enough yet. Who then is compiling the Mysore Palace ticket numbers? Maybe ASI is, but we need some reliable indication of that.
  • The same newspaper also had another report, which quoted an official of the Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage as saying, “the Taj has always been the most visited and most popular Indian tourist destination. People abroad consider the monument synonymous with India.” Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
PS And then there is this also "reliable" report from the Indian Express .... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Well now (after this revelation) please remove the caption- "most visited monument in India". It would further fool readers who come Wikipedia's India page. KnowledgeHegemony 08:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
"Revelation"? What revelation? If you want to change the caption to read "...one of the most visited..", go ahead.. who's stopping you? That doesnt however, call for irrelevant drivel on the lines of "...it is not a ticketed monument of the ASI.. so who keeps count" etc.,. The directorate of archeology and museums, GoK takes care of the monument and feel free to take your 'grave' concerns about visitor count to them. Or perhaps to the Director General of Epigraphy(ASI) who operates out of his office in the palace complex. Whatever it is, take it offline and stop filling pages here, for, you seem to impress only the Kuntans and nobody else with such blather. Sarvagnya 08:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
The revelation that we cannot take what you say seriously as you not only write inaccuracies but defend doing so. --Blacksun 09:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Sarvagnya, even after your own source turned out to contradict your tall claims you still don't seem to accept you were wrong (and that the article got the better of you). Anyways, it that it was a "gem" of a "cock and bull story" that you spun.... KnowledgeHegemony 14:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)