Wikipedia

Talk:India/Archive 15

< Talk:India
Latest comment: 17 years ago by KnowledgeHegemony in topic Some proposals about the Indian independence movement edits
Archive 10←Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17→Archive 20

That hideous military thing

Latest comment: 17 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

I take strong objection to the positioning of "Foreign relations and the military", complete with a photograph of the ugliest things humans do to each other, so early in what is otherwise a worthy article. Thus, it's framed here as more important than geography, economy, demographics and culture. I see that an argument can be made that FR and the M leads on from "Politics", but then so does "(Political) Subdivisions". Apparently, the section was added, or least the photo was, only last year. Check who did it. Subtle reframing of WP is causing a scandal in Australia and probably elsewhere at the moment, now that we have the tools to expose politicians and organisations that try to skew WP their way.

So I'm making a plea that Indians present to the world, and themselves, what most people think are the really valuable contributions to humanity, before showing boys' toys that anyone can buy from the merchants with a bit of cash.

Slightly related to this, I'd be inclined to relocate flora and fauna further down; but I haven't thought that through fully.

Yes, I think you could gradually and carefully expand a few sections, with consensus. Geography seems slim. So does demographics. There are MOS breaches in the use of hyphens for year ranges.

The article might orginally been modelled on that for Australia, but let's not take that as a permanent prescription. India is a very different kettle of fish. Tony 01:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The military section (complete with the phallic obscenity) was the brainchild of some editors who felt very strongly about having it. The same people who have allowed it to stand, however, fought tooth and nail to remove a beautiful picture of the Apatani tribals on the grounds that Indians don't look like that, and are also now champing at the bit to remove the picture of the Toda hut on the grounds that Indian don't live in huts like that (see discussion here). This, however, is par for the course. The country itself is in the throes of a neurosis. The Indian newspapers, for example, (according to the NYT) have been writing story after story on the travails of a Bollywood actor who has been jailed or about to be jailed; however, not a peep has been heard about the 14 million people (without insurance or social security) who have lost everything in the recent floods. Finally, as someone who along with user:Saravask wrote the Flora and Fauna section, I am dismayed that you want to move it further down. :) The Indian plant and animal world is something India can be truly proud of. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
PS In fact the RfC upstairs, echoes these themes. The editor in question would like whittle down the roles of Gandhi and nonviolence and bulk up the (mainly nonexistent) roles of the various violent revolutionaries in the Indian freedom struggle. Part of the problem is that the latterly teeming Hindu Right, which was twiddling its thumbs during all 62 years of the Indian freedom struggle (1885 to 1947), now finds itself left out of that struggle's history. They can't really write themselves in; so they champion the "militants," the "terrorists," and other drifting relics as a counterfoil to Gandhi and nonviolence. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Most of the militants in Indian freedom struggle had centrist ot leftist leanings, including Subhash Bose or Bhagat Singh. It is wrong to club them together with Savarkar. Fowler&fowler should not rest his views on a reaction to present Hindu Right. INC (Indian National Congress) took decades to understand that freedom struggle should be something more than annual cocktail parties. There was a long history of freedom struggles, beginning from Sanyāsi Revolt of ~1770 and many peasant and tribal revolts (culminating in 1857 rebellion in which millions of peasants also participated), which many "mainstream historians" ignore. Why textbooks prescribed by organisations like NCERT (National Council of Educational and Research Training) cannot be considered "mainstream view"? Gandhi symbolised the most important component of India's freedom struggle, but there were others too who should not be neglected. The whole group of Gandhi was defeated by Subhas democratically in the election of INC President, which reflects the mood of mainstream India, and it was in response to this changing mood that Quit India movement was launched. Quit India movement was spontaneous, because the leadership was within bars before the movement started. A large number of Indians had volunteered for INA (after its foundation with the help of 40000 war captives) which the scholarly version cited by Fowler&fowler ignores. I think Fowler&fowler should favour a more balanced account of India's freedom movement. Bhagat Singh's group was insignificant, but the impact of Bhagat Singh was enormous. These are not my POV, but based on the consensus of leading historians responsible for framing India's history textbooks (NCERT). If this article needs slight expansion for reflecting well sourced facts, it should be done, carefully. -Vinay Jha Talk04:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I am aware of Bose's political leanings. See my original post here. As for the NCERT books, I note they are high-school books. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Next thing I am going to hear is that Vinay Jha is a puppet of Kuntan. His name sounds very similar to a deputy puppet master of Kuntan. Confused boy, drop the nationalistic scales from your eyes and look at the professor. That might be enlightenment for you. 59.91.254.21 10:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
No one wants to belittle the role of Gāndhi; Gāndhi taught a defeated and unarmed people to rise against a mighty empire. No other participant in the freedom struggle can match Gandhi's role. What Fowler&Fowler is missing is that NCERT textbooks reflect the consensus among topmost Indian historians on contentious issues. No single author can be authorized to reflect the academic consensus. No one has ever charged NCERT of nationalistic bias &c. A reader above has used derogatory remarks for me above("sockpuppet,boy") just because I asked for following the consensus and not some lopsided accounts. Jinnah's role also needs to be accounted for. He was forced to change his course after he was cheated by Nehru &c after 1937 elections. During the last decades of British rule, Gāndhi, Jinnāh and Subhās were most influential persons, in descending order, although the control of Gāndhi over Congress itself was weakining in his last days. We must not forget Gāndhi opposed partition but all his prominent disciples abandoned him. India was ruled militarily, and the importance of Naval Mutiny cannot be belittled. -Vinay Jha Talk11:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Vinay, just dont lose sleep over trolls calling you names. Next time you see such trolling, just revert them or ignore them and move on. Dont dignify their trolling with responses. See WP:DFTT. Sarvagnya 18:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Vinay, Yes simply ignore such attention-seeking IP trolls. As for, "No one has ever charged NCERT of nationalistic bias &c." - please read NCERT controversy. Of course the NCERT textbook debate is off-topic here and hopefully will not be resurrected on this page :-) Abecedare 18:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

India, third most referenced country page

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

India was the third most referenced country article (after the US and the UK) for the period January 2007 to May 2007. (I have not included the statistics for June, July and August 2007 because during the summer vacation, the college and high-school students, who drive the referencing on Wikipedia seem to have other interests like Chris Benoit and Paris Hilton). The country rankings for this period are:

Here are the country statistics. The format is: Country Rank, Country Name, (Overall Rank), Total number of times page was accessed.

  • May 2007, 1. United States (7) 38, 903; 2. Japan (20), 20,129; 3. India (25), 18,194; 4. United Kingdom (26), 18,194; 5. France (39), 16,452; 6. Germany (46), 15,677; 7. Mexico (55), 14,903; 8. Canada (61), 14,129; 9. Australia (63), 13,742; 10. Italy (76), 12,581.
  • April 2007. 1. United States (7), 34,400; 2. United Kingdom (28), 21,200; 3. India (45), 16,800; 4. Canada (46), 16,800; 5. Germany (50), 16,400; 6. France (64), 14,600; 7. Italy (72), 13 800 ± 12% (no more in top 100).
  • March 2007 1. United States, (7), 33,871; 2. Japan (34), 16,645; 3. United Kingdom (36), 16,258; 4. France (48), 14,323; 5. India (55), 13,935; 6. Australia (56), 13,742; 7. Canada (64), 13,355; 8. Dubai, 12,000; 9. Ireland (84), 11,806; 10. Russia (88), 11,613.
  • February 2007 1. United States (6), 37,714; 2. Italy (30), 16,286; 3. Canada (32), 15,857; 4. Japan (34), 15,214; 5. United Kingdom (39), 14,357; 6. India (60), 12,214; 7. France (69), 11,571; 8. China (82), 10,500; 9. Australia (87), 10,286; 10. Germany (96), 10,071.
  • January 2007 1. United States (6), 44,903; 2. United Kingdom (31), 21,484; 3. India (36), 19,744; 4. Japan (39), 18,774; 5. Canada (40), 18,581; 6. Australia (59), 16,645; 7. Mexico (84), 14,323; 8. Spain (86), 14,323; 9. China (91), 13,935; 10. Germany (98), 13,355.

India's rank steadily improved in Fall 2006, when Nichalp, Saravask, Ragib, Ganeshk, Sundar, Chanakyathegreat, and I reduced the article in size (from 52 KB in September 2006 to 35 KB in mid-November), improved the prose, and began to watch new additions more carefully. See the statistics here. The new statistics show that the editors (like Abecedare, Universe=atom, and KnowledgeHegemony) who came on board in 2007 are doing a superb job as well. (See here, and type India in search box.) For those who complain about the article, and want more of both pictures and prose, here are two examples from the days when a tight ship was not being run and the India page's rank was floundering: Example 1 (Prose), Example 2 (Pictures), please scroll. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

What a find! Excellent! Ofcourse the current page is not critical, rather better than good. But a little expansion won't hurt. We can use some prose and pictures from the 2 versions you have brought (if they meet standards of WP:SS and WP:MOS). We all know day by day the standards are being raised. KnowledgeHegemony 13:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
No, no. The examples that I have given above are example of how not to write in Wikipedia. The pictures were added by noted sockpuppetteer User:Hkelkar and the prose by slightly less noted sockpuppetteer User:Himalayanashoka. They are the last things you want to use as models!  :) (This is for Rueben lys, who is about to start editing these pages). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I was talking on the prose written in the Culture section. I liked that. As for the pics Brihadisvara Temple and the Sanchi stupa stand out. I am talking about this version[1]. I commented on them without seeing the additions by the sockpuppets. You could have shown a more stable version if you wanted :)KnowledgeHegemony 12:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. My apologies. Also, I should have explained the context. From June 2006 until mid-November 2006, Nichalp took a long wikibreak and some other regular editors took short wikibreaks. In their absence, the "caretakers" managed as best they could; however, the IPs, the drive-bys, the various POV-warriors and their sockpuppets, and some well-meaning new editors like me, managed to slowly fatten-up the article from the 30 KB stable version to a 52 KB version. The stable version then, which was the version of early June 2006, was more or less the same as the current version (but without the Military, Flora and Fauna, and the current lead). No new level of stability or equilibrium was reached during Nichalp's absence and upon his return, he had to do a partial roll-back.
There is still no consensus (in this recent flurry of posts on these pages) to expand in the manner suggested in Blnguyen's original post. People with long wikipedia experience (like user:Taxman, user:Tony1, and user:John Kenney who have commented above in the "expansion" sections), have not exactly endorsed that kind of an expansion. And I have no doubt that when user:Nichalp, user:Ragib, and user:Saravask return after their current wiki-breaks, what they are going to say.
I am not saying that nothing can change or that anyone owns anything, but simply that even if consensus is achieved to increase the size of the article by say 20%, we will need to decide how the new space will be used: to expand the pre-existing sections, or to add new sections (and, if so, which). There are many potential new sections like "Science and Technology in India," "Public Health in India," and "Sports in India," (to name three) that await their creation. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Sumanch (talk · contribs)

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Flower, you reverted my edit[[2]] in the Indian History section. Can you please give me an explanation?

I had written this covering the Indian History from the start of the independence movement and ending with the declaration of republic in three paragraphs. This section was based on facts and whenever I made a claim, I provided reference. I will appreciate your response.

Sumanch 02:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I reverted it because it was unencyclopedic (i.e. poorly written, poorly spelled, and full of biased statements); besides, there is no consensus yet to expand the history section. You are welcome to discuss what you are up to on this talk page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Controversial tag

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

As User:Sundar wrote above in the RFC, the tag in the History section is an eyesore and I personally see little reason for having it. I realize that User:Rueben lys feels that certain aspects of the Indian independence movement are not represented in the article, and while I see the merits of discussing the issue to see if and what needs to be added to the paragraph, I don't think the current section is controversial. Would others agree with me that the controversial tag should be removed on this high traffic article which is read by 100's of readers everyday ? Abecedare 07:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

yes. while more comprehensive, yet concise summaries are always welcome, there's nothing to merit a "controversial" tag on the current version. a better way to draw editors to try and improve on this is already under way - couple of RfCs called, posting on the India-related noticeboard . Doldrums 08:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, I was forced to put the controversial tag because one editor has ended repeatedly reverting every attempt I made to expand that paragraph, and then accusing me (and subsequent editors) of PoV pushing in a very derogatory manner. Upping Bose is not my point, delieneating this article from the very biased and narrow statement that the independence paragraph makes out to be is. Incidentally,
  • You will notice, the argument consistently given by the same ditor every time this paragraph is expanded are the same (ie, unencyclopaedic, biased and not with good references).
  • He has also ignored the fact that he has so far provided tertiary sources as supporting his claims that there is a consensus that nothing else is notable, compared to other (especially mine) secondary sources (see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources) which disagrees with his claims of consensus.
  • He has also claimed consensus without being able to provide any secondary source reference, and then claimed (quite disingenuously) his argument is satisfied by weight of coverage which was again derived from his tertiary sources.
  • I have provided secondary sources that supported my claims of consensus, as well as belied this editors claims of academic consensus.
  • He has then attempted to argue that since Bose (who was mentioned once in the edit I made) is a Nazi and non-notable (which I am sure if you told any Indian he would laugh at you) anything to do with him is not includable in this article, which doesn't really address the point of wether anything else is notable (including, but not only, Bose and his contributions) and twists the argument.
  • Also, I have provided secondary sources that disagree quite significantly from this editors point of view,
  • I suspect there's a deep PoV pushing going on here. Because what this editor keeps arguin, is that anything else included is PoV pushing. I would like this tag reinstated till the RfC is resolved, since I would like a discussion on this issue. Rueben lys 10:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Having the tag on has nothing to do with the RfC. I think there's a clear consensus here. Hornplease 22:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Time to close the RfC?

Latest comment: 17 years ago21 comments4 people in discussion

It has been over a week since the RfC began. As of today there have been seven responses. Of these, at best, only two—by Sarvagnya (talk · contribs) and Lara_bran (talk · contribs)—are sympathetic to user:Rueben lys; the remaining, five—those of Doldrums (talk · contribs), Abecedare (talk · contribs), Sundar (talk · contribs), John Kenney (talk · contribs), Hornplease (talk · contribs)— are not.

I have given a rigorous list of both secondary sources here and tertiary sources here, as well as visual displays of how much each topic is covered in the aggregate by these sources. I did this in part because I wanted to clarify things for myself. Rueben lys (talk · contribs) now claims that while I might have demonstrated "coverage," I have not demonstrated "notability." All I can say is that if a book devotes 60 pages to Gandhi and INC, but less than half a paragraph to Subhas Bose, it is hardly likely that it is making the case that Bose is more notable than Gandhi (critical of Gandhi though at times it might be). For that reason, I am not responding to Rueben lys's comments themselves, which, while well-intentioned, are increasingly off the point.

I think the issue of expanding the history section is separate one and needs to be discussed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe the issue was "Is there anything else notable enough?" (My emphasis was on quit India and INA trials). My original edits was based largely on Kurke and Dortmunds book (re:weight) Fowler has quoted earlier. I have also provided (I believe) the cited and referenced evidence for notabillity from quite afew authors (On the basis what has been said by the authors) this I am not yet satisfied Fowler has done). I think my argument's pretty much done.Rueben lys 22:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
PS:I believe Sumanch (talk · contribs) edit was nearly the same as mine, and Vinay Jha (talk · contribs)'s also share my opinion.Rueben lys 22:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Please don't be disingenuous. user:Sumanch is silent on INA, INA trials, revolutionaries, terrorists, Subhas Bose, ... His/her edit is much more along the lines of how I would expand the article if I had to do it, and in keeping with the charts I have made above. As for user:Vinay Jha, he hasn't commented in the RfC, which means, he hasn't commented in this RfC. There are many people like user:Taxman (who wrote in the section above against expansion, and who I haven't counted in my vote), so please don't start nickel and diming this. I guarantee you I will take this to the Village Pump or other fora. I know that my list of secondary sources listed here, is unimpeachable overall and in keeping with all Wikipedia guidelines. I have been patient with you, giving you the clearly-written reasoned responses to your increasingly random and unfocused disquisitions, but please don't push your luck. OK? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Fowler, this is gonna sound stupid, but DONT'T CAPTIALISE TO IMPLY YOUR SHOUTING AND DONT TRY TO TALK DOWN OTHERS, its very RUDE. I have said before, I will say again, I have so far NOT (or tried my best not to) talk you down, nor ridiculed your arguments, quite unlike yourself. With regards to the comments, I took into account Vinay Jha's opinion, wether you like it or not is not my problem. User Sumanch made this edit which you reverted as PoV and later said it was unencyclopaedic and unreferenced, after the whole rv war started, and this was my version that you reverted. You REALLY would have expanded in those lines. Gosh!!! I must have been blind and stupid Professor. I did take into account for that reason. Wehter that's nickeling or diming or counting chickens I am not sure, If you feel that's stupid, say so, and stop acting like the world's out to get you. Stop acting like the head teacher here OK? You have managed to piss of half the other editors here with your endless rantings through the last few months. I have repeatedly tried to reach out and calm situations, YOU HAVE ONLY TRIED THE OPPOSITE. See what I wrote below before you start your statistical rantings again. BTW, Kulke and Dortmund's book doesn't have 5 pages on the INA trials, I have looked, and the program you're using is probably wrong.Rueben lys 12:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Huh? "OK" is written in capitals. It has nothing to do with shouting. Here is the OED (2004). "OK: All correct, all right; satisfactory, good; well, in good health or order. In early use, occas. more intensively: outstanding, excellent. Now freq. in somewhat weakened sense: adequate, acceptable. OK by (someone): fine by (a person), acceptable to (a person). Chiefly predicative." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh allright, sorry.Rueben lys 12:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Polling may bring this issue to an end. No other way to decide...I request all voters to go through the RfC themselves and decide whether the history section should be expanded.KnowledgeHegemony 09:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
The RfC is not about expansion (which I am not necessarily against), but rather whether topics like "Revolutionaries," "terrorists," "Bhagat Singh," "INA," "INA trials," or "Subhas Bose" belong to the History section either in its current state or in a slightly expanded state (in which, say four sentences are allowed instead of the current two). The RfC is also not about (as user:Rueben lys now seems to implying), whether there is "anything else notable enough?" Obviously, if you look at my charts here, the secondary sources I have used do think there are other issues that are notable; however, they are not the ones listed above, but rather, "Partition of India," "Government of India Act 1935," "Non-cooperation movement," "Tilak," "Gokhale," "Nehru," "Jinnah," and "B. R. Ambedkar." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Can we clarify what the vote is for, since, as Fowler points out there might be confusion on what the issue is. Also, I have a feeling that voting would a destroy many good intentions and secondly make a concrete feature out of it. I am not, as many will notice, a regular editor in this page, and I can also see that Fowler has a point with regards to weight and coverage, even if I cant emphasise my point on notabillity. With regards to this article, I am sure we can reach a consensus version (as Sarvagnya had suggested earlier) on the basis of the comments and sources and opinions above. I will not contribute to this since as I said I do not contribute to this article regularly and my focus is more on Indian history. Is this acceptable?Rueben lys 12:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Probably the easiest one would be something like:
It is the "reliable sources" that is of importance for me. Finding a BBC article here, or a review article somewhere else, or quoting Nirad Chaudhury ruminating about something or the other don't constitute solid sources. I think Wikipedia has long gone beyond the point, especially in articles like the India page, especially in the history section of that page, when sources that are not the best peer-reviewed and internationally-known academic sources can cut it any more as citations. I think the two charts that I made above are a pretty good indication of what the coverage is in these sources. (There are a few errors in them, which I will soon correct.)
Also, the more I think about it, the more I feel that the expansion, if it is to take place, should be done in this structured and localized (in time and space) fashion, rather than a carte blanche one by say 20%, which will be harder to manage. This way everyone would be focused on just one sub-sub-topic, i.e. the Indian Independence Movement. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
(Reply to first paragraph above) I will agree with Fowler in this count, but just point out that the BBC history article is by Chandrika Kaul who's a lecturer of Modern at University of St Andrews. Nirad C. Chaudhuri rambles in the Journal Pacific affairs, which is a peer-reviewed Journal (re:reliable sources, and the earlier point of secondary sources) published by the University of British Columbia. The other opinions I have sourced from journals that are all peer-reviewed and well-recognised (and mentioned by name). In fact the journals I used as source have even reviewed the most (if not all) Books that Fowler has mentioned and has commented on wether these are suitable or not and what they are suitable for. I have provided a link to some of these earlier. I agree it should be made with due regards to weight and coverage, but will suggest that notabillity should be taken into account, otherwise the bias (or the claims of it) creeps in.Rueben lys 15:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
So what is the solution???KnowledgeHegemony 15:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

My last attempt

In his note above on "On Sources," user:Rueben lys states that although my sources and statistics described here might imply coverage of the various topics, they don't imply notability. In his own words:

I deliberately didn't reply earlier, because I didn't want to get into endless conversations involving quotations from different sources. But since user:Rueben lys implied later in that note that one of my sources, (Robb, Peter. (Professor of History of India, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London). 2004. A History of India (Palgrave Essential Histories), Palgrave Macmillan. 368 pages. ISBN 0333691296) had really nothing to say about the Indian independence movement, but rather only about "Modern India," let me provide the extended quotes. I will stick to that one source (Robbs), to prove my point. First, what did user:Rueben lys say about this book? Here it is:

Here, in collapsible box format, are extended excerpts from the review of the book from the Journal of Asian History:

I repeat again the words of the review: "The focus of this book is on the modern period, and, thus, the details are reserved for that discussion.... it is an excellent introduction to modern Indian history." Modern Indian history, btw, includes the Indian independence movement. Here is a segment of the list of Robb's chapters:

  • Chapter 5: Early Modern India II: Company Raj (This is about India during the rule of the East India Company (i.e. 1757-1858)
  • Chapter 6: Modern India I: Modern Government (This is about Indian under the early years of Crown rule, i.e. from 1858 to 1885.)
  • Chapter 7: Modern India II: Politics. This is about the freedom movement. Here is Robb in his own words at the beginning of Chapter 6:


Does it become clear now? The "omission of details" that you highlight are about pre-Mughal India, about Buddhism and Jainism, not about the post-1757 events. The book spends two chapters on events either leading up to or events involving the Indian Freedom movement. That is a part of modern India.

What does Robb's book say about Gandhi, Indian National Congress, ... Here is collapsible box format are somem quotes, including some extended quotes from two pages (p. 184 and 185). I encourage Wikipedians to read them for a dispassionate account of Gandhi and the Indian independence movement from the perspective of an academic historian writing sixty years on. This, by the way, is no hagiographic account of Gandhi.

What does the book say about Subhas Bose? There is just one reference (half a sentence) in passing:

In the entire chapter on the freedom movement, among all the hundreds of words and tens of pages devoted to Gandhi, the Indian National Congress, Muslim League, the Partition of India, Jinnah, Nehru, Patel, Tilak, Ambedkar, ... all it has is half a sentence about Bose's great role. Great it might have been, but it clearly wasn't notable enough to merit more than half a sentence (in passing) in the book. Both Nehru and Patel are mentioned many times in description of events leading up to independence (not just after independence), but Bose is absent. There is no mention of INA, INA trials. Are you still going to say that the organization, people, and events I consider important in India's independence movement: Indian Nation Congress, Gandhi, Muslim League, Partition of India, Jinnah, Tilak, Partition of Bengal (1905), Montague-Chelmsford reforms, the Rowlatt Act, Jallianwallah Bagh, Nehru, Patel, Ambedkar, Government of India Act 1935, Non-cooperation, Satyagraha only get more coverage but are not considered notable by my sources? If my extended quotes don't imply notability for my list from the perspective of my sources, and also the half a sentence in passing about Bose (and none about INA or INA trials, Bombay mutiny) imply non-notability, I am not sure what more evidence I can provide. You have made some seemingly disingenuous remarks (which I grant may have resulted from a hurried reading) about the review of Robb's book, which is about as good a review any book gets in an academic journal these days. Robb, as Professor of History of India, School of Oriental and African Studies at the University of London is one of the best-known South Asian historian around. I offer you seven other books, all written by well-known historians, and published by internationally known academic presses; I provide two signed long articles in Britannica and Encarta again written by Stanley Wolpert of UCLA and Phillip Luttgendorff of Columbia University, I provide six more advanced research monographs. (All with links that allow you to read the texts.) What do you provide in return? A BBC web article (which while written by an academic, is clearly not as reliable a source as a well-known text-book), and an article written by Nirad Chaudhury (no historian himself) from 1951, and all this while you insinuate that my sources don't necessarily think my topics are notable.

This is as far as I go. I am beginning to feel that user:Rueben lys is trolling this page and he will leave me with no option but to go to other Wikipedia forums. This is not a threat, just a plain and sad statement of fact. I am confident that my sources are regarded as the best one gets these days, and will be regarded so by Wikipedia. I am also feel that his sources are not reliable, that he is fixated on a viewpoint and then goes looking helter-skelter for sources that say anything in support of his viewpoint. The proper way to approach history is to first look at the sources and then arrive at a view point. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Why would I troll you? I have also provided above excerpt from Stanley Wolpert's Book I believe you quoted earlier, the opinions expressed in that with regards to the importance I believe is seminal. I have presented my point as to why I believe the earlier version was monolithic and why I believe there is grounds to hold the opinion that there were notable events that deserved mention on the grounds of what the effects of the events were. The Nonviolent movement went on from 1920s-1940s, twenty years, and achieved significant reforms, ofcourse it will find (and deserves) a proportionately greater coverage and analysis. That still doesn't solve the problem as to wether it was the only significant event or movement. As you said earlier, you would have expanded the article on the lines that Sumanch's lines if you had to. You also mentioned that Kulke and Dortmund was one of the books you found agree with your views. My edit was based on Kulke and Dortmunds mostly, and I included the INA trials of 1945 because of the notabillity factor and the consensus I have found so far amongst the sources I looked at that those events played a significant part. I have provided my opinion. I do not doubt for one second your sources are extremely good (and I have said before I appreciate that you have made a good point that most of the coverage is focussed on the Congres led movement). But as I have so far seen and shown, even some of the authors you cite also hold the opinion that the events around 1945 were important point in the conclusion of The Raj. I admit I may have wrongly interpreted the review you quote earlier. But at the same time, I have shown why I believe going by coverage alone risks excluding important and notable events. And Fowler, I dont understand, I have repeatedly said I am trying to work towards a collaboration and not a confrontation, both in your talk page as well as here, the latest being earlier today. Do you really find me trolling, or are you just assuming bad faith and not accepting that I may have a point. You're welcome by all means to take this to any forum if you wish to, and I am sure they will accept that your sources are extremely good. Wether the opinions expressed in your sources agree with the opinion you hold is a different issue. I have said earlier that I appreciate that you are a regular editor to this page while I am not, and hence I suggested working towards a consensus version earlier today. I have also showed why I believe there are notable events excluded from the history section. Rueben lys 01:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
The frustrating thing for me in any conversation (with you) is that you don't stick to one point. I said upstairs, let's stick to the one book, whose review you had apparently mis-read, and whose scope you had apparently also wrongly inferred – the book of Peter Robb. Now I find that you have moved on to two other books. One is a book of Kulke and Dortmund and ther other is not any book on my list (but a slightly different book by Stanley Wolpert). The funny thing is that I have four books of Wolpert sitting on my desk: India (which you are now quoting from), A New History of India, (which I had listed), and two others, Jinnah of Pakistan and his latest Shameful Flight: The Last Years of the British Empire in India. And, in addition, I have the long section on modern Indian history from the Britannica written by Wolpert. I have read all the books, and sadly from your flip-flops, it seems that you haven't read any. A week ago you hadn't even heard of Wolpert. A little later you were deriding him because he apparently called the Indian Air Force the Royal Air Force etc etc. Now he suddenly seems to have become the poster child of your point of view.
It's one thing to disagree with me, but it is another altogether to accuse me of not interpreting my sources correctly, especially when I have read the sources and you haven't. I don't know if you are trolling, or deluded, but the bottom line for me is that in any six-sentence history of the Indian Freedom Struggle (and I don't see the history going beyond that in the India page), there is no room for Bose or the INA. I am happy to collaborate with you, but I cannot be party to distortions of history. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Next step ?

Guys, guys guys (or gals as the case might :-) ),
You both have put in an exemplary amount of work to put forward your respective cases - lets not spoil it now by getting into accusations about bad faith and recriminations about past actions.
I have gone through most of the evidence that both of you have brought forth - and I am not clear on what point you both agree on now (i.e. after looking through the whole of the above discussion), and what are the remaining points of disagreement. If I am interpreting your statements correctly, both of you are open to adding a couple of sentences to expand the current discussion of the independence movement. If so, could you propose what you think the new discussion should look ? I think that will serve as a good starting point, for all of us to jump in and work on the specific revisions to the article. Cheers. Abecedare 04:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, as I stated above, I am not against a 20% expansion of the history section (including an expansion of the Indian independence movement sub-section from two sentences to four, or perhaps, even, six), but I feel that the expansion should be consonant with perspectives of the available reliable sources. With regards the years 1885 to 1947, I think that the two charts I made here are a pretty good indication of what the reliable sources consider to be notable. (The one mistake I made in the charts is that Gandhi's contribution came out exaggerated relative to the Indian National Congress. After I make the correction, the Indian National Congress and Gandhi will swap places. Sorry, to reduce this to a "statistical analysis," but there is really no other way to do it; parsing the meanings of sentences results in a lexical journey of no arrival and no return.) My list of what were the notable contributions (based on reliable sources) would likely come out in this order:
Indian National Congress, Gandhi, Partition of India, Muslim League, Jinnah, Nehru, Non-cooperation movement, Government of India Act 1935, Civil disobedience/Non violence, Tilak, Partition of Bengal (1905), Swadeshi, Montagu-Chelmsford reforms (1919), Patel, Gokhale, B. R. Ambedkar, Early leaders as a group (Dadabhai Naoroji, Annie Besant, Surendranath Banerjee, and Lala Lajpat Rai), Terrorists/Revolutionaries (especially in relation to the Partition of Bengal), Quit India movement, Subhas Bose, Abul Kalam Azad, C. Rajagopalachari, Indian National Army, ...
I think it is important that the four or six sentences be about causes, effects, and events, not about creating a laundry list, especially of names of people. So a statement like: "In the last decade of the freedom struggle, contributions were made by A, B, C, D and E" is not what we want. (My disagreement with Rueben lys (talk · contribs) is mainly about the weight assigned to certain events and people. I feel that after making a good case that the freedom struggle section should be expanded and appear less monolithic in its depiction, he ultimately reduces it to the years 1942 to 46, and, there too, assigns undue weight to the Quit India movement, INA, Bose, INA trials and the Bombay Sailors mutiny, and no weight to World War II and its aftermath, Cripps mission, the change to a Labour government in Britain, the Congress interim government, Bengal famine, Jinnah's increasing prominence, Direct action day and its aftermath.) It is important to remember that the history section is not about the contribution of Indians in the "Indian Freedom movement," but rather about the causes, effects, events, organizations and people (not just Indian) that created an independent India.
If people want to vote on something, here is a possible statement:
So people would vote on:
  1. No change, but improvement.
  2. Increase from two to four sentences.
  3. Increase from two to six sentences.
I don't think having more than six sentences will be productive. The issue of further expansion could be revisited, say, a year from now, but the current expansion needs to be controlled. I feel the other sub-sections of the history section could be expanded in a similar fashion by setting a sentence limit and focusing all our attention on just that sub-section. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I feel the History section is currently quite safe in its structure and content. Including event 'A' will further lead to inclusion of 'B' and then CDEF..so on and we will lose out on WP:SS. Would rather prefer expanding Politics or Geography. Sorry Rueben_Iys (I salute your efforts) but thats what I conclude after logical and straightforward thinking. My judgement and assessment may be challenged.:| KnowledgeHegemony 15:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
KH, I will accept your suggestion with the addition that a commitment be made to reevaluate the content of the section with an open mind sometime in the future, or as and when new opinions are expressed (put a hidden line in the text to have this discussed in this talk page if you will). I have had to make an effort to put forth my point (hats off to Fowler for his). The last thing I will say (dont reply to this, this is just to point out), all my sources includin one of Fowler's own cited auhority (Wolpert, and this is the reason I put it there after I derided him for getting his facts wrong) notes the INA trials have influenced a seminal shift in the British policy (Sarkar put this as "decisive shift in British policy", Wolpert said "Raj was doomed" a Cohen said "Rallying point", a lot of other historians said a lot of other things) and this was well outside the congress led nonviolent campaign. That's all I will say. I am not going to argue against the allegations that I am trying to distort history, because if all the arguments above have been lost, so will any subsequent arguments as well. The last thing is, it would be wrong to assume anybody on the history of their edits and contributions, including well recognised contributors, because it seems to me there is a PoV pushing (possibly with noble intentions, possibly not).I am going to get a life for a while.
The last thing is I(and others I note) have faced a real problem with attitude, bad comments, bad faith, threats, attempts to patronise, ownership issues etc etc here. It is enough to scare of any new editor.I will request everyone else to make sure this is held in check because that reinforces the idea that theres not just PoV pushing, but with bad intentions.Rueben lys 19:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I guess I am a little confused now. Do people want to expand the history section by say 20% and include either four or six sentences on the Indian independence movement? I take it that KH has had a change of heart and would prefer to expand other sections. How about Abecedare, and others? One other possibility is to postpone that decision until we have some clarity on the RfC in WikiProject History on what to include. Since that RfC would likely not happen for another month, we could stick to the two-sentence version, archive the above discussion, and move on to other things. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Medical tourism

Latest comment: 17 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

While I have great sympathy for the constant re-writing of the history/political sections of this article, please stop excising comments relating to other areas of India and Indian activities when anyone is reverting to an earlier version. For example, Medical Tourism is becoming increasingly important to the Indian economy, and in my view merits a small comment - it is really irritiating when such additions disappear because someone reverts to an earlier version because they have a particular interest in a completely different section of the article. If you want to revert, please just revert the bit you are interested in.

Thank you very much

Professorial 00:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Professorial

Professorial, welcome to wikipedia and this page! Medical tourism may be an important enough point, to mention in Economy of India and possibly here, but we should be careful that we do not give it undue weight (relative to its importance in the overall economy), highlight projected statistics or phrase it non-neutrally (example, pronouncing it to be a good idea). Also, we should ideally aim to source it using a unimpeachable source such as an academic or official study on the issue rather than a news report (I emphasize that this is an ideal, and not a requirement for wikipedia or this page). For these reasons I have tentatively reverted your recent addition, but encourage you to work with other editors here to arrive at a suitable version for inclusion on this, and other related, pages. Cheers. Abecedare 01:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Please see this revision and feel free to suggest changes. It may be also worthwhile to create a new article Medical tourism in India to discuss this concept (pros and cons) in detail. Abecedare 01:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Tourism itself is a big industry. Shouldn't that be mentioned? KnowledgeHegemony 10:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
This is a Times of India article that says India is the number one travel destination, although it judges by the Ranks and doesn't mention tourist volume. It does seem it deserves a mention though Rueben lys 13:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC).
More than most industries, press releases produced by tourism industry (and sometimes published in respectable newspapers) are mainly an exercise in public relations and marketing, and "top destination" claims in travel magazines are highly suspect. As Ruben has indicated, we need definitive statistics of how many tourists actually visit India, and how much (domestic and international) tourism contributes to the economy.
I had searched for reliable information on the subject a few months back and found that (1) independently sourced data is hard to find, (3) India is not among the top 20 (and if I recall correctly, even top 50) international tourist destination - and that is in terms of raw numbers and not on a per capita basis. Of course, the issue is worth re-visiting and I'll try to see what sources I can dig up. Abecedare 16:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

References

  1. World Resources Institute estimates India's International Tourist receipts for 2003 to be US$4B (about 0.6% of the world total and 0.4% of India's nominal GDP)
  2. This article estimates India's International tourist arrivals to be ~2 million (for comparison France:60M, US: 43M, ...Poland/Mexico/Hungary/China:20M etc). However this is based on 1995 WRI data and the numbers for India ad China are probably outdated. Also noteworthy is the large number of domestic toursits (330M, exceeded by only US and China)
  3. This "news" report also draws the contrast between domestic and international tourism volumes and also makes the point that international tourists spend more heavily. By the way, I suspect this is a press release rather than a piece of independent reporting, since the exact same article was also published at this site, but it would still be useful to locate the actual report by Uttam Dave.

Please feel free to add further sources. Once we have enough information, we can decide on what to add to the India page. Abecedare 17:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Could'nt find much on the travel industry but found this piece of news on outsourcing:Economic Times:India remains favourite outsourcing destination KnowledgeHegemony 10:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I only just happened upon this section. I agree with user:Abecedare's approach in his first post above. I think it would be OK to include tourism (including both domestic and international tourists), if it is an important source of revenue in India (as percentage of GDP), but to include medical tourism (which while potentially significant) does not seem to be bringing in any significant business yet, doesn't make sense to me. I'm guessing that its revenues are only a very small fraction of the tourist revenues, let alone of the GDP. Although I have no doubt that user Professorial (talk · contribs) is making a good faith suggestion, I think we have to be careful that we not become a voice of the "medical tourism" lobby in India, by giving this topic premature notability on the India page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

New sections needed

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think sections on Science and technology in India and on Education in India would be eminently suitable additions.Rueben lys 13:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous. Really.

Latest comment: 17 years ago40 comments8 people in discussion

User:Fowler's nauseating habit of filling pages is really getting out of hand. I shall be reverting wholesale any more dumping of nonsense on this page. The talk page has become absolutely unreadable and in edit mode it gets worse! For one, all his arguments are fallacious and involve setting up straw men and the like. For example, when someone talks of Subhash Bose, he bundles Bhagat Singh(who is clearly not in the same league) into his rebuttal. Also, the very premise on which his arguments hinge is flawed. Reliable sources are "reliable" for what they say; not for what they dont say. Yes, there may be exceptions, but trying to prove something by pointing out that an author doesnt talk about it is ridiculous and downright dishonest.

The Indian independence movement is a landmark issue in world history and politics and thousands and thousands of authors from around the world have written tens of thousands of books on it. It doesnt matter whether you pick one dozen or two dozen works from these tens of thousands to prove your point, it still is just 'cherry picking'. Also, 'calculating' relative notabilities based on 'word count'(literally!) is just stupid. The stupidity is patent when Fowler comes up with BS like Montague-Chelmsford reforms ahead of the Quit India movement and Bose and even Ambedkar, for that matter. Even the most mainstream of authors have a worldview/POV and they are free to indulge in it in the books they write. WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE afterall, dont govern their writings. So, inferring what we want from what they didnt write is plain and simple B.S.

As far as the issue is concerned, this is my take - INA may not be in the same notability league as Gandhi or the INC but that doesnt mean that Bose is a fringe figure! Bose was part of the INC too. A very senior (twice president!) leader at that. Not just senior, very influential too(considering that he beat the Mahatma Himself!). Also as far as the radical face of the movement was concerned, Bose/INA were clearly head and shoulders above the rest. Bose thus is a unique figure in the independence movement. He was a part(an extremely important part at that) of both faces of the independence movement. I cant think of anybody else who could compete for such a distinction. And obviously, if the government deems it necessary to honour somebody with the highest civilian award of the land(that they had to withdraw it on technical grounds is a seperate matter), that 'somebody' has got to be notable! Very notable. Bose(if not INA) getting a mention in the section ought to be a no brainer! Nehru, Patel and others can be squeezed in via an appropriate pipelink - say, [[INC#notable leaders |INC]] or something like that. Innovative use of pipelinks can help us squeeze in lot of other organisations and leaders too. Only if we even tried!

Also, everyone here seems to agree that the independence movement was not just one-dimensional/Gandhi/ahimsa thing. If we are going to also mention the radical face of the movement, I dont see how we'd do that without Bose and/or INA getting a mention. For now, I reject all of Fowler's filibustering as nonsense. Can somebody tell me why I shouldnt delete all his nonsense as rank abuse of a talk page? Sarvagnya 02:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Sarvagnya, article talk pages are meant for discussion of proposed changes to article content, and the way F&f and Rueben have done so with references is worthy of emulation rather than derision. Yes, I agree that the above discussion (as all others!) would have benefited with greater assumption of good faith, and less commentary on editor conduct (as opposed to article content), but overall I think the accumulation of references was very useful for this immediate debate as well as for future reference. Of course, you, I and all others are welcome to add our own reliable sources to the mix, but deleting productive discussion wouldn't be advisable IMO. Regards. Abecedare 03:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
'Discussing' something is not the same as defecating all over the talk page. Can you imagine somebody walking in now and trying to make sense of what is going on? This was supposed to be a RfC and one can hardly make any sense of what people are saying! Its hard to even make out where a comment starts and where it ends! This type of 'discussing' has the potential to put off and drive away well meaning and knowledgeable editors. If you have references, just wrap them in a <ref> tag and be done. If its on google books or somewhere, provide a link. People are savvy enough to click on a link when they see one. Quoting passage after passage verbatim from book after book is perhaps even a vio of copyright. This is NOT 'discussion'.. this is abuse. And like Rueben points out, he tops off all this with apalling doses of bad faith and snobbery. Sarvagnya 03:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Nonsense, its quite clear. F&f has made his point with reference to many, many sources; and has clearly indicated that there is no justification for a mention of Bose in even an expanded section. And I will open a request at wikiquette alerts if you continue this line of discussion further. The talkpage is certainly desirable as a location for the discussion of sources. Editor behaviour, such as you wish to discuss, is best taken elsewhere. (F&f is not the one misusing the talkpage.)
If you wish to include Bose, you will have to prove that Fowler's demonstration that reliable sources spend far less time documenting his activity than they do on endless other things is somehow faulty. I suggest you start doing that; if you cannot, your assertions are not useful. Finally, I came here from the RfC, and I had no trouble following the discussion. Hornplease 08:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
"Even the most mainstream of authors have a worldview/POV and they are free to indulge in it in the books they write. WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE afterall, dont govern their writings. So, inferring what we want from what they didnt write is plain and simple B.S." Your conclusion is plainly mistaken. We are inferring what is important from what they did write. In fact, we must. Our core policies require it. We can believe that Bose is important, but if a dominant subset of authors on the IIM indicate he is not important enough - by such an enormous margin - there's nothing we can do about it. Hornplease 08:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Hornplease, for your eloquent defense of Wikipedia's core values. I think both user:Sarvagnya's and user:Rueben lys's assessments of Bose are based on their selective highlighting of certain events, not on the consensus among scholars. Thus Bose's victory over Pattabhi Sitaramayya in the '38 INC elections (and not over "the Mahatma Himself!" as Sarvagnya put it), while signaling a potentially significant change in the INC policies, ultimately didn't last, and, consequently, is not considered (by scholarly opinion) to be a major contributing factor to the creation of an independent India. Similarly, there were other people, like Rajendra Prasad who were elected to the Congress presidency twice; they aren't mentioned in the history section either. Finally, if the Bharat Ratna award, India's highest civilian award, were the entry ticket to the history section, there would be 38 other awardees waiting in line. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
...if the Bharat Ratna award, India's highest civilian award, were the entry ticket to the history section, there would be 38 other awardees waiting in line... - as if I was pressing for Bose's inclusion based solely on his Bharat Ratna credentials! How many of your 38 even have anything to do with history or the freedom movement? And how many of them can boast of the same achievements as Bose(twice president of INC and also supremo of the INA, which even the INC lionizes on their site). Ok.. Bose didnt defeat the Mahatma himself.. but Sitaramayya had the Mahatma's backing and still lost. right? incidentally, it took pressure from no less than the Mahatma himself to get Bose to step down. says something about his stature. does it?.. The likes of Rajaji kept racist and secessionist dementia in Tamil Nadu at bay. Puts them in the same league as Bose. right. And btw, you might want to carry out [['word/line/paragraph count' exercise |hair splitting]] with regards to the cats and critters you've added in the fauna section.. maybe the Niligiri leaf monkey and the Beddome toad arent exactly in the same league as the asiatic lion and the bengal tiger. Go ahead and draw us a pie chart now. Or maybe a bar chart is more notable. huh. Sarvagnya 10:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Almost half (19) of the 39 Bharat Ratna awardees were in fact freedom fighters. The Nilgiri Leaf Monkey and Bedomme's Toad are examples of notable endemics, which the Asiatic lion and the Bengal tiger (whose ancestors entered the Indian subcontinent from continental Asia) are not. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
About half? Not quite. And Bose was a notable radical(and a mainstream(INC) freedom fighter and a Bharata Ratna and twice president of INC) which the rest of your 19(?) are not. Sarvagnya 17:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
List of freedom fighters who were awarded the Bharat Ratna: 1. Chakravarti Rajagopalachari, 2. Bhagwan Das, 3. Jawaharlal Nehru, 4. Govind Ballabh Pant, 5. Purushottam Das Tandon, 6. Rajendra Prasad, 7. Zakir Hussain, 8. Lal Bahadur Shastri, 9. V. V. Giri, 10. K. Kamaraj, 11. Acharya Vinoba Bhave, 12. Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, 13. B. R. Ambedkar, 14. Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, 15. Morarji Desai, 16. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, 17. Gulzarilal Nanda, 18. Aruna Asaf Ali, 19. Chidambaram Subramaniam, 20. Jayaprakash Narayan, 21. Gopinath Bordoloi. It is actually more than half. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
List of people who were elected president of the Indian National Congress more than once. (See this for reference.) 1. Womesh Chandra Bonnerjee (1885, 1892), 2. William Wedderburn (1889, 1910), 3. Dadabhai Naoroji (1886, 1893, 1902), 4. Surendranath Banerjea (1895, 1902) 5. Rashbihari Ghosh (1907, 1908), 6. Madan Mohan Malviya (1909, 1918, 1932, 1933), 7. Abul Kalam Azad (1923, 1940-46), 8. Motilal Nehru (1919, 1928) 9. Jawaharlal Nehru (1929, 1935, 1936), 10. Subhas Chandra Bose (1938, 1939). In addition, there was Rajendra Prasad who served a two-year term (1934, 1935), and then defeated Subhas Bose in the second election of 1939. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok. How many of your above INC presidents(many of them Presidents before the INC was even a force to be reckoned with) got the Bharat Ratna? Since you seem incapable of parsing a couple of ands in one go, let me help you. There's Azad, Nehru Jr., Rajendra Prasad and Bose. So Bose clearly is 'more equal' than most. Add to that Bose's contributions as supremo of the INA(which a source no less than the INC itself(not Wolpert, not Sugata Bose) concedes 'hastened the dissolution of the British empire'(no mean achievement.. right?)) and Bose is clearly in an exclusive club with his contributions to the freedom movement. Sarvagnya 06:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
As explained below, the above reasoning is pointless (and absurd, to anyone who remembers that the Bharat Ratna was never intended to be awarded posthumously) unless you can demonstrate that it is shared by the majority of students of the Indian independence movement, and you can cite numbers, as F&f did, to back that up.Hornplease 07:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
In view of HornPlease's comments above that the weight is derived from what they did write (just to point out what I had said earlier) I have shown above how Fowler's own cited authority Stanley Wolpert says something about the importance of it. I could provide links from Sugata Bose's works, but will merely get back to the same again, so will do so if requested. With regards to Subhas Bose (just because you mentioned that) here's a google book search to make your own conclusions. As for showing there is or was PoV in an author's books, look at the Stephen Cohen reference I give above in the Journal Pacific affairs,which says there is bias. In addition, you will note that Journals are peer reviewed, and books I believe are not. Also in light of Fowler's earlier comment of Niradh C Chaudhury's comment and that he is no historian, the article is actually critical of the INA but does not deny that the effects were "sensational", and is again made in a contemporary, reknowned, peer-reviewed, world affairs journal. An as for the weight of coverage showing what is notable and what isn't, again see my references (Journals and books), some of Fowler's references, including Metcalfe and Wolpert the book links, see the opinions of different historians I've given, which do make statements on the views and notions of notabillity. It is normal and I believe prudent to cite authors who spport you view, there's nothing wrong or deploable in that, especially when the authors are professors in well recognised institutions I do believe inadvertently, cherry picking (which is a very strong word less than appropriate in this case) can happen. Fowler's sources do not document his activities may be true, but they do analyse the effects of his actions. The strength of an argument, I believe is what is said in the argument. Also, why is it (dont take this as an accusation) that Fowler's sources are deemed more reliable while the ones I provided are not? Lastly, in view of some of the messages in Fowler's talk page and what links to this page, it wouldn't hurt to eview Canvassing guidelines.
Anyways, it seems this page is gaurded quite zealously by some editors who do not wish to have any other views expressed here. Also, there seems to be a lot of ill-feelings and bad language in this page. And I really dont understand why there are repeated threats of taking issues to a forum when they dont match certain editor's views. When it is to do with bad comments, a request to calm down is far more effective. I must say this has to stop or appropriate steps will have to be taken to ensure that some editors do not use bad language, that other dont threaten other users who disagree with them and evidently has a point, and still others do both and try to scare off the other editors.Rueben lys 12:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Listen, why bother repeating arguments here (as you observed above). If you guys are sure about your sources (I mean user:Rueben lys and user:Sarvagnya), why don't you collect your ten best sources and I'll collect mine and we'll have an RfC at WikiProject History. How's that? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Because Fowler, I have a life, and as I have said, I am sure the authors you've cited are well good but I read what they say and not what they dont say. They say something about pretty much everything that they mention in their book (otherwise there's not really much point putting it in the book in the first place), and I read what they have to say.Commenting on your earlier comment about reading Wolpert's book, the answer is "no", I haven't read each and everyone of his books, I dont get paid to do that as I am guessing you do, nor is it my job to do this. I believe you are well read, as shows from the sources you used, but I dont know if you're using a search prgram, because I could not find five pages on the INA trial in Kulke and Dortmund. Anyways, as I said, I am off for a while into the real world. If you do wish to bring an RfC on sources (odd thing to do) then it will have to be after sometime.Rueben lys 14:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't get paid to read these books! The RfC I am proposing is not "on the sources," but rather on their reliability and on the interpretation of what they think was notable in the Indian independence movement. That's fine, when you get back to Wikipedia, if you have the appetite for it, please let me know. As for Kulke and Dortmund, I agree there is some mistake in the numbers, but they are not the result of a software program. I will correct those and others. I did use a software program for some of the books, but regardless, I had to go and check the pages to make sure that "Nehru" or "INC" were the pre-1947 versions; or that "Gandhi," wasn't attached to "Indira." Mistakes crept in regardless and thanks for pointing them out. As I said, I will correct them. The only change in the overall picture (after corrections) will be that INC (rather than Gandhi) will be the biggest section of the pie chart. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
An RfC on the reliabillity of the sources is quite acceptable. But I thought wikipedia has no business interpreting what they think other than what the authors do say in clear terms.(seems WP:OR to me) As for me getting back to wikipedia and having an apetite for whatever, I am here allright but I am scaling down for some time. Incidentally Fowler, phrases like "have an apetite" may be seen as inflammatory or somewhat trollish. And while you're correcting the data and interpretations, you might want to look through what Burton Stein says in p356 (I think you quoted this book) as well as Metcalfes says in their book. Since you also quoted Sugata Bose and Ayesha Jalal, I will point out that they have much to say on these issues in their 2004 book, Modern South Asia. I have already pointed out Stan Wolpert's opinion on the INA trials and its implications. In the meantime, may I also suggest to you that you read G A Ntaesan's The Indian Review (1947), Peter Fay's Forgotten army (1993), T R Sareen's Indian National Army . If you wish to have a constructive conversation, I will participate in the RfC if you let me know.62.254.189.225 16:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, "what the authors do say in clear terms" is fine. Sorry, you seemed upset by my use of "appetite." In actual fact I was being politely apologetic. And, yes, I do have Burt Stein's book here and I just re-read page 356 and I guess in some ways it goes to the heart of my problem with your reading of history. Here is a book that has two chapters and approximately 80 pages (pages 284-366) devoted to the Indian independence movement, with the second titled, "Gandhi's triumph." The second chapter has a ten-page section titled, "War and the Last Act Begins." That section has the following sub-sections: a) India in the War b) The Cripps Mission, c) Quit India, d) The Economy in the War and e) Jinnah's Choice. In the Quit India sub-section (which has nine paragraphs), one paragraph has a few sentences about Bose, mainly in the context of the Congress leaders being in jail: "British prisons also sheltered Congress leaders from difficult decisions they would otherwise have faced: whether to welcome or condemn a Japanese victory and whether to support Subhas Bose's "Azad Hind" (Free India) movement and the Indian National Army. To many, Bose's political programme resembled that of the Japanese fascists, who were in the process of losing their gamble to achieve Asian ascendancy through war. Nevertheless, the success of the soldiers in Burma had stirred as much patriotic sentiment among Indians as the sacrifices of imprisoned Congress leaders." Fine, the INA victories stirred patriotic sentiment, but he doesn't say that it was an important determinant in the creation of an independent India. I think your reading of Stein is symptomatic of how you have inflated Bose's contribution. I think an RfC would be good for just that.
OK, let me correct my statistics and I'll get back to you in a few weeks' time. We can continue further discussion on our talk pages. Meanwhile I have copied my statement upstairs to my subpage User:Fowler&fowler/Indian independence movement and it is there I will make the changes. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Look we're going back to the same discussion again. If we could decide what we're discussing and for what purpose, I think we can prevent any bad faith creeping in. With regards to the current debate between Fowler and Sarvagnya into which I am butting in, This is an article by Sugata Bose in India Today on 100 people who shaped India in the 20th century. My reading of Burton Stein is not guided only by what Burton Stein writes, but also what others write about the Indian independence movement, including those who have analysed the movement (including some of Fowler's own cited Historians as well as others), those who lived through the time as well as those who were involved closely with the movement and the transfer of Power. But we can add this to the topic of the RfC that Fowler proposed earlier.Rueben lys 13:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
The question of whether Bose belongs to the history section of the India page or not is clearly linked to the number of sentences allowed in that history. If 50 sentences were allowed on the Indian independence movement, for example, Bose obviously would be included. I personally don't see the Indian independence movement getting more than six sentences; so the RfC will need to specify this constraint. How about each of us collecting 12 (and no more) sources? The RfC would then have two parts:
(a) Are the sources presented by each disputant reliable overall? If so, which set of sources are more reliable and more relevant to making the decision of whether or not to include the topics Subhas Bose and the Indian National Army in a four- or six-sentence history of the Indian independence movement in the history section of the FA India.
(b) Does a dominant majority of the reliable and relevant sources presented here (as determined in (a)) confer enough notability on the topics "Subhas Chandra Bose" and "Indian National Army" for them to be included in a four- or six-sentence history of the Indian independence movement in the history section of the FA India. It is assumed that the four- or six sentences shall be written in the prose befitting a featured article and shall not include laundry lists of names. (I have added the last clause to avoid a sentence like: "Major contributions were made by A, B, C, D, E, Bose, G, ..." from creeping in. This article is not about laundry lists.)
(c) The question of expansion is a separate issue, which doesn't concern the RfC, but which still needs to be resolved. Now that Nichalp is back, maybe he will have something to say. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
(unindent)The FA card yet again. damn it. And what is with the 2-4 sentence rationing? The lay reader is interested only in how much information he can collect from an encyclopedia article. This article is just 30kb and can easily hold another 30-40 kb. There is no policy or guideline against expanding an article(even if it is FA) and we dont need an RfC to even decide whether or not to expand the article. Nobody needs anybody's permission to add info to an article. If you think that a piece of info that was added tilted the scales one way or the other, feel free to balance it by adding info, not by removing it. And if 'Mr.FA' comes in the way of such an exercise, like I've said before, we'll need to get rid of it until we're done.
Adding Bose's name to the article is not going make it lose its balance. Cetainly not with the article in its present shape. And again, nobody here is suggesting adding a laundry list.(Even if they do, feel free to cpedit it, not remove it) So stop with your glittering generalities and misplaced paranoia. Also what's with this Wikiproject History RfC now? When did WP:History become the ultimate arbiters in cases like this. WP:History is just another wikiproject made of people like any of us here and if they're interested they're free to drop by and comment. We arent going anywhere. Wikipedia is not about filling forms, standing in queues and running from pillar to post. In its present shape, the article presents no more useful information than a high school text book would present. But hey! its an FA! huh. Sarvagnya 20:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally, I just had a look Stan Wolpert's Shameful flight, it says the INA trials inspired "patriotic fury" in India and in the British Indian Army and raised the prospect of dissolution of the army. Matches what Stein says.Rueben lys 21:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Fowler,could you at all let me know where you got the Undergrad and Postgrad list from? Cheers.Rueben lys 21:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
user:Rueben lys, Again, are you going for an RfC in WikiProject History or are you finding excuses to chicken out? You bring your list and I'll bring mine and we'll let them decide which is reliable and which is not. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Fowler, I've said an RfC is fine what's confusing there?, But I think we should put this in wikiproject India. In the meantime Fowler, review my earlier comments about trollish behaviour, especially when I have tried excepionally hard to be civil to you and get rid of the bad blood. If good words are lost on you, then we'll have to find a way to have it impressed on you. You've also not told me where you sourced your data about the undergrad postgrad list thing from, since it would be generally heldful to me.Rueben lys 22:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hang on a second, I cant find three pages on Bose in Markovits' book either, Fowler, are you sure you got the figures right? What page numbers, and again, what does it say (a brief account, or a few quotes would be sufficient). And I have just come accross Barbara Metcalfe's book which says something about Bose's notabillity. Fowler, would like to fill the blanks in?Rueben lys 22:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Hang on just another second, with regards to your earlier comments on Stein's book
Sumit Sarkar says just that, Stephen Cohen says that, Lawrence James says that, Michael Edwards says that, Stanley Wolpert says that, Peter Fay says just that, Joyce Lebra Says that,Jon Latimer says that, I can give you more if you wish. And I have shown you where they say that.Rueben lys 23:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
This is the result of a 2004 poll by BBC on South Asia's greatest ever leadership. I think it might clarify to an open minded reader wether Bose is held in the same league as Rajagopalachari and Rajendra Prasad and all those, as well as Tilak, Savarkar and even Nehru. This is another BBC article which gives the opinion of Eunan O'Halpin on wether Bose was held as a critical factor or not, and then Sugata Bose's comments on why so. But that's not the point at all. The point was that the freedom movement was not a monolithic be-all end-all Congress led movement and there was significant contributions from other. I have cited a number of authors above who have argued that INA trials were a land mark, what I didn't get the time to argue is that Quit India is also held as a critical event and saw marked violence and deviation from ahimsa, and the leadership did nothing to stop it. I cant understand why it is being made into such a big deal to write a factual summary of the freedom movement instead of making a blanket statement of so-and-so won India independence, seems more like a biased statement designed to promote glorification and not factual evaluation.Rueben lys 11:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Rueben, I think you've made your point. I think it is clear that Bose and/or INA (if not the INA trials and naval mutinies etc.,) getting a mention along with couple of others like Patel and Nehru is not out of place at all. Nor is it POV. There is no way a 'nobody' could have become INC President twice in the face of opposition from Gandhi. And even the INC website goes as far as to say - "The I.N.A. was not successful in winning the freedom of the country, but they certainly hastened the dissolution of the British Empire in India." Sarvagnya 16:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
RL has not made his point. I was unconvinced until F&f demonstrated that, very simply, he is not considered important enough to be given even 10% of coverage in most mainstream surveys of the IIM. Given that, including him is clearly POV. All your points above simply fly in the face of the evidence that Bose is not given sufficient coverage in mainstream texts to justify his inclusion. Our opinions about what the INA did or did not do, who was elected Congress President twice or not, is irrelevant, as it is simply our own reasoning, and takes second place to the analysis of mainstream texts. Hornplease 01:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Hornplease, I have shown that the Indian independence is described by scholars, even when described in a compressed section, as having started well before the "Early twentieth Century, Congress started a movement" statement that it currently says. I have also shown that it gives prominence to the Gandhi-only aspects (where Gandhi was the predominant leader of the movements or negotiations) in about seven pages out of nearly twenty pages, it stresses on the Congess led movement in about ten pages out of twenty, and discusses the allied Congress leadership, mostly Nehru and Bose, in about seven pages. There was also enough importance attached to the extremist movement (this book focusses on the pre-1920 movements and not those co-existent with the Purna Swaraj movements) to devote two pages to this and analyse its importance. I have also shown above from more authors than I care to remember anymore that the "decisive shift", as argued by most of these scholars (not students) came in 1945-46 in the duration and after-effects of the INA trials and the Bombay mutiny. What I didn't have the time to say or energy to say is that this decisive shift was guided in equal parts with a fear of the re-rising of a 1942-esque popular and not-so-ahimsaist movement. I have said before, and bored and tired of saying this, I have shown you what these authors say, what they see as critical as having influenced Atlee's policy. The Congress led movement went on from 1920s to 1940s, nearly twenty years, compared to nearly seven months (give or take a few) for Quit India, and a similar time-scale for the riots and mutinies around the INA. Which one do you think will get proportionately more coverage? Wether that is still judged as notable enough to be called as having "influenced the decisive shift" is another issue altogether, which I think I have shown more than adequately. If you're still clamouring after numbers then I cant help you.Rueben lys 12:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Rueben makes a point here. The books (I have not read any) would obviously give more coverage to the long movement (led mainly by INC) than the movements/incidents that were of shorter duration. So how about restructuring the sentences in the following way: "...As a consequence, India came under the direct control of the British Crown as a colony of the British Empire. Although there were minor terrorist and organizational activities oriented towards freedom, the Indian independence movement gained shape from early twentieth century mainly under the leadership of INC. Indian independence movement is notable for its non-violent civil disobidience strategies led by Mahatma Gandhi. However, The movement climaxed in 1940s with several movements with armed components such as Quit India, INA, Naval Mutiny. Several communal riots also marked the last days of the British empire in India. Finally, on 15 August 1947, India gained independence from British rule, but not before losing most of its Muslim-majority areas, which were carved out into the separate nation-state of Pakistan."
Of course the proposed sentences need copyedit and sourcing. However, IMO, I am able to portray the theme. Please opine. regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Dwaipayan's version is more acceptable to me, others welcome to pass their opinions.Rueben lys 11:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I am afraid, that description is not acceptable. The goal is to compact the years 1858 to 1947 in India into five or six sentences. It is important to remember that it is the history of India we are writing, not the history of the Indian independence movement. As I had mentioned above, I am updating and correcting my statistics on a subpage of my user page. I am now preparing the materials for a formal mediation (see section below). In this context, please see the "A Chronology 1848 to 1950" (here) from the book: (Metcalf, Barbara D. (Professor of History, UC Davis) and Thomas R. Metcalf (Professor of History and India Studies, UC Berkeley. 2006. A Concise History of Modern India (Cambridge Concise Histories). Cambridge University Press. 372 pages. ISBN 0521682258.) This chronology is approximately the mainstream version of events. If you had to distill such a chronology into six sentences, how would terrorism, INA trials, the Bombay Mutiny, or Subhas Bose's alliances with the Axis powers, make it in? Also, while Wikipedia is not completely beholden to the perspectives of other tertiary sources, it does have to pay attention to what they say. Please see the outlines of the history of India from 1885 to 1947 in both these sources here
The history of the years 1885 to 1947 in India is not a dichotomy between non-violence and violence, but rather it is a story in which there are three main players: The Indian National Congress, the Muslim League, and the British. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Yet another try:
"...As a consequence, India came under the direct control of the British Crown as a colony of the British Empire. the British Raj established multiple technological, educational and political landmarks in Indian history, ranging from railways, universities to INC. Although there were minor terrorist and organizational activities oriented towards freedom from British rule, the Indian independence movement gained shape from early twentieth century mainly under the leadership of INC. Indian independence movement is notable for its non-violent civil disobidience strategies led by Mahatma Gandhi. From [xxxx year]/[decade] communal leanings/directions marked the Indian political scenario, especially highlighted by strained relationship between the Muslim League and INC. The movement climaxed in 1940s with several movements with armed components such as Quit India, INA, Naval Mutiny. Several communal riots also marked the last days of the British empire in India. Through negotaions among the British Crown, INC and Muslim League, finally, on 15 August 1947, India gained independence from British rule, but not before losing most of its Muslim-majority areas, which were carved out into the separate nation-state of Pakistan. The partition of India, one of the largest mass migrations in history, led to bloody riots in both India and Pakistan."
Well, again I confess lack of any reference material with me. So, fact-wise something erroneous may have crept in.
That there was some sorta freedom movement prior to INC getting the leadership is stated by the minor terrorist (Ghadar Party, Yugantar, Anushilan and many others) and organizational (Indian Association, INC) sentence. That especially during the end the means not just civil disobidience is portrayed in the "climax" sentence, with examples such as Quit India, Mutiny, INA. The importance of Muslim League has also been touched. Comments?--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Dwaipayan, please go ahead and make the changes as you see fit. The article isnt goint to self destruct with the addition of the above lines. What you've proposed is hardly factually incorrect. If anybody has concerns about the length of the prose or about the accuracy of the description, they're free to cpedit it and condense it as far as they can. Sarvagnya 22:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I have provided above a partial summarisation from another of Fowler's quoted author, Ian Copland, which I will complete in the next 24 hours. While I appreciate Fowler's diligence to resolve this difference of opinion, I get the feeling it is more to enforce his opinion and arguments rather than analyse any of the arguments that have been made above. Also, Fowler points out this is a summarisation of the history of India, but the paragraph is on the Indian independence movement. While I do appreciate Fowler may have a genuine intention of gaurding the India page from saffronist Zealots, I cannot help but believe that Fowler has a carefully nurtured PoV, especially given the limited interpretations and derivations that he showed from his quoted authors in the past, as well as hig apparent ignorance that saw him attempt to compare Bose as irreleant as Rajagopalachari and the like inspite of quoting from Historians like Ian Copland, Stan Wolpert, Sugata Bose etc. I have said before I appreciate Fowler's statistical analysis, but I have pointed out above why I have reasons to deeply doubt wether Fowler's data are absolutely correct, wether they reflect the author's opinion, and wether Fowler has read the books he has quoted to interpret the opinion of the authors. I neither have the time nor the energy to participate in any formal mediation at the moment, and Fowler is aware of this since I had said so earlier. But I will say that I am extremely disappointed at the approach taken here which has both made me doubt wether he has any intentions other than enforcing his opinion,as well as doubt the citations and references that he has so far provided that makes him stand out as a good editor.Rueben lys 04:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


PS: Dwaipayan's first version was more acceptable to me, since the movement before Gandhi arrived was by no means minor, either terrorist or main stream (see Kulke and Dartmund referenced above). This is the biggest problem with the current prose which I said earlier, it makes it look like there was nothing before 1920s, and then Gandhi and Congress emerges out of the Milkyway. The Congress was already there, as was prominent ideologies like those of Lal-Bal-Pal etc etc. It was by no means minor, not as popular as the Gandhian movement, yes, but not minor. Insisting on only this latter aspect is different from only allowing this to see the light of day and deleting the rest like it never existed. That's were the PoV biases creep in. Rueben lys 04:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the use of the word 'terrorists'... 'revolutionaries' would be better. KnowledgeHegemony (talk • contribs) 06:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Point to note

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

The above points are not argue only about the INA or Bose or Rajagopalachari, or Nehru or anybody else who feels left out, but to emphasise that the prose in the article, as it is, gives a factually wrong interpretation (Starts in 1920, ends in 1947, with nothing by peaceful people walking down the road in processions). That should be addressed.And that is why I tried to include the notable eventsRueben lys 16:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this will include the early movements,Khilafat and Non-coop movement, 1929 call for Purna Swaraj, Dandi March, mention briefly the leftist radicals around late 1920s. State the pollitical reforms that came in 1930s, diisions within the Congress in late 1930s, say opinion was divided about the war, quit India happened during the war, INA was formed during the war, the Simla conference after the war, and INA trials and bombay mutiny in 1946.Rueben lys 16:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Labeled Area Templates

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Both the newly-minted FA Peru and an older one Germany have "labeled area maps" in their "States" or "Regions" sections: See Peru#Regions and Germany#States. These maps allow the user to click on a state, region, or even a city and go directly to its page. The Germany page Germany#States has the Wiki-code for this (I believe). Can anyone look into doing this for India#Subdivisions. I think it would be very helpful. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

why is this page on my watchlist???

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Hi. Prior to this, I've never even editted this article or its talkpage. Is it possible that someone created a redirect to an article that I have on my watchlist, and moved this page to that redirect? Can someone check? Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 17:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just wondering the same thing. It'll be something to do with the recent pagemove vandal. CaptainVindaloo t c e 17:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I haven't edited on this page either, and there it is on my talk page! Wiki glitch? ÇɧĭДfrĪĔпd12 00:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sometime back, a vandal moved this to Hagger??? or some such which was reverted. He made similar moves of other articles too and that might explain the "glitch". -- Sundar \talk \contribs 02:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

ISBN code mentioned maybe incorrect

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Can anyone verify whether the ISBN code of Malayala Manorama Yearbook mentioned in the reference is correct, because the Manorama Yearbook 2003 that I have doesn't mention any ISBN code(surprisingly). Rather an ISSN code is given 0542-5778. I searched on Worldcat and Google Book but got 'no results' KnowledgeHegemony 16:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay so being a periodical Manorama has an ISSN code. Accordingly, I am changing the code. Though I am wondering how did that false ISBN code creep in. KnowledgeHegemony 09:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't know anything about this periodical, but the 2003 yearbook is a book and (at least) Amazon does give an ISBN, which is: 8190046187. For the 2005 Yearbook, the ISBN is 8189004042. Since the 2005 numbers are different from the 2003, they must not be ISSNs, which as numbers for a periodical should have remained the same. From, the information, on Amazon, the citation should be:

Matthew, K. M. (ed.) 2003. Manorama Yearbook 2003. Kottayam: Malayala Manorama. ISBN 8190046187.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the helpKnowledgeHegemony 15:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please modify or rvv if you feel. No problem :)KnowledgeHegemony 17:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Some proposals about the Indian independence movement edits

Latest comment: 17 years ago18 comments8 people in discussion

This post is about a number of issues:

  1. I made a post on the Village Pump and was advised to get in touch with the Mediation Cabal, which I did here and here and their view was that I pursue a formal mediation, that right now there isn't much of a backlog at Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation (RFM), and that they, the WP:MEDCAB coordinators, will help me (us) with the mechanics of filing RFM. I am happy to proceed with this with user:Rueben lys as an involved party. If anyone else like user:Dwaipayanc, user:Sarvagnya or others would like to be involved parties as well, please let me know.
  2. In the event that user:Rueben lys refuses to be an involved party, the onus will be on him to show why he has repeatedly added the controversial tag to the India page, even after the first RfC, by a margin of 5 to 2, did not favor his version of the History Section. In addition, he will need to explain why he refused an RFM, in a future Wikipedia:Request for Arbitration (RfArb).
  3. I am not eager to escalate this confrontation. Therefore I am proposing an alternative.
  1. The Talk:India page make a decision on how much to expand the history section by (if at all), and whether this proportion would apply to the Indian independence movement as well, and if not, why not. I note that of the people who weighed in on the expansion in sections Article should be expanded and Article expansion - 2, only some (Blnguyen (talk · contribs), Sarvagnya (talk · contribs), Amartyabag (talk · contribs), Rueben lys (talk · contribs), and Nikkul (talk · contribs)) came down in support of a more unequivocal expansion, especially of the History section, while others (taxman (talk · contribs), Abecedare (talk · contribs), Tony1 (talk · contribs), Sundar (talk · contribs), Hornplease (talk · contribs), KnowledgeHegemony (talk · contribs), and Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs)) have preferred either no expansion, or a more cautious and limited expansion, which also favors other sections like "Geography" or new sections like "Science and Technology." Tony1 (talk · contribs), for example, stated that he would not object to a 20% expansion of the history section. Note that, since there are many topics in the history section, such an expansion (if done equitably), would at best increase the number of sentences on the Indian independence movement from two to three or four.
  2. That brings me to Dwaipayanc (talk · contribs)'s latest version. I am afraid that too is not acceptable. To put it very simply, the topics "Revolutionary movements," "terrorism," "Ghadar party," "Subhas Bose," "INA," "Red Fort Trials," or "Bombay Mutiny," simply do not get the requisite amount of coverage in the reliable sources to be included in even an eight sentence history of the Indian independence movement, let alone in a history of the years 1858 to 1947 on the Indian subcontinent.
  3. Since I would like to meet Dwaipayan half-way in his effort, I will during the course of the day add my versions of a two-, four-, six- and eight- history of this period. Please see my comments below

::# Fowler&fowler's Version (Two-sentence):

  1. Fowler&fowler's Version (Four sentence):
  2. Fowler&fowler's Version (Six sentence):
  3. Fowler&fowler's Version (Eight sentence):
I should add that in the mainstream sources, the history of this period is a tripartite division stressing: a) Indian National Congress, b) Muslim League, and c) the constitutional reforms by the British. To say something like, "Although there were some minor terrorist movements in ...., the Indian National Congress ..." gives undue weight to the terrorists events (albeit in a subordinate clause). In my view, it is very similar to a hypothetical sentence, "Although new reform movements within Hinduism—but linked to larger freedoms—were initiated by Swami Vivekananda and Dayanand Saraswati, the Indian independence movement was largely secular during its early years." I will try to be sensitive to the concerns of Dwaipayanc (talk · contribs) and Rueben lys (talk · contribs) as I edit these versions, but I will go strictly by the mainstream sources.
Finally, I would like to state that my wanting to pursue a Request for Mediation should not be seen as a threat of any kind, or a sign of my predilection for confrontation, but simply as an effort to have some benchmarks for future content issues on this page. I would like to request that you comment below my post, and not in between its paragraphs. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Personally I would first like to see the versions F&F produces. He is an excellent prose-writer as we've seen in several articles including India and Shahbag. So, before starting an official mediation, I would like to wait and see the various versions that F&F is going to propose. And hopefully one of the versions would satiate all the point of views invloved!Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Two things, first of all, yes, I would like to see F&fs version before saying anything about acceptabillity. Secondly, I have explained above citing my own, as well as Fowler's own cited authors to show that these authors consider the Indian independence movement a bit more than just a tripartitie movement, and mentioning these doesn't seem to be undue weight to these authors, I am not entirely sure why Fowler thinks this is so. The last reference I have given is a summary by Ian Copland (Fowler cited this author), I have also shown how Kulke and Dortmund (cited by Fowler) summarises the movement. My insistence on the controversial claim is based on the fact that the prose says something factually wrong, as proved by the summaries provided Fowlers's own references, and makes a crediting statement which seems PoV, and essentialy seems to deny the existence of anything else.I have given my sources and opinions which has guided my opinion that the prose is wrong, and pointed out that. Fowler asked for the RfC to be closed, to which I agreed, but I am quite certain going by Fowler's talk page that canvassing went on for this RfC.Also, I was under the impression, going by the above comments and statements, that we were still evaluating opinions. I have explained I am busy with real life at the moment, and would participate in an RfC/Mediation when my life so permits,in other words at a future date. My synthesis of what F&f is saying is that accept my version, rueben either get lost or come to the mediation or go to arbitration. I am being forced to assume sinister motives beyond assumption of bad faith here.Rueben lys 18:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I am also getting extremely irritated now to see that Fowler cannot or would not provide opinions or textual references that supports his views or the current pose,which I have for my arguments, but seems to insist that he is right. I am also getting the feeling he hasn't seen the citations I have provided above, or if he has, he is pretending that these dont extist. He then insists that Dwaipayan's suggestion are not aceptable. Well, what makes F£f's edits that acceptable, seeing as I can see he is making a deliberately false argument? It is quite clear to me Fowler has attempted to use the citations he gave previously only selectively (See the citations he gave from Sugata Bose, Stanley Wolpert, Metcalfe, Stein, etc) to carefully support his view point, and not for the purpose of gaining or disspating information. I found out when I followed up on his citations that the authors actually say more in an additional two or three paras to say something something totally different. The Sugata Bose quotation re:INA trials and the Congress is a prime example. He has very cleverly, and deliberately, used fallacious arguments that would support his views. In addition, any editor who will go through this page and see his opinions, edits, and citations even before the start of this RfC will I am sure agree with the evaluation that he is only half-quoting his authors to support his PoV. I for one from now on would think twice before I accept Fowler's arguments and citations and references at facevalue. I am sorry, but the more I see this, the more I lose whatever editorial credibillity I intially had him. Rueben lys 18:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC).

The last thing I dont understand is why I have to ask for permission if I wish to add an additional section on S&T, or Education, or tourism or whatever? This page can be 32 KB, could be 25 kb, could be whatever, doesn't mean that it cant be impoved. I am getting the feeling, the FA card is being used cleverly to assert ownership and has actually become a hindrance to improvement, and is being used quite cleverly by a select few. This is Wikipedia article, not a company managed by a board of directors where everything has to be passed by a majority vote. If no one noticed, read WP:SOURCE. Sarvagnya had a point when he said the page is not going to self-destruct. Rueben lys 19:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to ask permission if you wish to add a well sourced, well written section which add value to this WP:SS article. Please feel free to improve this article. An encyclopedic article is never complete until it covers all possible sections. Gnanapiti 20:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
India is a high quality summary article - meaning it does not need expansion unless it is recent coverage or new discovery of historical nature is made. All the pixels wasted on this page could and should be used to make related articles FA where you can afford to indulge. The only valid point you have is regarding ownership of article - which can happen when one person, in this case Fowler, is spending too much time acting as a guardian of an article. That is not to imply that Fowler is in the wrong here but he should probably consider stepping back a bit. --Blacksun 20:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
This article was promoted as an FA long ago when the standards of FA were different. There is nothing wrong in expanding the article to meet latest FA standards as long as the expansion follows summary style. A high quality summary article may need expansion since the policies in Wikipedia are never stagnant. I request Rueben lys to be bold and add additional sections whatever he thinks appropriate for the article. We can then copy edit the section and decide what from that section can remain and what's not. Gnanapiti 21:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Fowler is not wrong? Sample this.
  • one year ago, a ip adds "Ugadi" (5 bytes, ie., roughly 0.02% of the article) to the article. Fowler reverts it with one of his characteristic condescending edit summaries. I step in to bring it back and Fowler brings down the house with about 100 kb(roughly) of filibustering. They even go to the extent of lying(yes -l-y-i-n-g) and misrepresenting Sundar's views in an attempt to win the debate(sic). End result - the edit stays(though fowler or somebody sneakily remove it until I bring it back)
  • an ip adds all official languages to the infobox. Fowler promptly reverts it. A year and about 200kb worth of filibustering later, Fowler sheepishly adds it himself.
  • Apatani - 6 or 8 months, roughly 200kb of filibustering later, is successfully removed. Subsequently, the demographics map gets added(by me) and fowler 'nods' in agreement.. as if anybody asked him for his permission.
  • My addition of that b.e.a.uuutiful Peacock image - Fowler steps in to make his token customary noises... claims that the change happened too fast! probably any change that doesnt take upward of 6 months is 'too fast' in his book.
  • that Toda hut(??) pic - wip. 8 months. probably 50-75 kb worth of filibustering.. and the 'debate'(sic) continues. (btw: i have tagged that pic as dubious. unless somebody proves to me that it is indeed a Toda "hut", i will be removing it shortly. That hut is not 'common knowledge or common sense' and I demand that it be proved to me that it is indeed a hut(as in a human dwelling) )
this is just a sampling. there have been numerous good faith and potentially useful edits that have been undone at the blink of an eye... simply because they dont suit fowler's inscrutable biases. or worse, simply because it was bad english(!) or it wasnt discussed(!!) or "this is an FA.. dont mess with it..". as for actual article improvement, the only ones worth mention are the ones I've listed above and they happened only because I took the initiative to shove past fowler and add it to the article(not before he had indulged in his share of filibustering though).
in all these cases, novice ip editors or new editors like Rueben(new around these parts) have been at the receiving end. Nikkul socks once in his lifetime and fowler continues to badger him with it for the rest of his lifetime. When the going gets tough, he chickens out and hides behind nichalp or saravask or someone else.
It is appalling that a Bharat Ratna like Bose who had a non-trivial(read as, significant) role in the freedom struggle has to fight so hard for a place in the article! the entire gamut of bogus arguments starting with "discuss first", "it is a FA" to the latest(and the most specious of them all) the infamous pie chart/bar chart 'analysis'(sic) have been used to filibuster any and every edit to the article. And how! just take a look at the size of this page.. its 300+ kb(!!!!!) and counting. All current 'discussions'(sic). All un-archivable.
the RfCs(look for them.. they're buried somewhere in this heap above us) were a joke. He opens a so called rfc, starts talking, starts filling pages and never stops... people watching from the sidelines wait to get a chance to speak, get fed up and leave.. and then, f n f files for a medcab(is it?) saying, the rfc was inconclusive(or something to that effect). The rfc wasnt inconclusive. it was a joke.. because fowler never shut up. nobody even gets a chance to 'weigh in' once he opens his mouth. For someone who talks in terms of '2 sentences' and '4 sentences' and '20%'etc., that he needs 200kb+ to make his 'point' should indicate that he has no point and is here just to filibuster.
this is plain and simple disruption. It is high time responsible editors like abecedare, KH and others put their foot down and tell fowler that enough is enough or you may well find yourself saying the same things that i am saying now; one year from now. If disruption is not wrong, then yes.. i concede that fowler had done no wrong at all. Sarvagnya 22:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you look up the meaning of "sic" before you misuse it again and again. Since you are concerned about KBs, why fill up some more pages? Why not go for an RfArb and have me tried for filibustering? While at it, please include fact checks on your five points. As for the tepid response to the RfC, need I remind you it was Rueben lys (talk · contribs)'s RfC, not mine. His opening statement, read here, went first. As for my statement, at least one of the WP:MEDCAB coordinators thought it was "well written and well referenced." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
"well written and well referenced"? well.. if he'd seen your 300kb worth of trash, he might have added "...unnecessary and full of misrepresentations" to his comment. Go figure. Sarvagnya 00:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC).
Fowler, you want a medcab, fine, lemme know when you get it started. But it's gonna be quite drawn out.62.254.189.225 01:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
And, who, might you be? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
When starting a new section its wise to inform other editors so they they can also chip and and contribute their ideas. That's what I feel. KnowledgeHegemony 15:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I will be more careful in the future. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank god! I see some talks about constructive team work and actually keeping the edits for a change at last! Gnanapiti 15:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Since the History of India page itself doesn't have a (proportionately) comprehensive history of the Indian Independence movement (as stated above by Dwaipayan), and since what is at issue is content, I have written a longer history. I think this history is a good approximation of the mainstream view. If there is agreement about the content of this larger history, the four-, six- or eight sentences can be easily created. I have added that history here. Please don't edit that page, but rather offer your comments on this (Talk:India) page. I will be revising the "Short History" page for style and paraphrasing, but the content will not change. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
No, my last comment wasn't directed at you, Fowler&fowler. It was in response to Reuben's comment(I dont understand is why I have to ask for permission if I wish to add an additional section on S&T, or Education, or tourism or whatever?). KnowledgeHegemony 11:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:India/Archive_15&oldid=1088797423"