This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
“ | The history of the Indian Independence movement be expanded from the current two to either four or six sentences and the edits be made in concert with the weight and coverage in the reliable sources; alternatively, it be kept at its current size, but the wording be improved. | ” |
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:
“ | What have the author said??? I have said what my references say, which allows the judgement of wether (sic) it satisfies notabillity (sic) or not. I dont (sic) see any of Fowler's sources saying anything. Of course, for the major part the stuff that find mention in the books that Fowler quotes . Nothing has been said on what the books say and because Fowler has convinced (impressively, I will say in appreciation) that others dont get coverage. | ” |
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:
“ | ... (the review) which says there will be inevitable discomfort at the ommission (sic) of details and then says it is an excellent book on the Development of society, economics and pollitics (sic) in Modern India. It is an examination of Modern-Nation-state-style western democracy and Indian-traditional-religious dichotomy of modern India. I am not entirely sure why this would be a study of The Raj and the Indian independence movement. It seems more social history to me. (My italics) | ” |
Here, in collapsible box format, are extended excerpts from the review of the book from the Journal of Asian History:
Expand to view excerpts from the review of Robb's book in 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:
“ | The remaining chapters of the book will analyse the emergence of modern India. It is a tale of empire and decolonization that is in many respects exemplary of its age. It is a saga of nation-building and emergent democracy. It is concerned with the growth of a modern economy, and of wealth and poverty. It is an account of transforming traditions and global flows of goods and ideas. It is one of the great stories of history.
But it cannot be told and understood as a single narrative. Therefore the following chapters divide it into many different overlapping aspects. The divisions are artificial and may seem somewhat unlike the ways in which topics are usually grouped. The argument is that they allow distinct elements of a very complex whole to be given their due weight. This sixth chapter will discuss the modern forms of government under colonialism, considering various policies to show how the state grew. Chapter seven will turn to Indian politics, tracing, in turn, anti-colonialism, religious nationalism and popular protest, eventually reaching the transfer of power. Chapter 8 will look at changes in society, including women's, low-class and religious movements ... |
” |
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.
Expand to view excerpts about Gandhi and the Congress in Robb's book: |
---|
|
What does the book say about Subhas Bose? There is just one reference (half a sentence) in passing:
Expand to view the one sentence about Bose in Robb's book: |
---|
"Gandhi's Congress undoubtedly hastened the tardy concession of Indian independence, though not all of his leadership was wise or consistent, especially when it came to detailed negotiation. There was the major contribution too from the younger generation including Vallabhbhai Patel, Jawaharlal Nehru and Subhas Chandra Bose (the last ousted in the late 1930s after quarreling with Gandhi). The Congress was able to maintain a wide support-base, from businessmen who became more attracted the closer the party came to power, to peasant activists who used and were used by the Congress. Evidence of popularity came in the Congress victories in 1937 elections, not only in general constituencies, but in scheduled-caste (dalits') seats, except in Bombay, and even, where they contested them in many Muslim seats. The outcomes were clear Congress majorities in five of eleven provinces, with not far short of half the general seats, and a huge boost in recorded Congress membership, by nearly 50 per cent, to 4.5 million." |
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)
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)
“ | The history of the Indian independence movement be expanded from its current size of two sentences to either four or six and the edits be made in concert with the weight and coverage in the reliable sources; alternatively, it be kept at its current size, but the wording be improved. | ” |
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
References
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
“ | 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 don't like the use of the word 'terrorists'... 'revolutionaries' would be better. KnowledgeHegemony ( talk • contribs) 06:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
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 events Rueben lys 16:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
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. ~ A H 1( T C U) 17:38, 6 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)
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' Knowledge Hegemony 16:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Fowler&fowler «Talk» 07:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)Matthew, K. M. (ed.) 2003. Manorama Yearbook 2003. Kottayam: Malayala Manorama. ISBN 8190046187.
Please modify or rvv if you feel. No problem :) Knowledge Hegemony 17:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
This post is about a number of issues:
::# Fowler&fowler's Version (Two-sentence):
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)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
“ | The history of the Indian Independence movement be expanded from the current two to either four or six sentences and the edits be made in concert with the weight and coverage in the reliable sources; alternatively, it be kept at its current size, but the wording be improved. | ” |
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:
“ | What have the author said??? I have said what my references say, which allows the judgement of wether (sic) it satisfies notabillity (sic) or not. I dont (sic) see any of Fowler's sources saying anything. Of course, for the major part the stuff that find mention in the books that Fowler quotes . Nothing has been said on what the books say and because Fowler has convinced (impressively, I will say in appreciation) that others dont get coverage. | ” |
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:
“ | ... (the review) which says there will be inevitable discomfort at the ommission (sic) of details and then says it is an excellent book on the Development of society, economics and pollitics (sic) in Modern India. It is an examination of Modern-Nation-state-style western democracy and Indian-traditional-religious dichotomy of modern India. I am not entirely sure why this would be a study of The Raj and the Indian independence movement. It seems more social history to me. (My italics) | ” |
Here, in collapsible box format, are extended excerpts from the review of the book from the Journal of Asian History:
Expand to view excerpts from the review of Robb's book in 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:
“ | The remaining chapters of the book will analyse the emergence of modern India. It is a tale of empire and decolonization that is in many respects exemplary of its age. It is a saga of nation-building and emergent democracy. It is concerned with the growth of a modern economy, and of wealth and poverty. It is an account of transforming traditions and global flows of goods and ideas. It is one of the great stories of history.
But it cannot be told and understood as a single narrative. Therefore the following chapters divide it into many different overlapping aspects. The divisions are artificial and may seem somewhat unlike the ways in which topics are usually grouped. The argument is that they allow distinct elements of a very complex whole to be given their due weight. This sixth chapter will discuss the modern forms of government under colonialism, considering various policies to show how the state grew. Chapter seven will turn to Indian politics, tracing, in turn, anti-colonialism, religious nationalism and popular protest, eventually reaching the transfer of power. Chapter 8 will look at changes in society, including women's, low-class and religious movements ... |
” |
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.
Expand to view excerpts about Gandhi and the Congress in Robb's book: |
---|
|
What does the book say about Subhas Bose? There is just one reference (half a sentence) in passing:
Expand to view the one sentence about Bose in Robb's book: |
---|
"Gandhi's Congress undoubtedly hastened the tardy concession of Indian independence, though not all of his leadership was wise or consistent, especially when it came to detailed negotiation. There was the major contribution too from the younger generation including Vallabhbhai Patel, Jawaharlal Nehru and Subhas Chandra Bose (the last ousted in the late 1930s after quarreling with Gandhi). The Congress was able to maintain a wide support-base, from businessmen who became more attracted the closer the party came to power, to peasant activists who used and were used by the Congress. Evidence of popularity came in the Congress victories in 1937 elections, not only in general constituencies, but in scheduled-caste (dalits') seats, except in Bombay, and even, where they contested them in many Muslim seats. The outcomes were clear Congress majorities in five of eleven provinces, with not far short of half the general seats, and a huge boost in recorded Congress membership, by nearly 50 per cent, to 4.5 million." |
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)
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)
“ | The history of the Indian independence movement be expanded from its current size of two sentences to either four or six and the edits be made in concert with the weight and coverage in the reliable sources; alternatively, it be kept at its current size, but the wording be improved. | ” |
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
References
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
“ | 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 don't like the use of the word 'terrorists'... 'revolutionaries' would be better. KnowledgeHegemony ( talk • contribs) 06:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
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 events Rueben lys 16:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
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. ~ A H 1( T C U) 17:38, 6 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)
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' Knowledge Hegemony 16:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Fowler&fowler «Talk» 07:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)Matthew, K. M. (ed.) 2003. Manorama Yearbook 2003. Kottayam: Malayala Manorama. ISBN 8190046187.
Please modify or rvv if you feel. No problem :) Knowledge Hegemony 17:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
This post is about a number of issues:
::# Fowler&fowler's Version (Two-sentence):
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)