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 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | → | Archive 35 |
There should be talk of the rising power of communist parties who were even part of the goverment before the last election, Maoist control 33% of the country and Many Mainstream Politicians fear the rise of communist parties —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.1.250.215 ( talk) 23:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
third largest standing army or third largest standing military....pls correct this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.72.157.56 ( talk) 13:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I think besides Hindi the names of the country should also be written in Bengali and Tamil. This is because although Hindi is the official language of India the national anthem Jana Gana Mana is written in Bengali (the second major language of India by number of speakers) by Rabindranath tagore (and probably India is the only country whose national anthem is not written in its so called "Official Language") and Tamil is the first language to be given the status of classical language of India. - Pravata ( talk) 09:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
This article claims that India was the home to the Indus valley civilization, while the article on Indus valley civilization shows that it existed on the banks of the Indus river, in present day Pakistan. 96.46.193.222 ( talk) 01:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
In the history section it says "Under the rule of Akbar the Great, India enjoyed much cultural and economic progress as well as religious harmony" which gives a wrong impression that there was no progress and religious harmony before Akbar's rule in India. Requesting editors to make corrections suitably. 117.198.101.11 ( talk) 05:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
SpacemanSpiff, the edit was made in relation to above reasons. Kindly discuss or see the talk page before reverting any edits Pdheeru ( talk) 03:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
It is a well source statement no doubt, but mentioning this gives an impression that Akbar's period was the first period in India's history that this kind of progress occurred. By mentioning about the start of religious unrest at the first place this statement can be added. 117.198.99.120 ( talk) 04:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Any person new to Indian history reading this page will have this impression after he/she has read the said statement. Why is this special mention of Akbar's rule having this kind of progress when such progress occurred in other ruler's periods also. Are we not being unfair to other rulers? Does this statement really need to be mentioned? Pdheeru ( talk) 07:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Suggesting the following change in the history section; The statement 'Following invasions from Central Asia between the 10th and 12th centuries, much of North India came under the rule of the Delhi Sultanate and later the Mughal Empire. Under the rule of Akbar the Great, India enjoyed much cultural and economic progress as well as religious harmony' changed to 'Following invasions from Central Asia between the 10th and 12th centuries, much of North India came under the rule of the Delhi Sultanate and later the Mughal Empire which saw great cultural, economic and religious upheavals. Under the rule of Akbar the Great, India enjoyed much cultural and economic progress as well as religious harmony' Pdheeru ( talk) 06:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Requesting SpacemanSpiff to discuss matter before issuing warnings. Just threatening to block a user is not a solution. You cannot take such steps without discussing the edit in question Pdheeru ( talk) 05:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
SpacemanSpiff can you tell me why 'in the' is better or more relevant than 'by'. 117.198.99.120 ( talk) 06:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
The IP and pdheeru are the same. I know about wiki sockpuppetry rules. Kindly see the history page. The reason for my edit is given. Also for the 'in the' and 'by' issue kindly see the source which clearly says 'by'. Hence the changes. Now your reasons please. Pdheeru ( talk) 07:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Your argument is still not convincing. My view is that usage of 'by' is apt than 'in the' in this context. I may be wrong, but it will be better to get some more opinions on this issue from other editors and then decide. Pdheeru ( talk) 11:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I personally feel that 'in the' is more relevant then 'by' as Maratha empire ruled most of India in the 18th century while when we use 'by' it shows that maratha empire ruled most of India from long back till the 18th century Rahul Choudhary 14:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
The intro claims, that India, is considered to be a potential superpower. This is outrageous nonsense. India economy is only 11th in the world. It is the largest developing country on the globe. If this article wants to be taken seriously, it should correct the introduction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.151.16 ( talk) 09:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
The first sentenced of Potential superpowers concerning India says: "Several media publications and academics have discussed India's potential of becoming a great power eventually a superpower". Discussed not considered. This here is an encyclopedia not fantasy land. India has 1 billion people in massive poverty and malnutrition. You better have a look on its economy, its the same size like Spain. A country 20 times smaller (population wise). Is Spain a future superpower? No serious academic would claim that India has the capacity to become a superpower in the next 50 years. It has the capacity to become a regional great power, maybe in 20 years. But that does not belong in an introduction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.76.76 ( talk) 22:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Look, Wikipedia is not the place of lofty ifs and speculation. Its about proofen facts and realities. The potential superpower article itself is crossing the line and can be considered a fantasy playfield of patriotic ambitions. Every human being has "potential" every country as well but that does not belong in a reliable encyclopedia introduction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.10.52 ( talk) 11:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I really don't think its worth mentioning the "Potential Superpower" status. Since India haven't reached that stage particularly on economically. It only ranks 11th in the world let it be the 3rd largest in the world by market exchange rates then we can boldly say that yes India is on verge of becoming the next superpower. So for now pls don't mention it, my dear friend I'm an Indian and who doesn't want that this country to prospers and become a global power. Thank You-- Kkm010 as© 04:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree with the anti-superpower camp. Using the Spain example, well, Spain was the World's first "Superpower." This is a well studied example so population is not really a sufficient cause of "superpower-hood." Take a look at the European Union, if one uses "metrics" to purport Superpower status than what we would call the European Union is the most powerful block on Earth and for the foreseeable future. But do we consider them a Superpower in the traditional sense? No. They are introverted (simply put). One of the people discussing this said that it is an issue of "not if but when." This shows a complete misunderstanding of what Superpower means. And quite frankly indicates an Indian nationalist to me. Superpower is a relative comparison. You can't have dozens of superpowers. It is essentially a term, simplistically put, which means that one power has the ability to dominate every other power without the ability of any one power doing the same to it. So this means, outside of nuclear deterrence, you can't really have more than one or two "Superpowers." Technically, I would say just one but when it is close like in the Cold War you need a Hot War to figure it out, which most sane people would not want to be put to the test! Even now if England became militaristic they could dominate India again. The only legitimate discussion for another Superpower would be China, but even that is not secure. The idea of a China superpower is more supported by Anti-Western-ism than anything else. Their population has peaked while the world's only Superpower the United States continues to grow. Again, right now, if the United States wanted to and became militaristic they could make China their B-word. This will continue for the foreseeable future as well since China demographically will peak in the next few years. The only reason why we are having this discussion is the fact that the West is open and has tried to embrace both China and India whereas these nations continue to view things not in market and progressive terms but in racial and ethnic lines. It is quite a shame. The West is undergoing a radical change, which contrary to the common belief, is for the good. They are restructuring their economies to export and innovation rather than import and innovation. This will put a fundamental break to any continued evolution to a "superpower" status as they won't be subsidized by Western consumers. Also, Western populations are undergoing strong natural selection right know where those who do not have children are being selected out. This means that the other other West, the Europeans will begin to see their populations rise again with the associated GDP and in turn power within the next 100 years while the "developing" world will see declines. So you see "projecting" into the future anything is really difficult and opposing equally valid perspectives can be made. 99.35.225.222 ( talk) 19:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
There are some very specific and subjective definitions of superpower being used here. This is a false basis for discussion. If India is identified elsewhere in Wiki as a potential superpower,that's who it should be handled here. using subjective and non-universal definitions of superpower is already a flawed approach, but since it's already in consensus in other articles, it seems even more of a moot point. This is not a political debate forum. 204.65.34.154 ( talk) 18:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
When MK Gandhi started the freedom struggle he was not know as Mahatma Gandhi. The honorific 'Mahatma, was given later. Mentioning the full name Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi will be correct. Also mentioning his profession (lawyer) along with the full name gives a better insight into the key person in India's freedom struggle. I know no introduction is needed for the likes of Mahatma Gandhi, but we should be keeping in mind people new to Indian history reading this article. Pdheeru ( talk) 03:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Deepak D'souza for your kind information I have been editing various articles in Wikipedia since 2006 as an IP. Please don't advice me on my experience. I know what a featured article is and don't try to educate me. If you have anything to tell about the edits I made you are welcome but your unsolicited advice is not. Pdheeru ( talk) 11:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
If refusing unsolicited advice is rude, then so be it. If there is a better way of refusing advice kindly let me know. It really doesn't matter what you assume and don't about my experience. Had only your justification for use of the word Mahatma come earlier (as it should have been) it would have been a healthy discussion. Pdheeru ( talk) 05:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
We are not giving a detailed description of Gandhi but only his name Pdheeru ( talk) 06:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}}
India has three global cities, New Delhi, Mumbai and Kolkata. Also there were several other big metro cities like Chennai, Hyderabad, Bangalore, Ahmadabad etc. Indian cities are transforming in a faster rate to become a global destiny.
206.70.248.253 (
talk) 14:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Not done: Please detail your request in a please change X to Y degree. Thanks, Celestra ( talk) 15:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
Castew discrimination in india is not anymore. it stopped decades back. please edit the "culture" section. in fact,, something new is in discussion of lately ie reverse discrimination because the upper castes (on paper) do not have rights and privileges the one with lower caste certificate has. India has 50 percent reservation in its education and government jobs. this has led to many people not having a lower caste certificate not getting proper educational and job opportunities despite being high in merit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Indian_anti-reservation_protests
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste_system_in_India#Modern_status_of_the_caste_system
71.201.248.6 ( talk) 02:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I have added the names of India in other official languages of India listed in the 8th Schedule as collapsable list. I think it is necessary. It has not been rejected in the talk page. Previously the attempts which were made to include the official languages were not added as a collapsable list, so the article looked very awkward. But if I include them as a collapsabla list, only those want to see it can see it by clicking on the show option. So I think it is unnecessary to remove my edition. - Trinanjon Basu ( talk) 16:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Zuggernaut has added the following line to the history section: India suffered a series of serious crop failures in the late 19th century, leading to widespread famines in which 15.3 million people died
I think this line is somewhat vague and should be reworded. my concerns: a)Famines during british rule weren't limited to late 19th century though they become more numerous. the last one lasted a couple of years into the 20th century b) the death count of 15.3 million is treated as an absolute, but it is a composite figure arrived at tallying the lower end of various estimates. c) "crop failures" alone didn't cause the famines. it was a bit more complex. monsoon failure - > drought -> crop failure -> free market grain policies -> inadequate relief measure -> great famine. ( Timeline of major famines in India during British rule)
I know it is a bit too much to expect to capture the complexity of the issue in a single line, But still feel this line could be reworded.-- Sodabottle ( talk) 04:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks a ton for putting so much time and energy on this article...
Amartya ray2001 ( talk) 08:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I did have that deja vu feeling (all over again)! See Talk:India/Archive_25#Indian_Famines. At that time, the rough consensus was not to include this material in the article because of WP:UNDUE. The causes of the famines, the reasons behind the number of deaths, etc. can not reasonably be discussed in a summary article and leaving the impression that the Raj was to blame for both the famines as well as the deaths is where the WP:UNDUE comes in. There are plenty of scholars who believe that at least some responsibility lies with the fact that India was colonized, but their arguments are nuanced (Amartya Sen, for example, blames it on lack of political participation, Gilmour on ineptitude, etc.). The point being that there were complex causes for the famines, complex reasons behind the number of people who died, and discussing all this in a summary article is just not possible. -- RegentsPark ( talk) 11:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Amartya ray2001 ( talk) 12:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Amartya ray2001 ( talk) 17:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I have added a POV tag to the disproportionately large paragraph that has been added to the history section about famines in India. It's not even close to being written with a neutral POV and might I also say even if it was, this amount of attention to this subject in what is a potted history of India is way too much detail. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 10:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm proposing a simple four step process to come up with fair content that's not prone to POV labeling as was done by User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick [4] who Wikihounded me for my changes to British Empire on the same topic. [5]
Step 1: Reliability of sources - establish validity of sources provided below.
Step 2: Focus - agree on what content to focus on
Step 3: Concise compiling - put the content together in concise 2-3 sentences.
Step 4: Policies - ensure Wikipedia policies such as
WP:OR,
WP:NPOV,
WP:SYN, etc are met.
I have provided several sources with links to Google Books below. Most of the content has been typed out verbatim with the only exception that not everything is contiguous. Typos and other errors, if any, are mine. URLs are provided for quick verification.
Source: Dutt, R. Palme (2006),
India Today (1940), Read Books, pp. 131–2,
ISBN
9781406798463 Content: Even more significant was the rising export of food grains from starving India. |
Source: Benjamin Orange Flower; Charles Zueblin, eds. (1910),
The Twentieth century magazine, vol. Volume 2, Twentieth Century Co., p. 437 {{
citation}} : |volume= has extra text (
help)Content: This poverty of India is caused by the British plunder and legalized pillage and destruction of Indian industries. The famines in India, are the result of British exploitation, and are not, as may be supposed, caused by lack of rain or lack of production, or by over-population. It is an economic famine of an enslaved nation caused by merciless plunder of at least $175,000,000 a year, without a cent in return. People are generally misled to think that India was always a famine-land; but it is not a fact. Before the advent of the British rule in India, famine was occasional, but the British plundering policy has made it chronic. The area of famine districts is increasing yearly, and not a year passes that millions do not fall victims of the dreadful calamity. We produce below statistics taken from Sir William Digby's "Prosperous British India". Rev. J. T. Sunderland, in his work The Causes of Famine in India, like all impartial writers, has conclusively proved that neither "failure of rains" nor "over-population" is the cause of famines in India. He has stated that the real cause of famine is the extreme, the abject, the awful poverty of the Indian people caused by "enormous foreign tribute," "British Indian Imperialism" and the destruction of Indian industries. Sir William Hunter, K. O. S. I., the historian of India, formerly of the Viceroy's Council, says: "The government assessment does not leave enough food to the cultivator to support himself and his family throughout the year." |
|
|
Source: Sen, Amartya (2001), Farrukh Iqbal; Jong-Il You (eds.),
Democracy, market economics, and development: an Asian perspective, World Bank Publications, pp. 12–14,
ISBN
9780821348628 Content: Famines are easy to prevent if there is a serious effort to prevent them, and a government of a democratic country-facing elections, criticisms from opposition parties and independent newspapers-cannot but make a serious effort to prevent famines. Not surprisingly, while India continued to have famines under British rule right up to independence (the last famine was in 1943, four years before independence, which I witnessed as a child), they disappeared suddenly, after independence, with the establishment of a multi-part democracy with a free press. For example in India the priority of of preventing starvation and famine was fully gripped already at the time of independence (as it had been in Ireland as well, with its own experience of famine under British rule). |
Source: Sen, Amartya (2009),
The idea of justice, Harvard University Press, pp. 338–343,
ISBN
9780674036130 Content: The Bengal famine of 1943, which I witnessed as a child, was made viable not only by the lack of democracy in colonial India, but also by severe restrictions on reporting and criticism imposed on the Indian press, and the voluntary practice of 'silence' on the famine that the British-owned media chose to follow (as a part of alleged 'war effort', for fear of aiding the Japanese military forces that were at the door of India, in Burma). The combined effect of imposed and voluntary media silence was to prevent substantial public discussion on the famine in metropolitan Britain,including in Parliament of London, which neither discussed the famine, nor considered the plicy needs of dealing with it (that is, not until October 1943 when The Statesman forced its hand). There was of course no parliament in India under the British colonial administration. In fact, governmental policy , far from being helpful, actually exacerbated the famine. There was no official famine relief over the many months in which thousands were dying every week. More than this, the famine was aggravated, first, by the fact that the British India Government in New Delhi had suspended the trade in rice and food grains between the Indian provinces, so that food could not move through legitimate channels of private trade despite the much higher price of food in Bengal. Second... |
Please provide your comments in the relevant sections below for form a consensus. Thanks. Zuggernaut ( talk) 21:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I propose that we foucs on:
Zuggernaut ( talk) 21:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Originally proposed content: Famines in India before the arrival of the British were few and local and they affected comparatively a small number of people, for example, from the 11th century to the 18the century, there were only 18 famines in India. Under British rule, a total of 31 famines were recorded for the 100 years between 1800-1900 with a death toll of about 37 million, primarily due to starvation. India continued to suffer from famines under the British Crown, right up to independence in 1947 after which they vanished with the establishment of representative democracy and a free press.
Based on the feedback received from
User:Redtigerxyz and other editors, I am revising the originally proposed content:
Revision: Between the 11th century and the 18the century, famines in India were few and local and they affected comparatively a small number of people. Eighteen famines were recorded during this period in India. Under British rule, a total of 31 famines were recorded for the 100 years between 1800-1900 with a death toll of about 37 million, primarily due to starvation. India continued to suffer from famines under the British Crown, right up to independence in 1947 after which they vanished with the establishment of representative democracy and a free press. Zuggernaut ( talk)
Zuggernaut ( talk) 21:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
...look at all histories of the famines that took place in the 19th century; sort through all the differing views on why these famines occurred or why the x number of people died; and then present a 3-4 sentence summary that includes all the major viewpoints. Simply presenting what the few sources that support one view say is insufficient for a summary article.
IMO, we should have two lines about Famines of the 19th century in the history sections indicating a) they were many in the late 19th century b)they caused millions of deaths. The cause of famines and how the british govt handled/mishandled it are contentious issues and can be explained in detail in the Famines in India article.-- Sodabottle ( talk) 04:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
(od) Frankly, we have about 6 lines on the entire 200 year history of British India which focuses on political transitions, as does the entire history section. To this you want to add '3-4 lines' on the 19th century famines. I'm no fan of British rule in India, but I am a fan of this encyclopedia and can see no reason, other than an attempt to paint British rule in a bad light, to include even one line on famines in this article. The notion of history as political transition is a fairly well accepted one, other material should go in other articles. -- RegentsPark ( talk) 21:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I have raised the fact
User:Zuggernaut has been canvassing to try and influence the outcome of this debate on the
Admins noticeboard here. Thanks
BritishWatcher (
talk) 23:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Frankly, we have about 6 lines on the entire 200 year history of British India which focuses on political transitions, as does the entire history section.
Amartya ray2001 ( talk) 08:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
(od) The point is that this is a summary article and that details should be directed to sub-articles. If, for example, we include a statement about famines that ascribes responsibility of these famines to British rule, then, in all fairness, we would need to extend the analysis of British rule to include all significant positive and negative aspects of that rule. In other words, we would have an entire section devoted to something along the lines of 'Economic and social effects of British rule in India' which is probably better suited to the British Raj article. Additionally, we would also need to place these famines in the context of India's perennial inability to adequately feed its people. Put all this in, and fairly soon, the article would be unmanageable. -- RegentsPark ( talk) 12:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Amartya ray2001 ( talk) 16:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
My comments on the Admin Noticeboard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amartya ray2001 ( talk • contribs) 06:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Majority of the editors have expressed a desire to include content related to Indian famines in a concise way in the 'History' section of the article. I have taken in to account the concerns of the editors ("blaming tone", neutrality) and revised the originally proposed content. The current form looks like this:
“ | Between the 11th century and the 18the century, famines in India were few and local and they affected comparatively a small number of people. Eighteen famines were recorded during this period in India. Under British rule, a total of 31 famines were recorded for the 100 years between 1800-1900 with a death toll of about 37 million, primarily due to starvation. India continued to suffer from famines under the British Crown, right up to independence in 1947 after which they vanished with the establishment of representative democracy and a free press. | ” |
Please provide feedback on:
Thanks. Zuggernaut ( talk) 01:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Amartya ray2001 ( talk) 06:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Amartya ray2001 ( talk) 08:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Amartya ray2001 ( talk) 16:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I can't seem to be able to disagree with you BritishWatcher! lol ... Here is the final draft with all the changes you pointed out. I think it's most neutral. If an attempt is made to dilute it further then we will need to compromise on facts...
"Although famines were not new to the subcontinent, the Raj was marked by an increase in the number of large-scale famines in India. Despite efforts by the colonial authorities to reduce the impact of the severe famines caused by numerous drought and crop failures, British economic and trade policies towards colonial India contributed to the problems and the death of tens and millions of people, throughout British India, between 1760 - 1944." + all the citations needed to substantiate the number?
I'm introducing these lines in the sandbox draft. And you are right about the History section being too small, as well... That is why I expanded it.
Thankfully,...
Amartya ray2001 ( talk) 01:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Alright, this seems fair enough to me. Will make the necessary changes. Also working on WWII...
Amartya ray2001 ( talk) 11:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Amartya - It's a very good, neutral draft. My comments: the famines were caused by the policies of the British government. There is no coincidence that the Irish suffered a similar famine in the exact same period. It was so devastating that it changed their nation for ever. 30% of the Irish population was starved to death - imagine that, 30%! In India this number was 10% over 100 years of a series of famines. Take a look at the suggestions of genocide in the Irish famine. There are claims in that article (with proper sources) that the British deliberately pursued a policy of mass starvation. Amartya Sen (see section above) has studied the Indian situation and the conclusion he's drawn is critical - once those discriminative policies of the British were reversed, the "economic" famines in India stopped. There are sources that clearly state that British propaganda blamed the famines on lack of rain, population density, crop failures, etc. Western authors (probably English) have shown these to be lies. That's something we need to include in the article - they way to do it, IMO is to define and differentiate between "economic famines" and those that happened after independence. After independence people were eager to rush food to affected areas and thus the deaths were on a minuscule scale as compared to when the British were running things. Zuggernaut ( talk) 22:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
...unless the proper noun is a geographical term, or a plural term or refers to an establishment. "Tata Nano" is neither. -- King Zebu ( talk) 17:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Major agricultural products include rice, wheat, oilseed, cotton, jute, tea, sugarcane, potatoes; cattle, water buffalo, sheep, goats, poultry and fish.
what is cattle, water buffalo, sheep, goats, poultry? In my opinion it should be, cattle - milk and meat, water buffalo - milk, sheep - meat, goat - milk and meat, poultry - egg and meat. Unless it's a nuance of English I'm not aware of (in which case my apologies in advance for raising the issue), the sentence look ridiculous (not intending to undermine its author)!
also,
From the 1950s to the 1980s, India followed socialist-inspired policies.
socialist-inspired policies is called Welfare economics... India is a welfare state.
From the 1950s to the 1980s, India followed socialist-inspired policies. The economy was shackled by extensive regulation, protectionism and public ownership, leading to pervasive corruption and slow economic growth.[128]
This makes it appear as if socialism leads to corruption and slows down economic growth. With is not true and neutral. China is the best example. India is corrupt even today. If you ask me, India is corrupt because Indians are corrupt (I'm an Indian, btw and this is a personal opinion. If u don't like it, ignore it... :) ). We need to work to improve these sentences.
Manish Kumar,Mundka —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.160.234.18 ( talk) 11:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I would request your opinion on this:
Currently, India's economic system is portrayed as a capitalist model with the influx of private sector enterprise.
Influx if the private sector is true but does that make the economy capitalist? The government of India does not call it's economy capitalist!
The rest of the Economy section appears to be neutrally written.
Demographics
The last 50 years have seen a rapid increase in population due to medical advances, <leading to higher life expectancy>, and massive increase in agricultural productivity due to the "green revolution".[143][144]
Amartya ray2001 ( talk) 10:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
YellowMonkey thanks for changing the status of the page mate... There has been a LOT of rubbish edits indeed! Please consider blocking some of these vandals! Amartya ray2001 ( talk) 23:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Aside from the "rubbish edits" issue I see mentioned above, I must say this article is in good shape. The linking practice is excellent—such specific, narrowly focused targets. Well done. Tony (talk) 09:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
As per Wikipedia:NC-CHN#Political_NPOV,
As a general rule of thumb, the official political terms "People's Republic of China" or "PRC" and "Republic of China" or "ROC" should be used in political contexts (that is, to describe the existing governments or regimes) rather than the imprecise and politically charged terms "China" and "Taiwan."
The above assertion clearly depends upon the context in which the term "China" is used. Firstly, if the above logic is to be used, then both People's Republic of China and Republic of China should be stated as India's neighboring countries since specifically stating that PRC is a neighboring country of India undermines the territorial claims of ROC. Secondly, for this very purpose, given the context, the term "China" is specific, neutral and accurate as it neither undermines ROC's territorial claims and by providing an interwiki link to PRC, it establishes the fact that PRC is in control of the concerned territory bordering India. Just to note, another featured article, Japan, uses the term "China" rather than People's Republic of China in its lead section.
I'm no expert on this terming controversy, so if anyone still objects to the usage of the term "China", then he/she is free to revert my edit. -- King Zebu ( talk) 17:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I can accept China but do note that it is not non-political. For one thing, it implies that Tibet is a part of China which is a POV. PRC, on the other hand, implies that Tibet is a part of the political entity PRC, a less POV statement. -- RegentsPark ( talk) 02:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
This is in reference to this edit.
Northeast India is nothing but a geographic term, similar to southern Africa. Therefore, there is no need to capitalize the term. The term is rarely capitalized elsewhere -
US keen to help northeast India tap its potential
Moderate earthquake hits northeast India
BSNL to lay optical cable in Bangladesh
The Tribes of northeast India by Sebastian Karotemprel and Dipali G. Danda
Microearthquake seismology and seismotectonics of South Asia by J. R. Kayal
-- King Zebu ( talk) 17:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
This is in reference to my edits to the Sports section.
Thanks -- King Zebu ( talk) 17:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh please! Cricket is a over hyped game in India. Now, this is my personal opinion; which means, if you add or subtract something about it, i won't poke my nose! I think we need to mention more about the local and indigenous games like Kabaddi, Kho kho, etc! Amartya ray2001 ( talk) 18:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
I have to add some information about space sciences of India.So please accept my request
59.164.5.124 ( talk) 09:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Why do people use 2010 data for GDP instead of 2009? We are not even half way through 2010, and every country's using 2009 data, stop this childish and ridiculous behaviour. This information is not about "look better'
I completely disagree with any inclusion of famines in the article. I can see that you (Amartya ray and zuggernaut) prefer not to discuss issues that relate to what should or should not be in a summary article, but perhaps you should try to take the trouble to do that first and then, assuming you get such a consensus, worry about the wording. Please explain (a) why the article should make specific mention of famines rather than a complete evaluation of British rule in India (b) why hunger related issues should be detailed only vis-a-vis British rule, and (c) why a summary article should go to lengths discussing issues that are, by definition, controversial and have no simple answers. -- RegentsPark ( talk) 22:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I support Amartya - these were a major series of events in Indian history and should be included. If Ireland has such information we should too. In fact the Ireland article has complete graphs of population decline due to the famines. If there are such graphs for India, we should form consensus and include those too. Zuggernaut ( talk) 22:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
If you have a moment to spare from your self-congratulatory wit, perhaps you should try reading the Ireland article. Famines are well integrated into the narrative there (for example as a cause for the historical event known as the great migration). That article does not simply say 'see how the Brits killed us off'. -- RegentsPark ( talk) 23:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The population of Ireland is estimated to be 6.2 million people, with just under 4.5 million in the Republic of Ireland and just under 1.8 million in Northern Ireland.[3] This is a significant increase from a modern historical low of 4.2 million in the 1960s but still much lower than the peak population of over 8 million in the mid-19th century prior to the Great Famine.[6]
200,000 civilians are estimated to have died as a result of a combination of war-related famine, displacement, guerilla activity and pestilence over the duration of the war.
The winters destroyed stored crops of potatoes and other staples and the poor summers severely damaged harvests.[40] This resulted in the famine in 1740.
The population of Ireland rose rapidly since the 16th century until the mid-19th century, but a devastating famine in the 1840s caused one million deaths and forced over one million more to emigrate in its immediate wake. Over the following century, the population reduced by over half, at a time when the general trend in European countries was for populations to rise by an average of three-fold.
The Great Famine of the 1840s caused the deaths of one million Irish people and over a million more emigrated to escape it.[44] By the end of the decade, half of all immigration to the United States was from Ireland. Mass emigration became deeply entrenched and the population continued to decline until the mid 20th century. Immediately prior to the famine, the population was recorded as 8.2 million by the 1841 census.[45]
Mass emigration followed in the wake of the Great Famine in the mid-19th century and continued until the 1980s.[107]
I agree with RegentsPark on this, I can't see why this content needs inclusion in this article. While Amartya ray2001's version is definitely better than the earlier ones, it's still not complete. There are two important aspects missing: To quote Stein (page 262)
The full causes of the tragic loss of life were more historically significant, and they were multiple. From the time of Governor-General William Bentinck, wider market networks for food commodities had emerged as a result of improved road and river transport, railways added to this trend by mid-century. Forward grain contracting logically extended market relations, so that in places where food was usually in surplus and exported, exports continued even when shortages occurred, prices soared and starvation deaths were reported. The government was slow to interfere with the effects of market and contractual relations, but was finally forced to intervene by criticisms in Britain as the toll of deaths became known there.
As you can see, the interpretation is more nuanced than any version we could add without making it undue to this article. Also, point to be noted is that in 1880, the "Indian Famine Code" was created, and it still serves as the basis for famine relief in India. One can not integrate all these aspects into this article without being prejudiced towards one issue or the other, so it is best left out. Also, this article is a summary style article, not meant to delve into details, that is best left for the linked articles. The article is meant to "highlight the highlights" and the famine bit, whether we personally feel one way or another, does not get that level of importance amongst historians, e.g. four pages in 408 pages of content in Stein's A History of India. Our section is about 600 words long in an article where WP:SIZE matters. Should this content go in History of India, British Raj and other related articles? Yes, but there again, it needs to be done in the context of those articles. I'm going to be off-wiki for a few days, so I won't be able to respond quickly. cheers. — Spaceman Spiff 08:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Zuggernaut can you please give me those Amartya Sen sources?
Many thanks,
Amartya ray2001 ( talk) 19:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
The same as the ones mentioned in the section above. Here they are again:
Sen, Amartya (2001), Farrukh Iqbal; Jong-Il You (eds.),
Democracy, market economics, and development: an Asian perspective, World Bank Publications, pp. 12–14,
ISBN
9780821348628
Content: Famines are easy to prevent if there is a serious effort to prevent them, and a government of a democratic country-facing elections, criticisms from opposition parties and independent newspapers-cannot but make a serious effort to prevent famines. Not surprisingly, while India continued to have famines under British rule right up to independence (the last famine was in 1943, four years before independence, which I witnessed as a child), they disappeared suddenly, after independence, with the establishment of a multi-part democracy with a free press.
For example in India the priority of of preventing starvation and famine was fully gripped already at the time of independence (as it had been in Ireland as well, with its own experience of famine under British rule).
Sen, Amartya (2009),
The idea of justice, Harvard University Press, pp. 338–343,
ISBN
9780674036130
Content: The Bengal famine of 1943, which I witnessed as a child, was made viable not only by the lack of democracy in colonial India, but also by severe restrictions on reporting and criticism imposed on the Indian press, and the voluntary practice of 'silence' on the famine that the British-owned media chose to follow (as a part of alleged 'war effort', for fear of aiding the Japanese military forces that were at the door of India, in Burma). The combined effect of imposed and voluntary media silence was to prevent substantial public discussion on the famine in metropolitan Britain,including in Parliament of London, which neither discussed the famine, nor considered the plicy needs of dealing with it (that is, not until October 1943 when The Statesman forced its hand). There was of course no parliament in India under the British colonial administration.
In fact, governmental policy , far from being helpful, actually exacerbated the famine. There was no official famine relief over the many months in which thousands were dying every week. More than this, the famine was aggravated, first, by the fact that the British India Government in New Delhi had suspended the trade in rice and food grains between the Indian provinces, so that food could not move through legitimate channels of private trade despite the much higher price of food in Bengal. Second..."
Also, regarding an earlier comment from you - yes Indian politicians don't help as much as they should but they screw up (and big time) because of their ineptitude and incompetence and not for the same reasons as those of the British. Zuggernaut ( talk) 19:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Also, regarding an earlier comment from you - yes Indian politicians don't help as much as they should but they screw up (and big time) because of their ineptitude and incompetence and not for the same reasons as those of the British.
I thought what Zuggernaut thought too... I see about 2 ppl agreeing to make the changes, a couple against it and one who is not being able to make up his mind. I think that's consensus enough. But I'll tell others (ppl who have been working on this for longer) decide about it, as a matter of courtesy. I've done my job of writing something true, yet widely acceptable! Amartya ray2001 ( talk) 18:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Alright guys, let's discuss Famines in India under Famines in India. Let us not bring it here! BritishWatcher you know it for a fact that I've developed a LOT of respect for you. Can you therefore help us ascertain if there is a census? If no, then we will just move on! Amartya ray2001 ( talk) 19:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Dear RegentsPark, that's what we are discussing about. More of us feel that the famines form a part of the main points and merits a mention in this article. India is a 5000 yr old country, it is obvious that more facts deserve to be included. However, this is not a debate about those other facts but just the famines. Amartya ray2001 ( talk) 18:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Can I delete all references to poverty in India, this page will be seen accross the globe so we must represent our country better, pls try and change all pics that show us in a bad light, change them to skyscrapers or modern military. We are the most powerful most developed country in the world, the world needs to see it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtjdajtjda ( talk • contribs) 07:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I can agree with one of these maps but not with both!
It's about PoK ... though it shows PoK as a part of Pakistan (please read the Pakistan article), the entire state of Jammu and Kashmir is shown as disputed here... It will only be fair, I think to either show PoK disputed even in the Pakistan article or show the Indian Administered Kashmir as a part of India! Amartya ray2001 ( talk) 23:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Dear SBC-YPR, agreed... But, it still does not have a legend (explaining which part is what). We need a legend there. Thanks for your comments and observations... :) Amartya ray2001 ( talk) 15:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Clearly there is some sort of bias here, of all the articles on wikipedia about countries only Indian and Pakistani articles seem to be showing disputed territories in the political map on article. I must note here very few countries in the world are totally free from territorial disputes but the political map in these countries only show the territories claimed by that particular country with no references to disputes. I do not see why this should be an exception for India and Pakistan. The disputed map can be added in the article about the territorial dispute.-- UplinkAnsh ( talk) 11:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}} Minor (descriptive) grammar error in the "Culture" section: please change "the nuclear family are becoming more common in urban areas" to either "the nuclear family is becoming more common in urban areas or "nuclear families are becoming more common in urban areas."
Pstenos ( talk) 20:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Pstenos: Done. Thanks for taking time to point out the typo. -- Lovysinghal ( talk) 20:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}}
India is emrging Super Power
210.94.41.89 ( talk) 08:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Not done: Please provide a reliable source and detail the change you would like to make in a 'please change X to Y' manner. You may also want to compose the content where you have access to a spelling and grammar checking tool. Thanks, Celestra ( talk) 13:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Staana is a Sankrit word which means place!!!! one only has to look it up in the dictionary! its even mentioned on the HIndustan page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindustan.
Does anyone object to my edit ??
thank you . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhruvekhera ( talk • contribs) 05:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
-- 92.4.112.133 ( talk) 19:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
There are some small inconsistencies across articles:
I have removed the mention of Bose and the armed revolutionaries in the indian independence movement from the lead. They were added by Nuclear warfare in the article and in the lead. I don't think they belong in the lead in the same line as the nonviolent movement. Their contribution to the independence struggle is only minor when compared to the nonviolent movement. So, yes for the article, but no for the lead, where we can't make this distinction-- Sodabottle ( talk) 08:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I undid an by User:Rhadamanthus222 because the source doesn't fit WP:RS. There are other problems with this insertion as pointed out in edit summaries of prior removals. User:Rhadamanthus222 needs to discuss and make a case here before adding the content again. Zuggernaut ( talk) 18:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Rhadmanthus, this info belongs in the "History of India" article. This is an extremely short summary style article. we can't delve into etymology of the word Aryan here. I was the first one to revert you and i cited this same reason - undue here. Now three editors have disagreed with you, don't add the information unless consensus supports it.-- Sodabottle ( talk) 04:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I would request all editors to cool down and try to reach consensus. I would suggest User:Rhadamanthus222 not to make any further edits till consensus is reached. Also User:Sodabottle must stop calling someone newbie as it is a personal attack. Now about the topic, according to CIA factbook 72% of Indians are Aryans. This definitely suggests that Aryans had been a major factor in the history of India. I would request the editors who oppose the move to add 2 words in the history section to provide a reason that why the history and roots of 3/4 of Indian population is so unimportant that it cannot get a negligible space of 2 words in Indian article.-- UplinkAnsh ( talk) 09:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
What you call "glaringly significant SINGULAR word" is a still contested theory. What may look like undisputed fact to you is still not the "undisputed fact" as our own Indigenous Aryans article shows. Now you are manufacturing conspiracy theories. Me or CarTick being a south-indians has nothing to do with this debate. and what exactly does " I will try to take measures to have this issue looked into" mean? -- Sodabottle ( talk) 18:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Rhadamanthus, it's fine that you have lots of evidence, but I'm sure adherents of opposing views have lots of evidence, too. The problem is that we don't have space to cover all this in the article, and it is fairer to leave the issue out than to put in one view and leave out the others. -- Beirne ( talk) 18:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I would suggest User:Rhadamanthus222 to add these sources on articles like Indigenous Aryans, Vedic period, Indo-Aryan migrations or Historical definitions of races in India. Though the sources report new findings of 2001 off the coast of Dwarka and multiple prominent historical research consisting documentaries and reports however this is not the topic for these research. However I would like to propose that the Indian article should at least consist contain some mention of the ethnicity of Indian population in the body or infobox.-- UplinkAnsh ( talk) 20:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
My mistake, I overlooked that section and did not notice that it was mentioned. I take back my proposal.-- UplinkAnsh ( talk) 20:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I think the current wording is fine. The progression from Harappan period to Vedic period, without attempting to get into the ethnicity of the people involved, is the best way to approach this in a summary article. Historians are reasonably confident that there was a Vedic period but are less confident about ethnic lineages. (I'm assuming that the edit in question is this one.) -- RegentsPark ( talk) 02:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
And on the verbal question: arya is Sanskrit, but it did not originate in Sanskrit; it is at least Indo-Iranian (indeed Iran is the cognate); it may be Indo-European; its oldest attestation is in Mitanni. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:06, 3 November 2010 (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 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | → | Archive 35 |
There should be talk of the rising power of communist parties who were even part of the goverment before the last election, Maoist control 33% of the country and Many Mainstream Politicians fear the rise of communist parties —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.1.250.215 ( talk) 23:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
third largest standing army or third largest standing military....pls correct this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.72.157.56 ( talk) 13:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I think besides Hindi the names of the country should also be written in Bengali and Tamil. This is because although Hindi is the official language of India the national anthem Jana Gana Mana is written in Bengali (the second major language of India by number of speakers) by Rabindranath tagore (and probably India is the only country whose national anthem is not written in its so called "Official Language") and Tamil is the first language to be given the status of classical language of India. - Pravata ( talk) 09:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
This article claims that India was the home to the Indus valley civilization, while the article on Indus valley civilization shows that it existed on the banks of the Indus river, in present day Pakistan. 96.46.193.222 ( talk) 01:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
In the history section it says "Under the rule of Akbar the Great, India enjoyed much cultural and economic progress as well as religious harmony" which gives a wrong impression that there was no progress and religious harmony before Akbar's rule in India. Requesting editors to make corrections suitably. 117.198.101.11 ( talk) 05:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
SpacemanSpiff, the edit was made in relation to above reasons. Kindly discuss or see the talk page before reverting any edits Pdheeru ( talk) 03:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
It is a well source statement no doubt, but mentioning this gives an impression that Akbar's period was the first period in India's history that this kind of progress occurred. By mentioning about the start of religious unrest at the first place this statement can be added. 117.198.99.120 ( talk) 04:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Any person new to Indian history reading this page will have this impression after he/she has read the said statement. Why is this special mention of Akbar's rule having this kind of progress when such progress occurred in other ruler's periods also. Are we not being unfair to other rulers? Does this statement really need to be mentioned? Pdheeru ( talk) 07:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Suggesting the following change in the history section; The statement 'Following invasions from Central Asia between the 10th and 12th centuries, much of North India came under the rule of the Delhi Sultanate and later the Mughal Empire. Under the rule of Akbar the Great, India enjoyed much cultural and economic progress as well as religious harmony' changed to 'Following invasions from Central Asia between the 10th and 12th centuries, much of North India came under the rule of the Delhi Sultanate and later the Mughal Empire which saw great cultural, economic and religious upheavals. Under the rule of Akbar the Great, India enjoyed much cultural and economic progress as well as religious harmony' Pdheeru ( talk) 06:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Requesting SpacemanSpiff to discuss matter before issuing warnings. Just threatening to block a user is not a solution. You cannot take such steps without discussing the edit in question Pdheeru ( talk) 05:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
SpacemanSpiff can you tell me why 'in the' is better or more relevant than 'by'. 117.198.99.120 ( talk) 06:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
The IP and pdheeru are the same. I know about wiki sockpuppetry rules. Kindly see the history page. The reason for my edit is given. Also for the 'in the' and 'by' issue kindly see the source which clearly says 'by'. Hence the changes. Now your reasons please. Pdheeru ( talk) 07:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Your argument is still not convincing. My view is that usage of 'by' is apt than 'in the' in this context. I may be wrong, but it will be better to get some more opinions on this issue from other editors and then decide. Pdheeru ( talk) 11:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I personally feel that 'in the' is more relevant then 'by' as Maratha empire ruled most of India in the 18th century while when we use 'by' it shows that maratha empire ruled most of India from long back till the 18th century Rahul Choudhary 14:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
The intro claims, that India, is considered to be a potential superpower. This is outrageous nonsense. India economy is only 11th in the world. It is the largest developing country on the globe. If this article wants to be taken seriously, it should correct the introduction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.151.16 ( talk) 09:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
The first sentenced of Potential superpowers concerning India says: "Several media publications and academics have discussed India's potential of becoming a great power eventually a superpower". Discussed not considered. This here is an encyclopedia not fantasy land. India has 1 billion people in massive poverty and malnutrition. You better have a look on its economy, its the same size like Spain. A country 20 times smaller (population wise). Is Spain a future superpower? No serious academic would claim that India has the capacity to become a superpower in the next 50 years. It has the capacity to become a regional great power, maybe in 20 years. But that does not belong in an introduction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.76.76 ( talk) 22:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Look, Wikipedia is not the place of lofty ifs and speculation. Its about proofen facts and realities. The potential superpower article itself is crossing the line and can be considered a fantasy playfield of patriotic ambitions. Every human being has "potential" every country as well but that does not belong in a reliable encyclopedia introduction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.10.52 ( talk) 11:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I really don't think its worth mentioning the "Potential Superpower" status. Since India haven't reached that stage particularly on economically. It only ranks 11th in the world let it be the 3rd largest in the world by market exchange rates then we can boldly say that yes India is on verge of becoming the next superpower. So for now pls don't mention it, my dear friend I'm an Indian and who doesn't want that this country to prospers and become a global power. Thank You-- Kkm010 as© 04:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree with the anti-superpower camp. Using the Spain example, well, Spain was the World's first "Superpower." This is a well studied example so population is not really a sufficient cause of "superpower-hood." Take a look at the European Union, if one uses "metrics" to purport Superpower status than what we would call the European Union is the most powerful block on Earth and for the foreseeable future. But do we consider them a Superpower in the traditional sense? No. They are introverted (simply put). One of the people discussing this said that it is an issue of "not if but when." This shows a complete misunderstanding of what Superpower means. And quite frankly indicates an Indian nationalist to me. Superpower is a relative comparison. You can't have dozens of superpowers. It is essentially a term, simplistically put, which means that one power has the ability to dominate every other power without the ability of any one power doing the same to it. So this means, outside of nuclear deterrence, you can't really have more than one or two "Superpowers." Technically, I would say just one but when it is close like in the Cold War you need a Hot War to figure it out, which most sane people would not want to be put to the test! Even now if England became militaristic they could dominate India again. The only legitimate discussion for another Superpower would be China, but even that is not secure. The idea of a China superpower is more supported by Anti-Western-ism than anything else. Their population has peaked while the world's only Superpower the United States continues to grow. Again, right now, if the United States wanted to and became militaristic they could make China their B-word. This will continue for the foreseeable future as well since China demographically will peak in the next few years. The only reason why we are having this discussion is the fact that the West is open and has tried to embrace both China and India whereas these nations continue to view things not in market and progressive terms but in racial and ethnic lines. It is quite a shame. The West is undergoing a radical change, which contrary to the common belief, is for the good. They are restructuring their economies to export and innovation rather than import and innovation. This will put a fundamental break to any continued evolution to a "superpower" status as they won't be subsidized by Western consumers. Also, Western populations are undergoing strong natural selection right know where those who do not have children are being selected out. This means that the other other West, the Europeans will begin to see their populations rise again with the associated GDP and in turn power within the next 100 years while the "developing" world will see declines. So you see "projecting" into the future anything is really difficult and opposing equally valid perspectives can be made. 99.35.225.222 ( talk) 19:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
There are some very specific and subjective definitions of superpower being used here. This is a false basis for discussion. If India is identified elsewhere in Wiki as a potential superpower,that's who it should be handled here. using subjective and non-universal definitions of superpower is already a flawed approach, but since it's already in consensus in other articles, it seems even more of a moot point. This is not a political debate forum. 204.65.34.154 ( talk) 18:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
When MK Gandhi started the freedom struggle he was not know as Mahatma Gandhi. The honorific 'Mahatma, was given later. Mentioning the full name Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi will be correct. Also mentioning his profession (lawyer) along with the full name gives a better insight into the key person in India's freedom struggle. I know no introduction is needed for the likes of Mahatma Gandhi, but we should be keeping in mind people new to Indian history reading this article. Pdheeru ( talk) 03:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Deepak D'souza for your kind information I have been editing various articles in Wikipedia since 2006 as an IP. Please don't advice me on my experience. I know what a featured article is and don't try to educate me. If you have anything to tell about the edits I made you are welcome but your unsolicited advice is not. Pdheeru ( talk) 11:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
If refusing unsolicited advice is rude, then so be it. If there is a better way of refusing advice kindly let me know. It really doesn't matter what you assume and don't about my experience. Had only your justification for use of the word Mahatma come earlier (as it should have been) it would have been a healthy discussion. Pdheeru ( talk) 05:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
We are not giving a detailed description of Gandhi but only his name Pdheeru ( talk) 06:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}}
India has three global cities, New Delhi, Mumbai and Kolkata. Also there were several other big metro cities like Chennai, Hyderabad, Bangalore, Ahmadabad etc. Indian cities are transforming in a faster rate to become a global destiny.
206.70.248.253 (
talk) 14:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Not done: Please detail your request in a please change X to Y degree. Thanks, Celestra ( talk) 15:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
Castew discrimination in india is not anymore. it stopped decades back. please edit the "culture" section. in fact,, something new is in discussion of lately ie reverse discrimination because the upper castes (on paper) do not have rights and privileges the one with lower caste certificate has. India has 50 percent reservation in its education and government jobs. this has led to many people not having a lower caste certificate not getting proper educational and job opportunities despite being high in merit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Indian_anti-reservation_protests
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste_system_in_India#Modern_status_of_the_caste_system
71.201.248.6 ( talk) 02:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I have added the names of India in other official languages of India listed in the 8th Schedule as collapsable list. I think it is necessary. It has not been rejected in the talk page. Previously the attempts which were made to include the official languages were not added as a collapsable list, so the article looked very awkward. But if I include them as a collapsabla list, only those want to see it can see it by clicking on the show option. So I think it is unnecessary to remove my edition. - Trinanjon Basu ( talk) 16:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Zuggernaut has added the following line to the history section: India suffered a series of serious crop failures in the late 19th century, leading to widespread famines in which 15.3 million people died
I think this line is somewhat vague and should be reworded. my concerns: a)Famines during british rule weren't limited to late 19th century though they become more numerous. the last one lasted a couple of years into the 20th century b) the death count of 15.3 million is treated as an absolute, but it is a composite figure arrived at tallying the lower end of various estimates. c) "crop failures" alone didn't cause the famines. it was a bit more complex. monsoon failure - > drought -> crop failure -> free market grain policies -> inadequate relief measure -> great famine. ( Timeline of major famines in India during British rule)
I know it is a bit too much to expect to capture the complexity of the issue in a single line, But still feel this line could be reworded.-- Sodabottle ( talk) 04:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks a ton for putting so much time and energy on this article...
Amartya ray2001 ( talk) 08:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I did have that deja vu feeling (all over again)! See Talk:India/Archive_25#Indian_Famines. At that time, the rough consensus was not to include this material in the article because of WP:UNDUE. The causes of the famines, the reasons behind the number of deaths, etc. can not reasonably be discussed in a summary article and leaving the impression that the Raj was to blame for both the famines as well as the deaths is where the WP:UNDUE comes in. There are plenty of scholars who believe that at least some responsibility lies with the fact that India was colonized, but their arguments are nuanced (Amartya Sen, for example, blames it on lack of political participation, Gilmour on ineptitude, etc.). The point being that there were complex causes for the famines, complex reasons behind the number of people who died, and discussing all this in a summary article is just not possible. -- RegentsPark ( talk) 11:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Amartya ray2001 ( talk) 12:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Amartya ray2001 ( talk) 17:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I have added a POV tag to the disproportionately large paragraph that has been added to the history section about famines in India. It's not even close to being written with a neutral POV and might I also say even if it was, this amount of attention to this subject in what is a potted history of India is way too much detail. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 10:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm proposing a simple four step process to come up with fair content that's not prone to POV labeling as was done by User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick [4] who Wikihounded me for my changes to British Empire on the same topic. [5]
Step 1: Reliability of sources - establish validity of sources provided below.
Step 2: Focus - agree on what content to focus on
Step 3: Concise compiling - put the content together in concise 2-3 sentences.
Step 4: Policies - ensure Wikipedia policies such as
WP:OR,
WP:NPOV,
WP:SYN, etc are met.
I have provided several sources with links to Google Books below. Most of the content has been typed out verbatim with the only exception that not everything is contiguous. Typos and other errors, if any, are mine. URLs are provided for quick verification.
Source: Dutt, R. Palme (2006),
India Today (1940), Read Books, pp. 131–2,
ISBN
9781406798463 Content: Even more significant was the rising export of food grains from starving India. |
Source: Benjamin Orange Flower; Charles Zueblin, eds. (1910),
The Twentieth century magazine, vol. Volume 2, Twentieth Century Co., p. 437 {{
citation}} : |volume= has extra text (
help)Content: This poverty of India is caused by the British plunder and legalized pillage and destruction of Indian industries. The famines in India, are the result of British exploitation, and are not, as may be supposed, caused by lack of rain or lack of production, or by over-population. It is an economic famine of an enslaved nation caused by merciless plunder of at least $175,000,000 a year, without a cent in return. People are generally misled to think that India was always a famine-land; but it is not a fact. Before the advent of the British rule in India, famine was occasional, but the British plundering policy has made it chronic. The area of famine districts is increasing yearly, and not a year passes that millions do not fall victims of the dreadful calamity. We produce below statistics taken from Sir William Digby's "Prosperous British India". Rev. J. T. Sunderland, in his work The Causes of Famine in India, like all impartial writers, has conclusively proved that neither "failure of rains" nor "over-population" is the cause of famines in India. He has stated that the real cause of famine is the extreme, the abject, the awful poverty of the Indian people caused by "enormous foreign tribute," "British Indian Imperialism" and the destruction of Indian industries. Sir William Hunter, K. O. S. I., the historian of India, formerly of the Viceroy's Council, says: "The government assessment does not leave enough food to the cultivator to support himself and his family throughout the year." |
|
|
Source: Sen, Amartya (2001), Farrukh Iqbal; Jong-Il You (eds.),
Democracy, market economics, and development: an Asian perspective, World Bank Publications, pp. 12–14,
ISBN
9780821348628 Content: Famines are easy to prevent if there is a serious effort to prevent them, and a government of a democratic country-facing elections, criticisms from opposition parties and independent newspapers-cannot but make a serious effort to prevent famines. Not surprisingly, while India continued to have famines under British rule right up to independence (the last famine was in 1943, four years before independence, which I witnessed as a child), they disappeared suddenly, after independence, with the establishment of a multi-part democracy with a free press. For example in India the priority of of preventing starvation and famine was fully gripped already at the time of independence (as it had been in Ireland as well, with its own experience of famine under British rule). |
Source: Sen, Amartya (2009),
The idea of justice, Harvard University Press, pp. 338–343,
ISBN
9780674036130 Content: The Bengal famine of 1943, which I witnessed as a child, was made viable not only by the lack of democracy in colonial India, but also by severe restrictions on reporting and criticism imposed on the Indian press, and the voluntary practice of 'silence' on the famine that the British-owned media chose to follow (as a part of alleged 'war effort', for fear of aiding the Japanese military forces that were at the door of India, in Burma). The combined effect of imposed and voluntary media silence was to prevent substantial public discussion on the famine in metropolitan Britain,including in Parliament of London, which neither discussed the famine, nor considered the plicy needs of dealing with it (that is, not until October 1943 when The Statesman forced its hand). There was of course no parliament in India under the British colonial administration. In fact, governmental policy , far from being helpful, actually exacerbated the famine. There was no official famine relief over the many months in which thousands were dying every week. More than this, the famine was aggravated, first, by the fact that the British India Government in New Delhi had suspended the trade in rice and food grains between the Indian provinces, so that food could not move through legitimate channels of private trade despite the much higher price of food in Bengal. Second... |
Please provide your comments in the relevant sections below for form a consensus. Thanks. Zuggernaut ( talk) 21:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I propose that we foucs on:
Zuggernaut ( talk) 21:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Originally proposed content: Famines in India before the arrival of the British were few and local and they affected comparatively a small number of people, for example, from the 11th century to the 18the century, there were only 18 famines in India. Under British rule, a total of 31 famines were recorded for the 100 years between 1800-1900 with a death toll of about 37 million, primarily due to starvation. India continued to suffer from famines under the British Crown, right up to independence in 1947 after which they vanished with the establishment of representative democracy and a free press.
Based on the feedback received from
User:Redtigerxyz and other editors, I am revising the originally proposed content:
Revision: Between the 11th century and the 18the century, famines in India were few and local and they affected comparatively a small number of people. Eighteen famines were recorded during this period in India. Under British rule, a total of 31 famines were recorded for the 100 years between 1800-1900 with a death toll of about 37 million, primarily due to starvation. India continued to suffer from famines under the British Crown, right up to independence in 1947 after which they vanished with the establishment of representative democracy and a free press. Zuggernaut ( talk)
Zuggernaut ( talk) 21:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
...look at all histories of the famines that took place in the 19th century; sort through all the differing views on why these famines occurred or why the x number of people died; and then present a 3-4 sentence summary that includes all the major viewpoints. Simply presenting what the few sources that support one view say is insufficient for a summary article.
IMO, we should have two lines about Famines of the 19th century in the history sections indicating a) they were many in the late 19th century b)they caused millions of deaths. The cause of famines and how the british govt handled/mishandled it are contentious issues and can be explained in detail in the Famines in India article.-- Sodabottle ( talk) 04:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
(od) Frankly, we have about 6 lines on the entire 200 year history of British India which focuses on political transitions, as does the entire history section. To this you want to add '3-4 lines' on the 19th century famines. I'm no fan of British rule in India, but I am a fan of this encyclopedia and can see no reason, other than an attempt to paint British rule in a bad light, to include even one line on famines in this article. The notion of history as political transition is a fairly well accepted one, other material should go in other articles. -- RegentsPark ( talk) 21:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I have raised the fact
User:Zuggernaut has been canvassing to try and influence the outcome of this debate on the
Admins noticeboard here. Thanks
BritishWatcher (
talk) 23:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Frankly, we have about 6 lines on the entire 200 year history of British India which focuses on political transitions, as does the entire history section.
Amartya ray2001 ( talk) 08:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
(od) The point is that this is a summary article and that details should be directed to sub-articles. If, for example, we include a statement about famines that ascribes responsibility of these famines to British rule, then, in all fairness, we would need to extend the analysis of British rule to include all significant positive and negative aspects of that rule. In other words, we would have an entire section devoted to something along the lines of 'Economic and social effects of British rule in India' which is probably better suited to the British Raj article. Additionally, we would also need to place these famines in the context of India's perennial inability to adequately feed its people. Put all this in, and fairly soon, the article would be unmanageable. -- RegentsPark ( talk) 12:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Amartya ray2001 ( talk) 16:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
My comments on the Admin Noticeboard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amartya ray2001 ( talk • contribs) 06:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Majority of the editors have expressed a desire to include content related to Indian famines in a concise way in the 'History' section of the article. I have taken in to account the concerns of the editors ("blaming tone", neutrality) and revised the originally proposed content. The current form looks like this:
“ | Between the 11th century and the 18the century, famines in India were few and local and they affected comparatively a small number of people. Eighteen famines were recorded during this period in India. Under British rule, a total of 31 famines were recorded for the 100 years between 1800-1900 with a death toll of about 37 million, primarily due to starvation. India continued to suffer from famines under the British Crown, right up to independence in 1947 after which they vanished with the establishment of representative democracy and a free press. | ” |
Please provide feedback on:
Thanks. Zuggernaut ( talk) 01:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Amartya ray2001 ( talk) 06:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Amartya ray2001 ( talk) 08:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Amartya ray2001 ( talk) 16:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I can't seem to be able to disagree with you BritishWatcher! lol ... Here is the final draft with all the changes you pointed out. I think it's most neutral. If an attempt is made to dilute it further then we will need to compromise on facts...
"Although famines were not new to the subcontinent, the Raj was marked by an increase in the number of large-scale famines in India. Despite efforts by the colonial authorities to reduce the impact of the severe famines caused by numerous drought and crop failures, British economic and trade policies towards colonial India contributed to the problems and the death of tens and millions of people, throughout British India, between 1760 - 1944." + all the citations needed to substantiate the number?
I'm introducing these lines in the sandbox draft. And you are right about the History section being too small, as well... That is why I expanded it.
Thankfully,...
Amartya ray2001 ( talk) 01:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Alright, this seems fair enough to me. Will make the necessary changes. Also working on WWII...
Amartya ray2001 ( talk) 11:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Amartya - It's a very good, neutral draft. My comments: the famines were caused by the policies of the British government. There is no coincidence that the Irish suffered a similar famine in the exact same period. It was so devastating that it changed their nation for ever. 30% of the Irish population was starved to death - imagine that, 30%! In India this number was 10% over 100 years of a series of famines. Take a look at the suggestions of genocide in the Irish famine. There are claims in that article (with proper sources) that the British deliberately pursued a policy of mass starvation. Amartya Sen (see section above) has studied the Indian situation and the conclusion he's drawn is critical - once those discriminative policies of the British were reversed, the "economic" famines in India stopped. There are sources that clearly state that British propaganda blamed the famines on lack of rain, population density, crop failures, etc. Western authors (probably English) have shown these to be lies. That's something we need to include in the article - they way to do it, IMO is to define and differentiate between "economic famines" and those that happened after independence. After independence people were eager to rush food to affected areas and thus the deaths were on a minuscule scale as compared to when the British were running things. Zuggernaut ( talk) 22:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
...unless the proper noun is a geographical term, or a plural term or refers to an establishment. "Tata Nano" is neither. -- King Zebu ( talk) 17:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Major agricultural products include rice, wheat, oilseed, cotton, jute, tea, sugarcane, potatoes; cattle, water buffalo, sheep, goats, poultry and fish.
what is cattle, water buffalo, sheep, goats, poultry? In my opinion it should be, cattle - milk and meat, water buffalo - milk, sheep - meat, goat - milk and meat, poultry - egg and meat. Unless it's a nuance of English I'm not aware of (in which case my apologies in advance for raising the issue), the sentence look ridiculous (not intending to undermine its author)!
also,
From the 1950s to the 1980s, India followed socialist-inspired policies.
socialist-inspired policies is called Welfare economics... India is a welfare state.
From the 1950s to the 1980s, India followed socialist-inspired policies. The economy was shackled by extensive regulation, protectionism and public ownership, leading to pervasive corruption and slow economic growth.[128]
This makes it appear as if socialism leads to corruption and slows down economic growth. With is not true and neutral. China is the best example. India is corrupt even today. If you ask me, India is corrupt because Indians are corrupt (I'm an Indian, btw and this is a personal opinion. If u don't like it, ignore it... :) ). We need to work to improve these sentences.
Manish Kumar,Mundka —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.160.234.18 ( talk) 11:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I would request your opinion on this:
Currently, India's economic system is portrayed as a capitalist model with the influx of private sector enterprise.
Influx if the private sector is true but does that make the economy capitalist? The government of India does not call it's economy capitalist!
The rest of the Economy section appears to be neutrally written.
Demographics
The last 50 years have seen a rapid increase in population due to medical advances, <leading to higher life expectancy>, and massive increase in agricultural productivity due to the "green revolution".[143][144]
Amartya ray2001 ( talk) 10:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
YellowMonkey thanks for changing the status of the page mate... There has been a LOT of rubbish edits indeed! Please consider blocking some of these vandals! Amartya ray2001 ( talk) 23:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Aside from the "rubbish edits" issue I see mentioned above, I must say this article is in good shape. The linking practice is excellent—such specific, narrowly focused targets. Well done. Tony (talk) 09:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
As per Wikipedia:NC-CHN#Political_NPOV,
As a general rule of thumb, the official political terms "People's Republic of China" or "PRC" and "Republic of China" or "ROC" should be used in political contexts (that is, to describe the existing governments or regimes) rather than the imprecise and politically charged terms "China" and "Taiwan."
The above assertion clearly depends upon the context in which the term "China" is used. Firstly, if the above logic is to be used, then both People's Republic of China and Republic of China should be stated as India's neighboring countries since specifically stating that PRC is a neighboring country of India undermines the territorial claims of ROC. Secondly, for this very purpose, given the context, the term "China" is specific, neutral and accurate as it neither undermines ROC's territorial claims and by providing an interwiki link to PRC, it establishes the fact that PRC is in control of the concerned territory bordering India. Just to note, another featured article, Japan, uses the term "China" rather than People's Republic of China in its lead section.
I'm no expert on this terming controversy, so if anyone still objects to the usage of the term "China", then he/she is free to revert my edit. -- King Zebu ( talk) 17:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I can accept China but do note that it is not non-political. For one thing, it implies that Tibet is a part of China which is a POV. PRC, on the other hand, implies that Tibet is a part of the political entity PRC, a less POV statement. -- RegentsPark ( talk) 02:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
This is in reference to this edit.
Northeast India is nothing but a geographic term, similar to southern Africa. Therefore, there is no need to capitalize the term. The term is rarely capitalized elsewhere -
US keen to help northeast India tap its potential
Moderate earthquake hits northeast India
BSNL to lay optical cable in Bangladesh
The Tribes of northeast India by Sebastian Karotemprel and Dipali G. Danda
Microearthquake seismology and seismotectonics of South Asia by J. R. Kayal
-- King Zebu ( talk) 17:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
This is in reference to my edits to the Sports section.
Thanks -- King Zebu ( talk) 17:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh please! Cricket is a over hyped game in India. Now, this is my personal opinion; which means, if you add or subtract something about it, i won't poke my nose! I think we need to mention more about the local and indigenous games like Kabaddi, Kho kho, etc! Amartya ray2001 ( talk) 18:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
I have to add some information about space sciences of India.So please accept my request
59.164.5.124 ( talk) 09:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Why do people use 2010 data for GDP instead of 2009? We are not even half way through 2010, and every country's using 2009 data, stop this childish and ridiculous behaviour. This information is not about "look better'
I completely disagree with any inclusion of famines in the article. I can see that you (Amartya ray and zuggernaut) prefer not to discuss issues that relate to what should or should not be in a summary article, but perhaps you should try to take the trouble to do that first and then, assuming you get such a consensus, worry about the wording. Please explain (a) why the article should make specific mention of famines rather than a complete evaluation of British rule in India (b) why hunger related issues should be detailed only vis-a-vis British rule, and (c) why a summary article should go to lengths discussing issues that are, by definition, controversial and have no simple answers. -- RegentsPark ( talk) 22:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I support Amartya - these were a major series of events in Indian history and should be included. If Ireland has such information we should too. In fact the Ireland article has complete graphs of population decline due to the famines. If there are such graphs for India, we should form consensus and include those too. Zuggernaut ( talk) 22:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
If you have a moment to spare from your self-congratulatory wit, perhaps you should try reading the Ireland article. Famines are well integrated into the narrative there (for example as a cause for the historical event known as the great migration). That article does not simply say 'see how the Brits killed us off'. -- RegentsPark ( talk) 23:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The population of Ireland is estimated to be 6.2 million people, with just under 4.5 million in the Republic of Ireland and just under 1.8 million in Northern Ireland.[3] This is a significant increase from a modern historical low of 4.2 million in the 1960s but still much lower than the peak population of over 8 million in the mid-19th century prior to the Great Famine.[6]
200,000 civilians are estimated to have died as a result of a combination of war-related famine, displacement, guerilla activity and pestilence over the duration of the war.
The winters destroyed stored crops of potatoes and other staples and the poor summers severely damaged harvests.[40] This resulted in the famine in 1740.
The population of Ireland rose rapidly since the 16th century until the mid-19th century, but a devastating famine in the 1840s caused one million deaths and forced over one million more to emigrate in its immediate wake. Over the following century, the population reduced by over half, at a time when the general trend in European countries was for populations to rise by an average of three-fold.
The Great Famine of the 1840s caused the deaths of one million Irish people and over a million more emigrated to escape it.[44] By the end of the decade, half of all immigration to the United States was from Ireland. Mass emigration became deeply entrenched and the population continued to decline until the mid 20th century. Immediately prior to the famine, the population was recorded as 8.2 million by the 1841 census.[45]
Mass emigration followed in the wake of the Great Famine in the mid-19th century and continued until the 1980s.[107]
I agree with RegentsPark on this, I can't see why this content needs inclusion in this article. While Amartya ray2001's version is definitely better than the earlier ones, it's still not complete. There are two important aspects missing: To quote Stein (page 262)
The full causes of the tragic loss of life were more historically significant, and they were multiple. From the time of Governor-General William Bentinck, wider market networks for food commodities had emerged as a result of improved road and river transport, railways added to this trend by mid-century. Forward grain contracting logically extended market relations, so that in places where food was usually in surplus and exported, exports continued even when shortages occurred, prices soared and starvation deaths were reported. The government was slow to interfere with the effects of market and contractual relations, but was finally forced to intervene by criticisms in Britain as the toll of deaths became known there.
As you can see, the interpretation is more nuanced than any version we could add without making it undue to this article. Also, point to be noted is that in 1880, the "Indian Famine Code" was created, and it still serves as the basis for famine relief in India. One can not integrate all these aspects into this article without being prejudiced towards one issue or the other, so it is best left out. Also, this article is a summary style article, not meant to delve into details, that is best left for the linked articles. The article is meant to "highlight the highlights" and the famine bit, whether we personally feel one way or another, does not get that level of importance amongst historians, e.g. four pages in 408 pages of content in Stein's A History of India. Our section is about 600 words long in an article where WP:SIZE matters. Should this content go in History of India, British Raj and other related articles? Yes, but there again, it needs to be done in the context of those articles. I'm going to be off-wiki for a few days, so I won't be able to respond quickly. cheers. — Spaceman Spiff 08:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Zuggernaut can you please give me those Amartya Sen sources?
Many thanks,
Amartya ray2001 ( talk) 19:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
The same as the ones mentioned in the section above. Here they are again:
Sen, Amartya (2001), Farrukh Iqbal; Jong-Il You (eds.),
Democracy, market economics, and development: an Asian perspective, World Bank Publications, pp. 12–14,
ISBN
9780821348628
Content: Famines are easy to prevent if there is a serious effort to prevent them, and a government of a democratic country-facing elections, criticisms from opposition parties and independent newspapers-cannot but make a serious effort to prevent famines. Not surprisingly, while India continued to have famines under British rule right up to independence (the last famine was in 1943, four years before independence, which I witnessed as a child), they disappeared suddenly, after independence, with the establishment of a multi-part democracy with a free press.
For example in India the priority of of preventing starvation and famine was fully gripped already at the time of independence (as it had been in Ireland as well, with its own experience of famine under British rule).
Sen, Amartya (2009),
The idea of justice, Harvard University Press, pp. 338–343,
ISBN
9780674036130
Content: The Bengal famine of 1943, which I witnessed as a child, was made viable not only by the lack of democracy in colonial India, but also by severe restrictions on reporting and criticism imposed on the Indian press, and the voluntary practice of 'silence' on the famine that the British-owned media chose to follow (as a part of alleged 'war effort', for fear of aiding the Japanese military forces that were at the door of India, in Burma). The combined effect of imposed and voluntary media silence was to prevent substantial public discussion on the famine in metropolitan Britain,including in Parliament of London, which neither discussed the famine, nor considered the plicy needs of dealing with it (that is, not until October 1943 when The Statesman forced its hand). There was of course no parliament in India under the British colonial administration.
In fact, governmental policy , far from being helpful, actually exacerbated the famine. There was no official famine relief over the many months in which thousands were dying every week. More than this, the famine was aggravated, first, by the fact that the British India Government in New Delhi had suspended the trade in rice and food grains between the Indian provinces, so that food could not move through legitimate channels of private trade despite the much higher price of food in Bengal. Second..."
Also, regarding an earlier comment from you - yes Indian politicians don't help as much as they should but they screw up (and big time) because of their ineptitude and incompetence and not for the same reasons as those of the British. Zuggernaut ( talk) 19:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Also, regarding an earlier comment from you - yes Indian politicians don't help as much as they should but they screw up (and big time) because of their ineptitude and incompetence and not for the same reasons as those of the British.
I thought what Zuggernaut thought too... I see about 2 ppl agreeing to make the changes, a couple against it and one who is not being able to make up his mind. I think that's consensus enough. But I'll tell others (ppl who have been working on this for longer) decide about it, as a matter of courtesy. I've done my job of writing something true, yet widely acceptable! Amartya ray2001 ( talk) 18:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Alright guys, let's discuss Famines in India under Famines in India. Let us not bring it here! BritishWatcher you know it for a fact that I've developed a LOT of respect for you. Can you therefore help us ascertain if there is a census? If no, then we will just move on! Amartya ray2001 ( talk) 19:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Dear RegentsPark, that's what we are discussing about. More of us feel that the famines form a part of the main points and merits a mention in this article. India is a 5000 yr old country, it is obvious that more facts deserve to be included. However, this is not a debate about those other facts but just the famines. Amartya ray2001 ( talk) 18:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Can I delete all references to poverty in India, this page will be seen accross the globe so we must represent our country better, pls try and change all pics that show us in a bad light, change them to skyscrapers or modern military. We are the most powerful most developed country in the world, the world needs to see it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtjdajtjda ( talk • contribs) 07:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I can agree with one of these maps but not with both!
It's about PoK ... though it shows PoK as a part of Pakistan (please read the Pakistan article), the entire state of Jammu and Kashmir is shown as disputed here... It will only be fair, I think to either show PoK disputed even in the Pakistan article or show the Indian Administered Kashmir as a part of India! Amartya ray2001 ( talk) 23:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Dear SBC-YPR, agreed... But, it still does not have a legend (explaining which part is what). We need a legend there. Thanks for your comments and observations... :) Amartya ray2001 ( talk) 15:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Clearly there is some sort of bias here, of all the articles on wikipedia about countries only Indian and Pakistani articles seem to be showing disputed territories in the political map on article. I must note here very few countries in the world are totally free from territorial disputes but the political map in these countries only show the territories claimed by that particular country with no references to disputes. I do not see why this should be an exception for India and Pakistan. The disputed map can be added in the article about the territorial dispute.-- UplinkAnsh ( talk) 11:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}} Minor (descriptive) grammar error in the "Culture" section: please change "the nuclear family are becoming more common in urban areas" to either "the nuclear family is becoming more common in urban areas or "nuclear families are becoming more common in urban areas."
Pstenos ( talk) 20:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Pstenos: Done. Thanks for taking time to point out the typo. -- Lovysinghal ( talk) 20:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}}
India is emrging Super Power
210.94.41.89 ( talk) 08:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Not done: Please provide a reliable source and detail the change you would like to make in a 'please change X to Y' manner. You may also want to compose the content where you have access to a spelling and grammar checking tool. Thanks, Celestra ( talk) 13:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Staana is a Sankrit word which means place!!!! one only has to look it up in the dictionary! its even mentioned on the HIndustan page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindustan.
Does anyone object to my edit ??
thank you . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhruvekhera ( talk • contribs) 05:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
-- 92.4.112.133 ( talk) 19:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
There are some small inconsistencies across articles:
I have removed the mention of Bose and the armed revolutionaries in the indian independence movement from the lead. They were added by Nuclear warfare in the article and in the lead. I don't think they belong in the lead in the same line as the nonviolent movement. Their contribution to the independence struggle is only minor when compared to the nonviolent movement. So, yes for the article, but no for the lead, where we can't make this distinction-- Sodabottle ( talk) 08:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I undid an by User:Rhadamanthus222 because the source doesn't fit WP:RS. There are other problems with this insertion as pointed out in edit summaries of prior removals. User:Rhadamanthus222 needs to discuss and make a case here before adding the content again. Zuggernaut ( talk) 18:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Rhadmanthus, this info belongs in the "History of India" article. This is an extremely short summary style article. we can't delve into etymology of the word Aryan here. I was the first one to revert you and i cited this same reason - undue here. Now three editors have disagreed with you, don't add the information unless consensus supports it.-- Sodabottle ( talk) 04:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I would request all editors to cool down and try to reach consensus. I would suggest User:Rhadamanthus222 not to make any further edits till consensus is reached. Also User:Sodabottle must stop calling someone newbie as it is a personal attack. Now about the topic, according to CIA factbook 72% of Indians are Aryans. This definitely suggests that Aryans had been a major factor in the history of India. I would request the editors who oppose the move to add 2 words in the history section to provide a reason that why the history and roots of 3/4 of Indian population is so unimportant that it cannot get a negligible space of 2 words in Indian article.-- UplinkAnsh ( talk) 09:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
What you call "glaringly significant SINGULAR word" is a still contested theory. What may look like undisputed fact to you is still not the "undisputed fact" as our own Indigenous Aryans article shows. Now you are manufacturing conspiracy theories. Me or CarTick being a south-indians has nothing to do with this debate. and what exactly does " I will try to take measures to have this issue looked into" mean? -- Sodabottle ( talk) 18:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Rhadamanthus, it's fine that you have lots of evidence, but I'm sure adherents of opposing views have lots of evidence, too. The problem is that we don't have space to cover all this in the article, and it is fairer to leave the issue out than to put in one view and leave out the others. -- Beirne ( talk) 18:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I would suggest User:Rhadamanthus222 to add these sources on articles like Indigenous Aryans, Vedic period, Indo-Aryan migrations or Historical definitions of races in India. Though the sources report new findings of 2001 off the coast of Dwarka and multiple prominent historical research consisting documentaries and reports however this is not the topic for these research. However I would like to propose that the Indian article should at least consist contain some mention of the ethnicity of Indian population in the body or infobox.-- UplinkAnsh ( talk) 20:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
My mistake, I overlooked that section and did not notice that it was mentioned. I take back my proposal.-- UplinkAnsh ( talk) 20:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I think the current wording is fine. The progression from Harappan period to Vedic period, without attempting to get into the ethnicity of the people involved, is the best way to approach this in a summary article. Historians are reasonably confident that there was a Vedic period but are less confident about ethnic lineages. (I'm assuming that the edit in question is this one.) -- RegentsPark ( talk) 02:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
And on the verbal question: arya is Sanskrit, but it did not originate in Sanskrit; it is at least Indo-Iranian (indeed Iran is the cognate); it may be Indo-European; its oldest attestation is in Mitanni. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)