Talk:India

Ammend to create two titles: Foreign relations and military

Foreign relations and military are two different subjects and deals with two different things. Basically to make a distinction officially, foreign relations deals with relation with other countries, diplomacy whereas military deals with armed forces, military stats, info ; military exercices etc... of similar kind and nature.

There is no country in the wiki which has termed 'Foreign relations and military' together in one heading. Neighboring countries like Japan, China, Pakistan, South Korea, USA, UK etc .... articles has formatted as such (Foreign relations and military - under two different title headings.

Under what circumstance, conditions, perception, economics and reality is Foreign relations and military termed under one heading and one section? I adhere and ammend to change this to different title i.e one is "Foreign relations" and the other is "military". Both title should have their own relevant materials not mixing up and making a ketchup article.

I commend each contributor who has contributed in growing and taking my suggestion to vastly improve the article. Though we can improve it more and it should be done. But now, it looks far much perfect than any time before.

--Varghese Jacob (talk)

FAR

I'm afraid this article no longer meets FA standards. People are adding material willy nilly. The history section, for example, has become quite shabby. Off the top of my head, I noticed the following howlers:

1. Since when did we start calling the Indian rebellion of 1857 "India's first war of independence?" (There was no nationalism in India until late in the 19th century.) Amazingly, the new NCERT high-school textbooks used widely all over India call it the "Indian rebellion of 1857." So, why is Wikipedia using this somewhat anachronistic Indian nationalist term?
2. I believe, India, under the Raj, was directly ruled, not by the [[British Crown]] (which is the monarchy), but by the [[The Crown|British Crown]].
3. If the following sentences don't constitute POV, then I don't know what does: " The British Raj followed an economic policy which curtailed India's manufacturing exports and made it more reliant on British goods. As a consequence, India's handicraft industry suffered a serious setback and India's per capita income remained stagnant throughout the Colonial era.[44] Between 1860 and 1900, the Indian subcontinent suffered some of the worst famines in its history causing the death of about 14.5 million people.[45]" I could equally have said, "The British Raj followed an economic policy of modernizing India by building roads, railroads, telegraph lines, and irrigation canals, by introducing primary and higher education on a nation-wide scale, etc., etc." (all with impeccable references).
4. The sentence "Several Indian radical revolutionaries, such as Subhash Chandra Bose and Bhagat Singh, led armed rebellions against the British Raj," is bogus. Bhagat Singh shot a police officer and threw a dud bomb. The Raj didn't notice him. And Bose, a deluded politician, was ejected by the Indian National Congress in the nick of time and then pretended to fight the British in the Burmese jungles. When the British Army, stretched thin during WWII, finally found time to breath, they whupped his army silly in a couple of weeks. Where, in contrast, are the many giants of Indian nationalism? Dadabhai Naoroji, Gopal Krishna Gokhale, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, ...., C. Rajagopalachari, Jawaharlal Nehru, Sardar Patel, Rajendra Prasad and so forth? I'm afraid Wikipedia seems to be caving in to the Hindu nationalist sentiment in India which lionizes Bhagat Singh and Bose, in part to take the luster off Gandhi (whose blood they have on their hands).
5. The description of the political integration of India is inaccurate. Kashmir is disputed territory. Its accession to India is not recognized by the UN. and so forth.
6. There are numerous gratuitous references to famines littered throughout the text.

I will check again in a week's time. If the history section has not improved, I shall nominated the article for a Featured Article Review (FAR). It probably needs one anyway. It's been four years. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

You discount the fact that things may have changed in 4-6 years and I disagree with your third point about British economic polices. The clearly stated view of the representative of the Indian people, the Indian Prime Minister and economist Manmohan Singh is that the British Raj plundered India economically. Here's what he said in Cambridge while receiving a doctorate in Civil Law:

There is no doubt that our grievances against the British Empire had a sound basis. As the painstaking statistical work of the Cambridge historian Angus Maddison has shown, India's share of world income collapsed from 22.6 per cent in 1700, almost equal to Europe's share of 23.3 per cent at that time, to as low as 3.8 per cent in 1952.

He was using this data:

Shares of World GDP (Percent of world total)

Year	0	1000	1500	1600	1700	1820	1870	1913	1950	1973	1998
United Kingdom	-	-	1.1	1.8	2.9	5.2	9.1	8.3	6.5	4.2	3.3
India	32.9	28.9	24.5	22.6	24.4	16.0	12.2	7.6	4.2	3.1	5.0

• Maddison, Angus; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2003), The world economy: historical statistics, Development Centre of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, ISBN 9789264104129 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
• Singh, Manmohan (2005), In acceptance of an Honorary Degree from Oxford University on 8 July, 2005, The Hindu, retrieved January 31, 2011
• Singh, Manmohan (2005-10-02), Of Oxford, economics, empire, and freedom, Chennai: The Hindu, retrieved 3 February 2011

How is it that the industrial revolution led to the UK being the first industrialized country in the world where as India, under the same government, became one of the poorest nations in the world with little or no industrialization?

If this goes to FAR, I will vote to remove the FA status of this article unless the article expands on the negative impact of the British Raj on the Indian economy, the creation of poverty in India by the British Raj and other ills of the Empire. Zuggernaut (talk) 06:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Fowler, some of the concerns raised by you are legitimate. Some don't make much sense. Anyways,

1. "India's First War of Independence" is a term which has been used widely in academic circles (and its usage is not limited to NCERT books). Whatever may be the motives behind the origin of the term (including nationalism), fact remains that this term is a widely used one and there is no harm if the article mentions it. Anyways, I'm not a big fan of the term either and we can remove it if it is too much of an issue.
2. My knowledge is limited here. From what I understand, the Governor-Generals and the Secretaries of State served as the legal representatives of the British Cabinet and therefore, the British monarchy did not have direct control over India. So, maybe, you are right.
3. The Raj's curtailment of India's handicraft and other manufactured exports and the adverse impact of these policies on India's economy are well proven facts; there is no POV here. At the same time, the Raj also initiated other policies which had a positive impact on the economy. Policy A did harm and Policy B did good. So, does that mean we cannot mention Policy A? Your argument should not be that the current text is POV or nonfactual; your argument should be that the current text does not provide all the facts. In my opinion, the challenge here is to provide all that information in a summarized, to-the-point manner.
4. Just mentioning the non-violent resistance and turning a blind eye to the armed rebellion is not very encyclopedic. Why view everything here with the perspective of "Indian nationalism"? Besides, the text does point out that non-violent resistance formed the defining aspect of the independence movement. Anyways, if it so much of an issue, we can remove "such as Subhash Chandra Bose and Bhagat Singh". Also, usage of terms such as "lionizes" and "blood on their hands" etc. do not facilitate healthy discussion.
5. And which part of the current text indicate that Kashmir is not a disputed territory or India's rule over Kashmir is universally recognized? Read -- "the Line of Control formed the de facto border between Indian and Pakistani Kashmir."
6. "Numerous"? That's an exaggeration. Two references for famine and you term it as "numerous"?

--King Zebu (talk) 07:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts:

1) Use the article title, remove both Sepoy Mutiny and First War of Independence.

3) It does appear to show POV even if sourced. The problem is balance, A shouldn't be mentioned without B, and the History section is close to maximum length already. It is difficult to summarize such debated points effectively, as the famine conversations above have shown.

4) I think the objection here is that the violent resistance mentioned here really wasn't anything special, and (I assume this is the point) is very UNDUE. Of course, a sentence can mention the violent rebellion, but I think everyone agrees India is famous for its nonviolent revolution.

5) I must admit I'm confused on Fowler's point here as well. Which part exactly is wrong?

6) I'm guessing that Fowler is noting the "Even though India has avoided famines in recent decades," blablabla. This does seem like unnecessary SYNTH, and is OR due to not being in the source. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Zuggernaut, Please read WP:Main article fixation. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

King Zebu and Chipmunkdavis:

1. Agree with Chipmunks's take. I'm saying that even the NCERT textbooks do not use the term First War of Independence. The Indian rebellion of 1857 page has had numerous discussions and each time they've chosen to retain the name. The name most often used in academic writing and in tertiary sources (Britannica, Encarta) is the "Indian Rebellion of 1857." That's why I'm surprised that the India page has changed the name to suit someone's POV.

3. No one is saying that British rule in India didn't have ill-effects, but it also had positive effects. To mention one and not the other is not encyclopedic. Other encyclopedias can be a guide here. Britannica in its gargantuan History of India section (where each of the eight subsections is longer than Wikipedia's entire History of India page) devotes just a small amount of space to these negative effects. For example, it names only one famine by name—The Bengal famine of 1770— and devotes half a sentence collectively to the late 19th century famines in the context of talking about the first censuses in India.) How then are we devoting more space to famines in Wikipedia's painfully brief history summary in the India page. Again Chipmunk has it right: the problem is one of balance.

4. Sorry, King Zebu, about using provocative language. Violence by any Indian, revolutionary or not, was never a threat to the British in India. That is what they feared, after 1857, especially from the Muslim areas, and that is what they were always ready for. Please examine Britannica's History section and see how much (or the lack thereof) space it devotes to Bose (or Bhagat Singh). If we maintain the same proportions, Bose will not get even one word. Besides there have been numerous discussions on the talk page about this. And the decision each time was to not mention either Bose or Bhagat Singh. So how did this change? Where are the discussions for them? There is no mention in the history section of the elections of 1937, which were more important historically for India's independence than anything Bose attempted to do.

5 As for Kashmir, King Zebu, the discussion of accession certainly leaves the impression (for an average reader) that Kashmir acceded to India in October 1947. Legally, and under international law, that is. Again, here, Wikipedia's Kashmir page should be a guide.

6 There are three references to famines (two in History and one in Economy); the Famine in India article is linked twice. Yup, Chipmunk, I am counting Economy. Thanks for replying. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, hope this works. --King Zebu (talk) 11:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

As for the Kashmir issue, the text says "...Maharaja of Kashmir to seek military assistance from India and signed the Instrument of Accession." The text merely specifies that the Maharaja signed the Instrument of Accession and does not draw any conclusion on the legitimacy of Kashmir's accession to India. --King Zebu (talk) 11:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's better, but this sort of thing can't be done on the fly. For example, regardless of what the Metcalfs say, the British really built the canals anew, and thousands and thousands of miles of them. The old Mughal canals in North India were rudimentary ones that had silted up soon after construction. The British brought modern engineering principles to bear in their construction. So, "extended" is not accurate. Besides the negatives in your description still outweigh the positives. Still too many references to famines. Where is the mention of social reform? Of the India wide justice system? Of the thousands of primary and secondary schools and the universities?

As for Kashmir, the description that the Instrument of Accession was signed in the wake of Pakistani aggression is itself Indian POV. There was an indigenous movement against the Maharajah. Contrast your description with what the Britannica article on Kashmir says:

By the terms agreed to by India and Pakistan for the partition of the Indian subcontinent, the rulers of princely states were given the right to opt for either Pakistan or India or—with certain reservations—to remain independent. Hari Singh, the maharaja of Kashmir, initially believed that by delaying his decision he could maintain the independence of Kashmir, but, caught up in a train of events that included a revolution among his Muslim subjects along the western borders of the state and the intervention of Pashtun tribesmen, he signed an Instrument of Accession to the Indian union in October 1947. This was the signal for intervention both by Pakistan, which considered the state to be a natural extension of Pakistan, and by India, which intended to confirm the act of accession. ... Although there was a clear Muslim majority in Kashmir before the 1947 partition, and its economic, cultural, and geographic contiguity with the Muslim-majority area of the Punjab could be convincingly demonstrated, the political developments during and after the partition resulted in a division of the region. Pakistan was left with territory that, although basically Muslim in character, was thinly populated, relatively inaccessible, and economically underdeveloped. The largest Muslim group, situated in the Vale of Kashmir and estimated to number more than half the population of the entire region, lay in Indian-administered territory, with its former outlets via the Jhelum valley route blocked.

Admittedly, it has the luxury of space, but the point of view is quite different. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

How about not discussing positives and negatives? How about just deleting them all? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

That I agree with. Unless something is a clearly documented positive or negative, it should not go in the summary article on India but is better discussed in sub-articles where the nuances can be properly documented. May I suggest that someone move these positives and negatives into something like Economic Effects of British Rule in India or into Famine in India? Meanwhile, we can limit this article to well documented political changes, the sort that usually comprises historical descriptions. --rgpk (comment) 15:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

No, there were some positives and many negatives. On the net, British rule of India was very negative. Worst of all, it sent a false message to the enslaved Indians - Indians are unable to govern themselves, they are the white man's burden. If this is a summary level article and if we dedicate only one line to British rule of India, it should be something on the lines - "British rule of India had a negative impact on India and the damage done to the Indian people will take several generations overcome". Zuggernaut (talk) 15:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Zuggernaut, history is a complicated thing, not the least because of the counterfactual unknowns. I think that an academic department is better suited than an encyclopedia for that sort of analysis. Meanwhile, let's not get carried away by our emotions and let's just stick to the facts here. --rgpk (comment) 16:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Fowler, regarding Kashmir, there is only one difference here -- the civil unrest/communal tensions in the region. That factor also contributed to Hari Singh's decision to sign the Instrument of Accession with India. I'll rectify this.

Regarding extension of canals, etc. I'm strictly following the sources here (and I'm pretty sure that is in line with WP:Verifiability). The Mughal canals might be "rudimentary", but how about a source for that claim? Secondly, the Metcalfs (like many other authors) were critical of these massive British "public works" in India and therefore, the status of these projects as a positive for India is debatable. For example, all the railway locomotives etc. were directly imported from Britain and as a consequence, the railway program had negligible effect on India's industrialization. Moreover, the primary purpose of the railways was to transfer Indian raw materials to colonial ports and in return, transport manufactured British goods to Indian market. If anything, the railways fastened the destruction of India's manufacturing industry and its reliance on British imports. Lastly, if we are not able to come up with a well summarized and comprehensive analysis of the legacy of the Raj, then obviously we have no choice but to delete all the positives and negatives. Regents suggestion that we can create a separate article analyzing the socio-economic legacy of the Raj seems perfect. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to commit myself to any such initiative. --King Zebu (talk) 16:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Chipmunk's suggestion: do away with both the positives and the negatives. There is really no conclusive evidence that British rule in India had more negatives than positives. At least the 15 books that I have used in the past don't agree on any such thing. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

And I can produce a lot of sources which show the Raj in a more negative light. So, the sources are not an issue here. I will prefer removing the positives and negatives only when we reach a dead-end and there is no hope in sight. --King Zebu (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not talking about a lot of sources. I'm talking about the standard history textbooks that are used in colleges around the world, books that have already been peer-reviewed for some balance. They together don't agree that British rule had more negatives than positives. In fact, some consider the reverse to be true. I don't want to get into a content argument with you here as you are not making much sense. The benefit of a railway system to an economy has little to do with the jobs it provides directly in the manufacture of the rail cars etc; it has more to do with the accessibility it grants to businesses and individuals in the economy. India had the fourth largest railway network in the world in 1900 and Indians by the millions were using them, to travel for work, to travel for business, to ship grain, and so forth. Similarly, sure, there were problems with the canal system (salinity and increased threat of malaria in adjoining lands for one), but both Punjab and Western UP owe their agricultural wealth to the extensive canal system that the British built and to nothing else. If you are taking the point of view that there are more negatives than positives (and apparently you seem to), then, I'm afraid, we have already reached that dead end. As for Kashmir, no its not just a question of adding another half sentence. It is the tone. The current tone represents an Indian POV. For example, the same popular local sentiment that wanted Hyderabad or Junagadh to be absorbed into India, also wanted Kashmir to be absorbed into Pakistan. We don't get any inkling of that. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Definitely Student's Britannica does not qualify your description of a "book that has already been peer-reviewed for some balance". Right? And please go through my comment again - I was specifying the view of the Metcalfs on the railways, not my personal views. If you want my personal opinion, definitely the railways and canals had an immense positive impact. There is no doubt about that and therefore, restating the obvious is not required here. But unfortunately for you, personal opinion and analysis do not matter much here. An encyclopedia should present a comprehensive perspective and given the different academic viewpoints (such as those put forward by Metcalfs), to state that the rail network was an absolute positive for India is perhaps wrong. Anyways, neither do I have the time nor the motivation to carry this discussion forward. As you said, we have reached a dead-end.

Regarding Kashmir, the current description of events seems perfectly fine to me. I would be glad if you could come up with a more neutral wording. --King Zebu (talk) 18:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, none of the sources which I have read so far (including the Britannica article you mentioned above) directly links the Kashmiri Muslim unrest in August 1947 to "popular local sentiment" in favor of Kashmir's absorption into Pakistan. You are trying to draw your own conclusions here. --King Zebu (talk) 18:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

After Zuggernaut's latest edit, I just removed the economic information. Honestly it's too much for a short summary in what is already a long history section. Whether the British Raj, or even colonialism in general, was a net positive, negative, undeterminable, etc. is not for us to decide. The fact is, it's extremely debatable, and such issues are debated to this day. Adding any point of view will create a sudden need for balance, and such things can spiral out of control. I'm fairly certain that any linkage of British policies/actions to negative or positive effects for India will be extremely debatable, as consensus for anything other than simple statements will not be reached. As such I've left the sentence about famine in, it's a basic statement. During X time, a famine happened resulting in Y deaths. No why, what for, or questions, so it is much harder to say that is POV. Whether it is due or not is another question. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

That's fine with me, Chipmunk, but the India page probably needs an FAR anyway. I'll take a look at it over the weekend, but in skimming it, I find that it reads poorly, a result, I feel, of various editors, stuffing their pet edit in whether it blends with the rest of the text or not. King Zebu, it's not the Students' Britannica; it's the real deal, the main Britannica in which the long History of India section is written by eight historians (Frank Raymond Allchin for Indus Valley, Romila Thapar for Ancient India, Muzaffar Alam for Early Muslim rule, Muzaffar Alam for the Mughals, Sanjay Subrahmanyam for early Modern, Percival Spear for Company Rule and Stanley Wolpert for the Raj, and there are a couple I don't remember off the top of my head.) The 15 text books I linked above don't have the Britannica in them though. As for canal construction, here's Ian Stone in Canal Irrigation in British India, Cambridge University Press, 1984:

Many of these indigenous works (e.g. Western Jumna Canal (WJC), Eastern Jumna Canal (EJC), built at first by Firoze Shah Tughlaq and the Mughals—my explanation) did not achieve what was expected of them, or at least did so for a comparatively short period. Engineering capabilities understandably fell some way short of what was shown subsequently to be necessary for the design and construction of large-scale canal systems, and the history of the indigenous version of both the WJC and the EJC is one of a succession of setbacks. Pre-British works made little use of masonry structures and those taking off from the Jumna and others in an around the Doab, shared the characteristic of avoiding high ground and following the courses of rivers and drainage lines whenever possible. These crude works were thus vulnerable to the effects of floods and silt deposits, and, as well as causing swamps and damage to low-lying land (as did the Rohilla version of the EJC around Saharanpur), were of limited use for purposes of irrigation.

I might have been more blunt, but that's pretty much what I said. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

PS Chipmunk: I think you allude to it in the fine print, but "During X time, a famine happened resulting in Y deaths. No why, what for, or questions, so it is much harder to say that is POV," begs out for "During X time, the world's fourth largest railway network was built, which was also the largest in Asia." "During a six year period from 1848 to 1854, the world's longest and largest irrigation canal was built." And so forth. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Most of the problems pointed out by Fowler have been addressed. Thanks to the continuous work by King Zebu and the careful watch of several other editors, this article is our finest and it does meet our FA standards. Fowler is more than welcome to point out flaws over the weekend and there are many eager editors over here who will fix them. I feel there is no need for a FAR but if it goes there, I am sure it will pass. I am concerned that Fowler, who is the second highest contributor to the article has a WP:OWNERSHIP problem with the article. Fowler has a particular POV that he will not budge from. To have articles read from his POV, he has in the past, at Doji bara famine, ignored things like the following in sources:

The mortality of the 1790s famines must be blamed on the British, who had a responsibility to provide alternative famine foods when the main rice crop failed. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks don't help Zug. If you feel there is ownership or similar issues, take it to an appropriate venue, something you've been told many times before.

I too have no doubt a FAR would be passed, although I see no harm in Fowler listing it if they feel it is necessary.

To Fowler, that's a good point, I suppose it's a matter of weight. Were famines important in the development of the country? Were railways important? Might be worth ignoring current text and going through sources you and others seems to have just laying around and see what weight they give different events. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Chipmunk, Most of this work has already been done. For example, the negatives are discussed in this section of the History of the British Raj, which I wrote some three or four years ago. But, as you will see, in the later sections there, there's a lot more to this history, in particular, the slow reforms instituted by the British that gradually brought self-governance to India. It brought about the give and take that in the end made Gandhi's effort successful. The positives can be found in Company rule in India. How does one summarize such history into a series of blurbs about famines and violent revolutionaries? The problem is that people don't want to do the hard work of actually creating real content by examining a large number of sources. They'd rather cram their favorite myths into the most viewed articles. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I have now gone through most of the History section. I believe there are significant POV and UNDUE issues in it. I have noted these issues in boldface on a subpage: User:Fowler&fowler/POV Issues in India-History Section. The last three paragraphs remain, and I will attend to them later. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

PS Over and over again, I see that people inserting text into the History Section have not read the parent articles. The references they are using are quite different from the ones in the parent articles, and usually of very poor quality. The history section seems to be a classic case of WP:Main article fixation. The section has gone from this version of July 2009 which had fewer POV issues, to the shabby POV-ridden version of today. I'm tagging the article for neutrality. I will wait for a week and then begin FAR proceedings. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Differences

Differences between the 2009 version above and the current one. A couple of the changes were from the recent discussion. Most are not. I may have made one or two mistakes. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Differences begin

Under the rule of Akbar the Great, India enjoyed much cultural and economic progress as well as religious harmony. Mughal emperors gradually expanded their empires to cover large parts of the subcontinent. However, in North-Eastern India, the dominant power was the Ahom kingdom of Assam, among the few kingdoms to have resisted Mughal subjugation. The first major threat to Mughal imperial power came from a Hindu state known as the Maratha confederacy, that dominated much of India in the mid-18th century.


From the 16th century, European powers such as Portugal, the Netherlands, France, and the United Kingdom established trading posts and later took advantage of internal conflicts to establish colonies in the country. By 1856, most of India was under the control of the British East India Company. A year later, a nationwide insurrection of rebelling military units and kingdoms, known as India's First War of Independence or the Sepoy Mutiny, seriously challenged the Company's control but eventually failed. As a result of the instability, India was brought under the direct rule of the British Crown.

In the 20th century, a nationwide struggle for independence was launched by the Indian National Congress and other political organisations. Indian leader Mahatma Gandhi led millions of people in national campaigns of non-violent civil disobedience. On 15 August 1947, India gained independence from British rule, but at the same time Muslim-majority areas were partitioned to form a separate state of Pakistan. On 26 January 1950, India became a republic and a new constitution came into effect.



































Since independence, India has faced challenges from religious violence, casteism, naxalism, terrorism and regional separatist insurgencies, especially in Jammu and Kashmir and Northeast India. Since the 1990s terrorist attacks have affected many Indian cities. India has unresolved territorial disputes with P. R. China, which in 1962 escalated into the Sino-Indian War; and with Pakistan, which resulted in wars in 1947, 1965, 1971 and 1999. India is a founding member of the United Nations (as British India) and the Non-Aligned Movement. In 1974, India conducted an underground nuclear test and five more tests in 1998, making India a nuclear state. Beginning in 1991, significant economic reforms have transformed India into one of the fastest-growing economies in the world, increasing its global clout.

Under the rule of Akbar the Great, India enjoyed much cultural and economic progress as well as religious harmony. The Mughals also forged a strategic alliance with several Hindu Rajput kingdoms. However, some Rajput kings, such as Maharana Pratap, continued to pose significant threat to Mughal dominance of northwestern India. Additionally, regional empires in southern and northeastern India, such as the Ahoms of Assam, successfully resisted Mughal subjugation. The reign of Aurangzeb saw the enforcement of strict Muslim fundamentalism which caused rebellions among the Sikhs and Hindu Rajputs. By early 1700s, the Sikh Empire and the Hindu Marathas had emerged as formidable foes of the Mughals. Following the death of Aurangzeb, the Mughal Empire entered a period of gradual decline and by mid-18th century, a large portion of the Mughal territory came under the control of the Maratha Empire.

From the 16th century, European imperialist nations, such as Portugal, the Netherlands, Denmark, France, and Great Britain, established trading posts in India and later took advantage of various internal conflicts to establish colonies. By 1856, most of India had come under the control of the British East India Company. A year later, a nationwide insurrection of rebelling military units and kingdoms seriously challenged the Company's control but eventually failed. As a result of the instability, India was brought under the direct rule of the British Crown. Between 1860 and 1900, the Indian subcontinent suffered some of the worst famines in its history causing the death of about 14.5 million people.


In the 20th century, a nationwide struggle for independence was launched by the Indian National Congress (INC) and other political organisations. Some Indian radical revolutionaries led armed rebellions against the British Raj. However, the defining aspect of the Indian independence movement was the nonviolent resistance led by Mahatma Gandhi and the INC. Under the leadership of Gandhi, millions of Indians participated in the Quit India civil disobedience movement against the British Raj.

In September 1939, India declared war on Germany and at the height of the World War II, more than 2.5 million Indian soldiers were fighting against the Axis powers. The Indian Army was one of the largest Allied forces contingents which took part in the North and East African, Western Desert and the Italian Campaign and played a crucial role in halting the progress of Imperial Japan in the South-East Asian theatre. However, certain Indian nationalists collaborated with the Axis powers to overthrow the British Raj. The Indian National Army (INA), led by Subhash Chandra Bose, forged an alliance with the Axis powers and fought an unsuccessful military campaign against British India.

In 1943, a perceived shortage of food leading to large-scale hoarding and soaring food prices coupled with poor food distribution mechanism and inadequate response of the British officials resulted in a catastrophic famine in the Bengal region which killed about 1.5 to 3 million people. After World War II, a number of mutinies broke out in the Air Force and Navy and the INA trials caused considerable public unrest. On 15 August 1947, the British Raj was dissolved following which the Muslim-majority areas were partitioned which led to the creation of a separate sovereign dominion known as Pakistan. The partition led to a population transfer of more than 10 million people between India and Pakistan and the death of about one million people.

Soon after the end of the British Raj, the accession of the 552 princely states to the Union of India went smoothly with the exception of Junagadh, Kashmir and Hyderabad. Junagadh acceded to Pakistan which caused considerable internal unrest. As a consequence, India militarily occupied Junagadh and held a plebiscite, following which Junagadh joined India. After negotiations between India and then Nizam of Hyderabad ended in a stalemate, India launched a successful "police action" to annex Hyderabad. Facing deteriorating political situation, unrest among the Muslim-majority populace and a Pakistani military invasion, the then Maharaja of Kashmir decided to seek military assistance from India and signed the Instrument of Accession. The subsequent armed conflict between India and Pakistan ended in December 1948 and the Line of Control formed the de facto border between Indian and Pakistani Kashmir.

On 26 January 1950, India became a republic and a new constitution came into effect under which the country was established as a secular and a democratic state. In 1961, India successfully invaded Goa to liberate it from Portuguese rule, following which Goa was incorporated into the Indian union. India's unresolved territorial disputes with the People's Republic of China escalated into the 1962 Sino-Indian War, which resulted in India losing control over northeastern Ladakh region. In 1965, Pakistan's failed attempt to infiltrate and invade Indian Kashmir triggered the Second Kashmir War. A third major war broke out between India and Pakistan in 1971 which resulted in a decisive Indian victory and the creation of Bangladesh. During the early 1970s, Sikkim faced a popular pro-democratic movement and a referendum was held in 1975, following which Sikkim merged with India. In the 1980s, India launched a successful military offensive in Siachen which helped it gain control over most of the region. In 1999, Pakistani soldiers infiltrated into the Kargil region of Indian Kashmir, following which India responded with a successful military campaign to drive out the infiltrators.

Since independence, India has faced challenges from religious violence, casteism, naxalism, terrorism and regional separatist insurgencies, especially in Kashmir and northeastern region. India is a state armed with nuclear weapons; having conducted its first nuclear test in 1974, followed by another five tests in 1998. 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. Beginning 1991, significant economic reforms have transformed India into one of the fastest-growing economies in the world, increasing its global clout.

Differences end

So, I think some of these changes were for the worst. Not mentioning the addition of famine information, as the relevance of those sections is being debated elsewhere.

1) Details about Muslim fundamentalism and the brilliant success of Hindus against the subjugation of the Mughals --> Too detailed.

2) The change from European Powers to European Imperialist Nations seems pointless at best.

3) Mention of revolutionaries has already been noted as UNDUE, especially as they appear to have achieved buggerall. This strangely seems to be POV against India, trying to make sure it is noted that some Indians were violent.

4) All the WWII information seems UNDUE. Mentioning the large Indian participation is probably useful, but all the detail of how and where they were important doesn't add anything. Fowler has already noted that India didn't independently declare war. Once again the strange POV that Indians declared armed war against the raj, mutinies and alliances with the Japanese, even though it achieved nothing.

5) "The partition led to a population transfer of more than 10 million people between India and Pakistan and the death of about one million people." This is a very unbalanced sentence. There are much deeper reasons for the population transfer, and it wasn't the partition itself that caused the deaths, it was intercommunal violence between Indians, something that goes strangely unmentioned.

6) The whole section of the princely states is probably too detailed, but as it stands it is written in a very pro-Indian fashion. When India takes control of a state, it is a "Military occupation", even a "Police action". Pakistan however threatens with "Military invasion".

7) India "liberat[ing]" Goa seems like too much detail, and is not very neutrally worded.

8) Northeastern Ladakh? It's a misleading ridirect, and in addition China was in control of the region before the war. The Chinese building of roads without Indian knowledge is one of the reasons the war started.

9) The whole section about India-Pakistan wars is grossly anti-Pakistan POV. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Very well dissected, Chipmunk. I think the best thing would be to roll back the history section to the version of 2009 and then ask editors to justify their proposed edits here. The famine text (current version) is not accurate. For one the hoarding and profiteering by Indian merchants, moneylenders, farmers and landed gentry is not mentioned at all. This figures prominently in most accounts, including those of Sen. For another, there was an Indian provisional government in place that was as much to blame as the British administrators. This too goes unmentioned. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Almost all the new edits have been introduced in a series of edits between early November 2010 and early February 2011. Some of these edits were reverted by other editors, but they were finessed back in. For the history, please see my subpage: User:Fowler&fowler/Significant edits to India history section.

Since no discussion was conducted on the talk page before inserting these significant edits, and since the edit summaries often were less than transparent (e.g. "adding info"), I now feel confident that a rollback is in order. I'm actually astounded that so much material can be introduced in such a short time in a featured article by one editor. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC) Updated. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC) Further updated. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The statement "Under the rule of Akbar the Great, India enjoyed much cultural and economic progress as well as religious harmony. Mughal emperors gradually expanded their empires to cover large parts of the subcontinent." gives an impression that cultural, economic and religious harmony did not exits before Akbar's rule. Better to edit the statement accordingly.188.50.23.250 (talk) 06:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Railways, canals, infrastructure

I've removed content related to building of infrastructure by the British Raj in India for the following reasons:

1. The British build all this infrastructure to aid them in running their empire and keep India subjugated. It cannot be seen as positive to Indians prior to 1947.
2. What was the benefit or return on investment to the average Indian? That is,
   1. Was the per capita income of the average Indian citizen increasing due to these investements in infrastructure?
   2. Was India's share of GDP in the world growing due to the building of rail-roads and other infrastructure?
3. Was the average Indian, tanned by the Indian sun and coated with the dust and soot of the sub-continent, allowed to travel on the railway by first-class sitting next to a white English person?
4. Who managed the railways? Did Indians hold any senior positions in the railways ?
5. The railways aided in exporting Indian grains and other produce, even in times of famines. How can this be called positive?
6. Improvements in transportation and communication meant that the British could quell nationalist movements faster. A telegram from Bomaby to Calcutta would hasten the arrest of an Indian freedom fighter in Calcutta much faster than in older days. How can this be positive for India?

If we must mention the building of railways, canals, communication systems, then we need to briefly touch on answers to some of the above questions. And that might be WP:UNDUE. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The six points you mention above are straight from Indian High School History textbooks. Yes, I agree with you that the British rule saw destruction of indigenous industry. However, British rule also saw introduction of the modern technologies of the day like railways, canals and dam building. For example, the world's first concrete dam was built at Khadakwasla near Pune back in the 1870s. It is 64 years since the British left. I believe it is time that we have a more balanced view regarding the cost and benefits of British rule in India. Jonathansammy (talk) 16:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Zuggernaut, here are your six points and my comment/questions on each of the point you raise.

1. The British build all this infrastructure to aid them in running their empire and keep India subjugated. It cannot be seen as positive to Indians prior to 1947.
2. What was the benefit or return on investment to the average Indian? That is,
   1. Was the per capita income of the average Indian citizen increasing due to these investements in infrastructure? Please provide references on the GDP per capita. If I am not mistaken, the per capita incomes actually went down or stayed stagnant for a long period after independence. It is only after the Manmohan Singh reforms of early 1990s that the Indian economy took off.
   2. Was India's share of GDP in the world growing due to the building of rail-roads and other infrastructure?
3. Was the average Indian, tanned by the Indian sun and coated with the dust and soot of the sub-continent, allowed to travel on the railway by first-class sitting next to a white English person? Do you think a brahmin of that period would have sat next to an untouchable in the carriage?
4. Who managed the railways? Did Indians hold any senior positions in the railways ? The British relied on the Anglo Indian population to run the railways. Although the Anglo-Indians did not think of themselves as "Indians", I don't think the British counted them as one of their lot
5. The railways aided in exporting Indian grains and other produce, even in times of famines. How can this be called positive? Do you have references on whether Britain imported grains from india ?
6. Improvements in transportation and communication meant that the British could quell nationalist movements faster. A telegram from Bomaby to Calcutta would hasten the arrest of an Indian freedom fighter in Calcutta much faster than in older days. How can this be positive for India? By the same token, the indian Nationalists from all corners of India could organize and meet at a short notice

Whatever the reasons, the British colonial rule in India did see the introduction of the state of the art technology of that era to the country. So my recommendation would be to restore the deleted text Jonathansammy (talk) 03:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:Burden, I am not required to provided sources. Some answers, nonetheless:

The GDP table is already shown above. I am pasting it here again with the additional inclusion of the USA.

Shares of World GDP (Percent of world total)

Year	0	1000	1500	1600	1700	1820	1870	1913	1950	1973	1998
United Kingdom	-	-	1.1	1.8	2.9	5.2	9.1	8.3	6.5	4.2	3.3
India	32.9	28.9	24.5	22.6	24.4	16.0	12.2	7.6	4.2	3.1	5.0
USA	-	-	0.3	0.2	0.1	1.8	8.9	19.1	27.3	22.0	21.9

United States became independent of Britain in 1776. India would have reached the same level of affluence and industrialization (or even better) had it been independent. There are numerous problems with India and Indian society and the caste system is one such problem. Your argument is not relevant here. If you want to improve an article on Human rights in India to GA or FA level, I pledge to contribute 1 or 2 paragraphs. Just google to find sources on who ran the railways, how much grain was exported from India. I agree with your last point but on the whole an independent India would have industrialized much faster. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Little chance that "India" would have reached the same level of affluence and industrialization (or even higher) had it been independent. First, in 1757, there was no India, but rather hundreds of medieval-era kingdoms with corrupt or ineffective rulers. See the Political history of Mysore and Coorg (1565–1760) for the description of one. Second, Maddison's historical statistics are very controversial (see Talk:Angus Maddison page), but one thing even Maddison doesn't contest is that the Indian economy was stagnant during the period 1550 to 1750, whereas the European and American economies were expanding. Third, both Great Britain and Colonial America were in the midst of a long scientific and technological ramp up, that eventually led to the Industrial Revolution. See the list of technological advances in Britain during the period 1500 to 1750 (before India became a significant part of the British economy). Colonial American inventions included the sextant, the lightning rod, mail order catalogs, bifocals, .... There was very little technological progress in India during the corresponding time. Tipu Sultan's vaunted rockets were characterized by British army engineers, who took them apart after his defeat, as schoolboy pyrotechnics. The sad truth is that in 1750, there was a immense technological gap between India and Europe. There's very little any Indian ruler could have done against the onslaught. Had it not been the British, some other mercantile power (Portugal, France, Denmark, Spain) would have gained ascendancy. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

There was no United Kingdom until the Treaty of Union of 1707 until which the English and the Scotts were fighting each other. Sure, not to take away anything from the English ingenuity that led to industrial revolution but leaders can arise anywhere at anytime and the possibilities of what could have happened in a free India are endless. I agree with the technological gap between India and Europe at that time. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

At the time of the Treaty of Union, the Kings of Scotland (in this case the queen, Queen Anne was ruling at the time) had been ruling England for more than 100 years. The 'English and the Scots' had not fought since the Tudors. The Kings of Scotland had used English military power to enforce their own religious prejudices on their country and the Scottish royal family had fought each other over the English throne. Nor did the Treaty of Union stop them. The Jacobites were not defeated for keeps until the Battle of Culloden almost 40 years AFTER the Treaty of Union. The Treaty of Union was a political settlement that formalized the rights of the Scottish peerage, gave the Scots the right to seat a parliament, and firmly extended the English Bill of Rights to cover all subjects of the Queen of Scotland and England be they English or Scottish. I know none of this is on topic, but historical accuracy is important in an historical discussion. Furthermore, on topic, England and Scotland had been ruled by one monarch for 100 years before the formation of a 'United Kingdom.' This is not comparable to multiple principalities and kingdoms ruled by multiple competing dynasties and constantly at war with one another. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.5.151.90 (talk) 00:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

This is complete OR. Best not to talk about it here on talk. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree, Fowler, let's stay focused on the content. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

RFC: Churchill quote - I hate Indians, they are a beastly people with a beastly religion

Previously uninvolved editors are invited to indicate support or opposition to the inclusion of the proposed content with a brief explanation of their position. The proposed content relateds to Winston Churchill's racist hatred of Indians and the Bengal famine. Here's the direct link to the content. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Current

Proposed

In 1943, a perceived shortage of food leading to large-scale hoarding and soaring food prices coupled with poor food distribution mechanism and inadequate response of the British officials resulted in a catastrophic famine in the Bengal region which killed about 1.5 to 3 million people.

In 1943, a perceived shortage of food leading to large-scale hoarding and soaring food prices coupled with poor food distribution mechanism and inadequate response of the British officials resulted in the last catastrophic famine in what would become the Republic of India. Several authors contend that the death toll from the Bengal famine, somewhere between 1.5 to 3 million people, would have been lesser had Winston Churchill not delayed food aid to the starving Bengalis, a decision attributed to his racist beliefs.

Note 1 reads: "I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion."

Sources

• Sen, Amartya, Poverty and famines: an essay on entitlement and deprivation, Oxford University Press, 1992, ISBN 0198284632, 9780198284635 {{citation}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)
• W. Morris, Christopher, Amartya Sen, Cambridge University Press, 2009, ISBN 0521618061, 9780521618069 {{citation}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)
• Sen, Amartya (2001), "Ideas of Justice", in Iqbal; You, J.I (eds.), Democracy, Market Economics, and Development: an Asian Perspective, Other World Bank Bks, Washington, D.C: World Bank, pp. 9–24, ISBN 9780821348628, LCCN 01017950 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |editor1-first1= ignored (help)
• Tharoor, Sashi (2003), Nehru: the invention of India, Arcade Pub., ISBN 9781559706971
• Ziegler, Philip (1985), Mountbatten, Knopf
• Tharoor, Sashi (2010), The Ugly Briton, Time {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• Hari, Johann (2010), The Two Churchills, The New York Times {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

References

• Support Current Lead - The proposed lead has some serious POV issues. Additionally, we should probably remove "and inadequate response of the British officials " from the current lead. NickCT (talk) 21:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose both proposed changes by Zuggernaut and NickCT Keeping it the way it is makes it more balanced than either proposed changes, both of which take the text too far in one POV. That Churchill quote could maybe go the Winston Churchill article but it is already at [1] his wikiquote page so that is possibly enough. Even better might be putting it at Indophobia]. Munci (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose both proposed and current versions. The current one is WP:UNDUE; the proposed, WP:ludicrous. Please see ample evidence on my subpage User:Fowler&fowler/Profiteering and hoarding in the Bengal famine of 1943, that the causes of the famine were more complex than Zuggernaut is stating in either versions. The main cause, as you will see on the subpage evidence, was profiteering, hoarding, and speculation by Indian farmers and grain merchants. There were other factors. The Japanese occupation of Burma prevented the usual import of Burmese rice. There was a cyclone in Midnapore. The British, already distracted by fighting World War II, were further stretched by the arrival of thousands upon thousands of refugees from Burma and Assam into Bengal. The Quite India Uprising of 1942 further strained their already depleted resources. Besides, there was an Indian provisional government in place in Bengal that is as much (if not more) to blame for the administrative chaos as the British. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC) Updated Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

PS. Churchill also said about Nehru: "This man has overcome two of the greatest failings in human nature; he knows neither fear nor hatred.". Churchill, who also opposed Indian independence, thus did have the ability to be generous and to introspect. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

PPS Churchill said about Gandhi (in 1935), "Mr. Gandhi has gone very high in my esteem since he stood up for the untouchables ... I do not care whether you are more or less loyal to Great Britain. Tell Mr. Gandhi to use the powers that are offered and make the thing a success." (Letter to G.D. Birla (1935)) Someone who has sympathy for the untouchables, the dregs of Indian society, in whose presence, even in 2011, most upper caste Indians wince, has to be more complex than this proposed blurb makes him out to be. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

According to Madhushree Mukherjee, Churchill loved the empire and hated Indians so much that he would rather destroy India than let it go. She says further that Churchill was just playing divide and rule while toying with the idea of pitching the untouchables, Muslims and Sikhs on the one side and Hindus on the other. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

But Churchill is not pitting untouchables against Hindus in these quotes. He is praising one Hindu (Gandhi) for standing up for the untouchables. As for Mukerjee's book, for a liberal perspective on it, read Joe Lelyveld's (former executive editor of the NYTimes) not very complimentary review in the NYReview of Books. Says Lelyveld:

"So if the argument is that no one was less likely to be Bengal’s savior at the start of 1943 when the danger of famine first became apparent to responsible colonial officials, then, clearly, there’s no defense for Churchill. But for all his fulminations, do his conspicuous acts of omission—his failure to dispatch emergency shipments—add up to anything approaching a “secret war”? In justifying her flaming title, Mukerjee seems to skirt the key conclusion reached by Amartya Sen long after the crisis: that it had little to do with an actual shortage of food in the stricken province.

Also read Amartya Sen's letter, critical of Mukerjee, (quoted by Lelyveld) in the NY Review of Books:

"Madhusree Mukerjee seems satisfied with little information. Mark Tauger’s data come from exactly two “rice research stations” from two districts in undivided Bengal, which had twenty-seven districts. Since weather variations have regionally diverse effects, it would require more than this to “seriously challenge” the analysis I made, using data from all districts, which indicated that food availability in 1943 (the famine year) was significantly higher than in 1941 (when there was no famine). Ignoring the range of data I used in my study, she misdescribes my estimates as being based only “on projections.” On the other point mentioned by Mukerjee, she makes a story out of a typo in my quotation from a statement of the secretary of state for India, omitting to mention that the typo has not the slightest bearing on my assessment of the food situation. Moreover, even a “shortage” of 1.4 million tons is a small proportion of the total crop of “60/70 million tons” (as the secretary of state mentioned). The confounding issue, of course, is the idea of “shortage” itself, as Lelyveld has noted. There was indeed a substantial shortfall compared with demand, hugely enhanced in a war economy, as I have described in detail, but that is quite different from a shortfall of supply compared with supply in previous years. Mukerjee seems to miss this crucial distinction, and in her single-minded, if understandable, attempt to nail down Churchill, she ends up absolving British imperial policy of confusion and callousness, which had disastrous consequences.

For a conservative perspective, read the critical review of Arthur Herman (author of Gandhi and Churchill (Pulitzer Prize Finalist for General Nonfiction, 2009)). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

A website run by "The Churchill Centre" is hardly a reliable source. I'm not sure you can cite the dialogue between Sen and Mukherjee in defense of Churchill. Sen is of the opinion that the entire British administration is to blame (Jonathansammy's has added the right word - "callous") which includes Churchill. Moreover in 1943 the famine was perceived to have happened due to a shortage in food. It was only decades later that Sen showed that there was in fact no such shortage. In 1943 to know that the famine was due to a shortage in food and then delay food aid is not only callous but inhuman. Zuggernaut (talk) 01:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't matter where the review is published; the author is a bona fide (if conservative) historian and author of a Pulitzer Prize finalist 700 page book on Gandhi and Churchill. The review is withering. Similarly both Lelyveld and Sen are saying that Churchill is the red herring. The problem, according to Churchill's advisors, was not a shortage of food, but hoarding by Indian merchants. Here is Lelyveld again:

Mukerjee is understandably incensed by the imperviousness of Churchill to the pleas to alleviate the famine from his top advisers on India, Amery and two successive viceroys, Lords Linlithgow and Wavell; and by his reliance on his science adviser, Lord Cherwell (known to the academic world as Frederick Lindemann before snaring his peerage), whose sycophancy and instinctive racism were usually apparent. Cherwell, portrayed here as an advocate of race-based eugenics, could be depended on to tell the prime minister what he wanted to hear: that the food crisis in India could be dealt with without diverting ships or dipping into stocks already designated for other theaters. ... Cherwell’s motives may have been suspect but Mukerjee insufficiently engages his analysis, which led him to conclusions broadly similar to those reached by Amartya Sen after careful study three decades later. Although the war cut off some sources of imported grains, there were in fact stored supplies of food that were being hoarded by Indians who hoped to sell them at higher prices. Food prices shot up to the extreme detriment of rural Bengalis “with very little overall decline,” Sen found, “in food output or aggregate supply.” In Cherwell’s view, imports were being sought to serve as a blunt instrument to break a price spiral that the colonial authorities had themselves triggered in their ineffectual attempts to control the price of food; in other words imports would be used, Cherwell wrote, “as a means of extracting food from hoarders.” There were more direct ways to deal with the problem, Cherwell argued, for example seizing the hoarded stocks, even hanging some hoarders. Making a similar point in a decidedly more gentle way, Sen notes the effectiveness in post-independence India of temporary large-scale employment schemes as a way of getting sufficient funds to endangered families in order to stabilize prices and prevent panic.

Both, Lelyveld and Sen, think that Mukerjee prefers to go after Churchill rather than explore the complexity of calamity. One should add that there was very little awareness in India itself of the famine. The newspapers, even nationalist ones, were quite late in reporting it. Gandhi himself, as Herman points out, said very little about it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC). Updated. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I propose amending Zuggernaut's text to the following: In 1943, a perceived shortage of food leading to large-scale hoarding and soaring food prices coupled with poor food distribution mechanism and inadequate response of the British officials resulted in the last catastrophic famine in what would become the Republic of India. Several authors contend that the death toll from the Bengal famine, somewhere between 1.5 to 3 million people, would have been lesser had the British Government, led by prime minister Winston Churchill, not delayed food aid to the starving Bengalis, a decision attributed to callous indifference and even to the racist beliefs held by Churchill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathansammy (talk • contribs) 15:30, 7 February 2011

I don't agree with this. There is no reason to include debatable historical conclusions, even when qualified, in a summary article. That there was a catastrophic famine is undeniable and should be included. The deaths from that famine may be included. That the British response was 'inadequate' is a conclusion that appears to have general consensus outside of wikipedia. Sen's conclusions do not have universal currency and are better relegated to sub-articles. In general, I'd say that if a sentence begins with 'Several authors' it is better to exclude it entirely (are we then going to include 'Several other authors say yyy' and 'yet another set of authors say zzz'?) and deal with the differing conclusions in the sub-article where the differing opinions can be properly explored. --rgpk (comment) 16:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

These are not Sen's conclusions. The racist quote is supported by several reliable sources and the link between delaying famine relief and Churchill's racist views has been made by Britain's "best young historian" - Richard Toye. Madhushree Mukherjee reaches the same conclusion. Zuggernaut (talk) 16:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

You're missing the point completely. None of this stuff has universal currency and including it in this article will necessitate the inclusion of caveats, rival viewpoints, etc. which will throw the entire history section out of balance. Basically, the history section will read as follows : "This happened in xxxx bc, that happened in yyyy bc, those things happened in zzzz ad, and then the British came and screwed us out of everything." That might make for good anti-British prose but does not a balanced article make. --rgpk (comment) 21:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

When you talk of the conquered and the conqueror, not many viewpoints are "universal" so it pretty much depends on what POV you are coming from, however subtly disguised. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

If you are contesting WP:NPOV ("Editors must write articles from a neutral point of view, representing all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias"), then you should take it up at the NPOV noticeboard. Not cram your views down our throats here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The proposed edit is compliant with NPOV. If it's not, I'm sure we can make it compliant. Zuggernaut (talk) 01:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

History is written by who gets to write it and every historain whether he is Europeam or Indian has an inborn (i even argue with my friends bias is genetic) bias which he will carry until his grave. I see two issues (fact and opinion) here in Zuggernaut's edit. First the fact: whether Churchill was disdainful (racist!) of Indians and second the opinion: whether that had anything to do with the mismanagement of famine. Would any one here be surprised if English and Indian historians treated this issue differently. In general, administrative mismanagements happen a lot. it is an interesting issue. --CarTick (talk) 01:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

You are right about the bias part but there's a breed (of academicians, researchers) that is supposed to be free of bias. Mukherjee and Toye link the fact with the famine and this RFC should tell us what the community thinks of including the content. I agree with the mismanagement part but no government that it accountable to its people will purposefully act against its people. An example is the 2010 Indian onion crisis followed by the rising food prices. But it is already February 2011 and there is no famine. Thanks to the monitoring of prices by Sharad Pawar and other mitigating actions like importing food from Pakistan. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Four day total

(Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC))

• Opposes 4 (NickCT, Munci, Fowler&fowler, rgpk)
• Supports 2 (Zuggernaut, as nominator; Jonathansammy (conditional))
• Number of page watchers: 2340

• Oppose proposal It is easy these days to find "several authors" who claim pretty well anything. While it is conceivable that Churchill rubbed his hands gleefully and took the opportunity to exacerbate a famine in order to further racism, it is also conceivable that Churchill might have had a few things on his mind in 1943, and it is WP:UNDUE to speculate that "racist beliefs" were a fundamental factor in the famine (sufficiently fundamental to highlight in this article). Johnuniq (talk) 06:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose proposal I agree with Johnuniq. Just because several authors claim something doesn't mean that it has any currency within the historiography at large. If this is a controversial new theory then the historical world will be debating it for the next few years. Including new research now might be a little premature, unless you're willing to make a dedicated section that weighs all sides of the debate. Besides, even if the proposed edit has a NPOV (which I'm not sure it does), it is dangerous to speculate about the personal motivations of historical figures in such an abridged and cavalier manner. It's also inconsequential. Churchill was not the only actor involved in the famine, and making him a scapegoat for it would oversimplify an enormous human tragedy. This would be a great disservice to the millions who died in it. Chouji Ochiai (talk) 15:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose proposal - keep current lead. It's been the better part of a century, and we if we don't have hard proof - Foreign Office documents or whatever - by this point, I would not be inclined to go with the Several Authors on such a contentious claim. It may be true, but maybe it isn't, so lets not say it. I suppose that Churchill might have let people starve for political purpose - to impede Indian independence, say - but out of sheer bloodymindedness? Chouji Ochiai said it all better than I have. Herostratus (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
• Comment:We have one author who categorically states that the famine fatalities were related to Churchill's racism. It would not be difficult to come up with other sources starting from Dadabhai Nowroji that point to the British attitude that lead to Indian wretchedness. I would request the opposers to come up with statements from wp:rs that attribute to the contrary, all that they have written are their comments which though learned either are wp:OR or wp:synthesis, don't have much value here. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Isn't saying that a million died because of profiteers a little too apologist?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Apologist for whom, Khandke? I have created a subpage User:Fowler&fowler/Profiteering and hoarding in the Bengal famine of 1943 that provides ample evidence that the causes of the famine were more complex than either you or Zuggernaut are stating. The main cause, as you will see on the subpage evidence, was profiteering, hoarding, and speculation by Indian farmers and grain merchants. There were other factors. The Japanese occupation of Burma prevented the usual import of Burmese rice. There was a cyclone in Midnapore. The arrival of thousands upon thousands of refugees from Burma and Assam strained the already depleted resources. There was an Indian provisional government in place in Bengal that is as much (if not more) to blame for the administrative chaos as the British. Speculation and profiteering, by the way, by Indians that is, was a feature of 19th century Indian famines as well. That is in keeping with the general callous attitude towards the poor and unfortunate displayed by upper class Indians even today. I now believe even more strongly that both versions of the Bengal famine text (current and proposed) need to be removed from the history section. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Hoarding was a response to the perceived food shortage, probably caused by the restrictions on free speech imposed by the British on Indians, and it is already covered in the proposed statement. Overall, (like Grove says about the Doji bara famine, the responsibility lies with the British) the responsibility lay at the top, with the British Crown. Even more so actually, since the hoarders were citizens of the British Empire. I see the problem of separating people by ethnicity (Indian and "British") when discussing the negatives of the empire throughout Wikipedia and this is a serious problem. But when talking about the positives, only British ethnicity was implied back then and surprisingly even today on Wikipedia. Zuggernaut (talk) 01:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

"Hoarding was a response to the perceived food shortage, probably caused by the restrictions on free speech imposed by the British on Indians." Seriously? Statement like that don't help your case. Neither do nonsensical statements such as "Even more so actually, since the hoarders were citizens of the British Empire." Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Why 'nonsensical'? The hoarders were obviously citizens of the British Empire and it was the failure of the British Raj that they could not rein it in. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Because it's an obvious feat of extreme mental gymnastics that is meant to somehow make sure the British are connected to anything bad. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

What in your opinion involves "extreme mental gymnastics"? Connecting what with what? Zuggernaut (talk) 05:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support proposal - it's getting a little hard to keep track of what "oppose" and "support" means at this point, but anyways. The question isn't the truth of the matter. Wikipedia is not investigative journalism, it's rather to summarize what is being said about the matter. While you can dig out "several authors" to support anything, the authors brought out are not marginal. Sen especially is respected for his analysis of the intersection of politics/famine. I also believe this claim has gotten some decent press coverage

India Abroad: [2] The Hindu: [3] (I realize that this is about a book running against the theory, but my point is the theory is significant, not that it's correct) and while one can justly criticize much of history coverage by press, it signifies that a significant group of people consider this a significant idea, and thus deserving of inclusion in Wikipedia. My own opinion on the matter is that the criticism is overblown, though it contains a grain of truth, but as I am not a notable source, my opinion on the matter is of no concern to Wikipedia. Jztinfinity (talk) 07:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment:Chouji Ochiai &Herostratus you will have to prove that the source is not wp:rs and that the statement is wp:undue and wp:fringe, Jztinfinity has put it well hsis opinion is that the matter is exagerated, but hse understands that and that hse needs an wp:rs to say so. I hope Fowler too look at this aspect. It comes across from the above discussion that Zuggernaut has come up with a statement based on a reliable source and others are indulding in wp:OR to counter it, Jztinfinity has understand this concept well that, I should say.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Khandke, In order that you not be misunderstood, please use standard English syntax and spelling. As such, I'm having a hard time figuring out what you are saying. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose as undue. Within the space available for history, we can only present undisputed facts and theories. This is a contentious issue which needs elaboration and belongs to Famines in India.--Sodabottle (talk) 13:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Nine day total

• Opposes = 8
• Supports = 3 (including nominator)

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose for reasons stated above. While there are sources which do comment on the potential of Churchill being racist, there are quite possible as many retractors as well. Additionally, it seems impossible to include him as a potential source or exacerbating force as that would require a POV, especially we are framing his actions as racist under our current definitions of racism. While I am not arguing for him, this statement undeniably calls Churchill a racist-- there needs to be more authoritative information present before we include this. Jztinfinity stated "The question isn't the truth of the matter. Wikipedia is not investigative journalism, it's rather to summarize what is being said about the matter." This is not accurate-- we are not here to present on what is being said on the matter, but merely what the matter is, disregarding speculation. It is impossible, as I stated, to continue with a NPOV, and as such I oppose this. Ampersandestet (talk) 10:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per the reasons I've had to repeat many times since September last year. Most importantly (quoting from my previous comment): " 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." While the exact number of words may have changed, it's still within the ballpark for this comparison. Also, the new proposal is entirely undue POV which presents one particular argument without discussing the numerous others and if added needs to be balanced out, something that this article is not for. —SpacemanSpiff 05:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Maddison's estimates are controversial

I noticed that Angus Maddison has been cited in various discussions above on historical GDPs. First, he is not a Cambridge economist; he merely went to college in Cambridge. Second, his work is regarded as highly controversial, and certainly not of the unassailable caliber that we need for this page. Please see the reviews of Maddison's work on Talk: Angus Maddison. The fact that Manmohan Singh, now a politician, has used figures from Maddison in an acceptance speech for an honorary degree, hardly makes Maddison any more reliable a source. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Questioning Angus Maddison's authority? Calling him "controversial"? Next time we shall consult you. :| — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.104.28 (talk • contribs)

Of course you can label Maddison as just another crazy academician with his own POV. :-) Zuggernaut (talk) 01:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Map

Mvkulkarni23 07:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC) The map shown on this page is not the map shown by Govt. of India in all there documents. The part of Kashir is put incorrect which needs to be corrected. Even if the part is been claimed by POK and AC, we should give the maps of the country atleast as per the approved and sanctioned by the Govt.of that country.

There was a discussion happened on this topic last week and some people were claiming that we should put the neutral stand, I personally feel that the encyclopedia like Wikipedia should follow all teh guidlines precribed by the govt. of that country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mvkulkarni23 (talk • contribs) 07:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinions, but I'm sure this has been discussed innumerable times in the past. Many articles do make references to the ongoing conflict between India, China and Pakistan, and this should be enough I suppose. This is an encyclopedia solely for informational purposes, and the Governmental opinions need not necessarily reflect the worldwide view of any subject. TheMike •^{Wassup doc?} 07:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Support for Kulkarni:The map of India should be the official map of India, this is article on India. There may be ways to display the occupation of its territories or claims thereto. There can be disclaimers to the effect etc. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The current one is what that reflects ground realities and should be kept. The official claims have been noted adequately and no need to change the map to reflect them.--Sodabottle (talk) 07:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

It is illegal in India to represent the map in any other way except as the official representation. The representation here would put Indian editors in a soup. (See survey of India sites for details) and check the adjoining search results [4]Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The key word is "in india". The servers are not in India, so i dont think the question arises (i believe a similar question was asked to the foundation, when the announcement for india office was made). Moreover if indian law is applied, thousands of other wikipedia articles involving sex would be affected to (as indian laws dealing with pornography are more sweeping) --Sodabottle (talk) 08:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The reference to pornography is merely a conjecture, whereas the relation to laws regarding to maps a reality, please see the results. There is no anonymity on the net, why should Wikipedia push its editors to indulge in a criminal activity? One of the largest nationalities participating in the project. National Geography too had to issue a retraction. You rightly mentioned the India Office of Wikipedia, servers notwithstanding, that would be easier for the Indian government to lever and Indian law enforcement bodies to target.[5]Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

This is something we should refer to the foundation legal office. (the reference to pornography is no conjecture, if indian law is considered uniformly, then we will be in the same boat in regard to those articles too)--Sodabottle (talk) 09:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The map of China as shown in the PRC article needs to be looked at, it is the official Chinese representation, with disclaimers like, area under Chinese control but claimed by India, area under Indian control but claimed by China etc. The Indian map also should be given a similar treatment, the official version should be shown with disputes marked. See this image. [6]Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, the orthographic projection maps in both the articles are given similar treatments - areas controlled vs areas claimed marked in different colours.--Sodabottle (talk) 09:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Check this map out [7], it mentions territorial claims made by China, but not against it. Where a similarl map of India shows territorial claims made against it too.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I dont think so. This shows [8] J&K, sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh as parts of india (dark green). These three are "territorial claims made against India", and as they are shown as parts of india, i dont think there is a difference in treatment in comparision to china in these maps. All territories adminstered are shown in one colour and all territories claimed are shown in another. So there is absolute parity as fas as othographic projection maps are concerned. --Sodabottle (talk) 09:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I cannot zoom on the India-states image, Adobe issues. I will revisit this discussion after I check from another PC, which may not be soon. Thanks for the patient replies. Why do you qualify maps as Orthographic projection (I'm sure by Otho... you mean orthographic. Why don't you just call them maps?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I have raised the map legality issue in the india noticeboard and wikimedia india mailing list. (and othographic was a typo :-). have to differentiate from other type of maps))--Sodabottle (talk) 10:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The legality issue is certainly very interesting, but if a legal issue is to be made out of it, then it should probably go to the legal cell. In any case, I think American laws would apply to the content itself. TheMike •^{Wassup doc?} 10:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Completely bogus issue. See map of India in Encyclopaedia Britannica. Disputed regions controlled by India are shown in the same color as the rest of India; those claimed by India, but not controlled, are shown in a different color. All disputed regions are labeled:

• A) Gilgit and Baltistan: Administered by Pakistan and claimed by India
• B) Aksai Chin: Administered by China and claimed by India
• C) Jammu and Kashmir: Administered by India and claimed by Pakistan
• D) Arunachal Pradesh: Adminstered by India and claimed by China.

To my knowledge, Britannica has not been banned in India and on-line users of the encyclopedia have not been prosecuted. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC) Updated for clarity. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Just because no action has been taken against britannica, it doesnt mean its entirely legal. The specific laws that control this is Section 2 in The Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1961. See also this news report. Now, i am pretty sure no action will be taken against wikipedia, but its a little worrying that we might be on the wrong side of the law even though we are showing facts -- ^{PlaneMad|YakYak} 13:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I asked User:Newyorkbrad, an arb with legal experience, to weigh in on this and here is his response. --rgpk (comment) 15:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Agree with Newyorkbrad.
• Re PlaneMad's post, I'm not sure which search engine on Google the news report is talking about. On Google Maps, Kashmir is shown bounded by dashed lines (in contrast to the usual solid lined international border) and the three divisions of the Kashmir region—Pakistani administered Kashmir, Indian administered Kashmir, and Chinese administered Kashmir (Aksai Chin)—are clearly shown. That is certainly not the version of the Indian Government.
• As for Khandke's comment above that the orthographic map in the People's Republic of China is the Chinese government's official map, what is important is that it shows Aksai Chin (administered by China and claimed by India) in the same color (green) as the rest of China, but shows Arunachal Pradesh (administered by India and claimed by China) in a lighter shade of green. The India map respects the same principle: regions controlled by India (such as Jammu and Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh) are shown in dark green as is the rest of India; those only claimed by India, but not administered, (such as Gilgit and Baltistan and Aksai Chin) are shown in light green.
• As for Khandke's other claim that National Geography (sic) had to publish a retraction. They might have or they might not have, but they are clearly unrepentent at NG, for their current map of India shows Northern Areas in Pakistan and Aksai Chin and Arunachal Pradesh bounded by dashed yellow lines! Their political map of India shows Aksai Chin entirely in China, allowing only a faint dotted red boundary labeled, "Claimed by India!"
• Similarly, in the Perry-Castañeda Library On-Line Map Collection at the University of Texas, the Kashmir map is certainly not the Government of India's version. Their political map of India would cause even more displeasure in Indian officialdom, for it shows Gilgit and Baltistan to be part of Pakistan and shaded in the same color!
• Thus, as you can see, pretty much all international map resources represent Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh, both disputed regions, in ways that are contrary to the Government of India's version (or for that matter, those of the governments of Pakistan and China). Since Wikipedia is such an international resource, why should it be any different? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

What is to be noted is the fact that the laws do exist that consider these maps illegal in india. While there is no reason for wikipedia to host Indian versions of the map, the current scenario creates a few issues for those of us in India involved with the project: 1) Individuals like me who want to contribute to Indian maps are vulnerable to legal action 2) It makes the entire project vulnerable to negative publicity by parties wanting to get media attention under the guise of national interest [9] 3) Rules out any chance of official collaboration with government agencies 4) Articles that have these maps cannot be legally printed and distributed in India or hosted online on Indian servers. We can continue to ignore the issue in the hope that nothing will happen, but it would be a lot more reassuring if there is a definite statement by an official authority that says that we wont get into trouble with this -- ^{PlaneMad|YakYak} 14:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I see. Hmm. Well, how about using the United Nations map of South Asia. It doesn't have any color differentiation. Also, it allows each country to see whatever it wants to see as its international boundary, but points out (a) the line of control between India and Pakistan in Kashmir and (b) the different versions of the northeastern boundary of the Kashmir region (i.e. the Chinese and Indian versions). I don't think this map could be used in the orthographic depiction, but perhaps it could somewhere else on the India page. I'm sure one of Wikipedia's graphic whizzes could produce a nice copy. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I think per NewYorkBrad there shouldn't be any legal troubles, and we shouldn't worry till they occur. It'd be a strange move for the Indian government to arrest wikipedia editors, I don't see it happening. But anyway, if there's a real worry is there a noticeboard we can ask on? WP:BN? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

It'd be a strange move for the Indian government to arrest wikipedia editors, I don't see it happening. Nope, it is a clear and present danger. Out government does this kind of thing not infrequently. The Wikimedia India chapter is currently discussing. They are thinking about referring it to the foundation legal counsel.--Sodabottle (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

In that case I suggest we table this discussion and let the foundation figure out what to do. As newyorkbrad points out, we can't satisfy the legal requirements of different governments because they could be (and are in this case) inconsistent. The foundation will have to come up with a statement or policy on this. (Though I doubt if there is any danger to individual Indian wikipedians, especially the ones who don't upload 'illegal' maps.)--rgpk (comment) 21:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Another thing that needs to be brought up is the Eurocentric viewpoint that is expressed in India articles at the expense of suppressing the Indian viewpoint. A common label I see being attached to an editor on India related articles who is even slightly assertive is "nationalist". Nationalism has a very negative connotation on the European continent in the present day and age but people discount the fact that newly industrialized countries like China and India are going through a minor phase of nationalism. Zuggernaut (talk) 01:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not bad to be a nationalist, and the fact that China and India are going through nationalism is completely irrelevant. Supposed eurocentric viewpoints are completely unrelated to this thread. Support RegentsPark. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I support RegentsPark's proposal too and it is very relevant that we bring this to the attention WMF India chapter. The map problem is a manifestation of a problem from a similar area. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

That we are having this discussion at all is incredible. Imagine the response were someone to ask to change content on the China article in accordance with Chinese law. Wikipedia sanctions the breaking of Chinese law. Now, for how evil and authoritarian that Wikipedians may think China to be, how evil and totalitarian is a law that enables Indian authorities to arrest Wikipedians for publishing honest, fact-based maps?

I would say to Yogesh Khandke, who demands similar treatment between China and India, to be careful what you wish for. On the lesser viewed articles with maps of the world, India is most often shown, even if not with the territory of Pakistan-controlled Kashmir, as controlling the Chinese territory that it claims! Even if the border is shown at the line of control, too rarely is there a marking to indicate the territory that China claims and India controls. Of course it's nice to have the "Indian viewpoint", but not if it means suppressing the Pakistani and Chinese viewpoint. The fact that there is a Wikimedia chapter in India and not in China or Pakistan should not be a justification to uproot the core pillar of NPOV. Quigley (talk) 03:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

That we are having this discussion at all is incredible. Mostly because the foundation in all its wisdom has decided to open up an office in India. However "evil and totalitarian" the law maybe, the foundation is subjecting itself to it. This cannot remain a grey area (as Planemad, the most prolific creator of india related open source maps puts it) and a clarification/stand from the foundation is needed.

And Zuggernaut, why are you bringing the Eurocentric/nationalist issue into this discussion. Indian editors are trying to make the wider community understand the serious legal implications of the issue and you are muddying the waters by tying it with your pet themes. This is not helping.--Sodabottle (talk) 05:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not my pet theme, just something I encountered while editing relevant articles and will quickly fade in to background as I move on to other areas. But I agree, no point mixing it with the specific map issue. I owe you an apology, sorry. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

(1)Flower thanks for pointing to the typo. (2)It is unfortunate that editors are being hounded by personal insults, why can’t we debate issues instead; we are all bound to make mistakes. (3)Quigley hit the hammer on the head, for balance we do not write that Hitler was good to his mother, (see essay on tendentious) if you want to treat democracies and countries run by religious madmen and ideological murderers even handedly do that for the sake of NPOV etc. (remember the chickens have come home to roost) (3-a)Wikipedia is a people's encyclopaedia and not a political, corporate, ideological tool, though I am not suggesting OR or Synthesis or other sins, strongly within the boundaries of the Five Pillars its character should be manifest. (4)The China article is completely silent on its illegal occupation of Tibet for over 50 years and that India is host to Tibet's head of state and its Government in Exile, (5)Shouldn’t this article mention that while the Hindu population in the 52 districts that were partitioned to form Pakistan has dropped to a minute fraction(a weasel word for I do not have the time and means to come up with figures supported by RS), in other words there has been a systemic ethnic cleansing of Hindus, the Muslim population in Hindu majority and secular India has not decreased but has risen both in absolute and relative terms, and while over 100 million Muslims are prospering in India (or leading an as wretched life as adherents of other religions), a few million Muslims in a few Muslim majority border districts in the country are holding a democracy to ransom! Flower? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Negatives in the lead

See the articles Brazil or United States of America or Israel or Australia no negatives in the lead. Why here?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you are referring to the line however, the country continues to face several poverty, illiteracy, corruption and public health related challenges.

Read the Manual of Style (lead). I'll quote a section from there: The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first few sentences. In short, from what I understand, the lede should be a short summary of the article. All of those, barring illiteracy have been mentioned in the article. TheMike •^{Wassup doc?} 12:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

none of those are FAs and if we try to do a whitewashing here like in those it will lose its FA status (where it is appeared to be heading anyway). As mike points out lead is a concise summary of the article, neither it nor the lead should be a tourist brochure for the country. --Sodabottle (talk) 12:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Australia is a FA, so are Canada, Japan. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• Also the proof of the pudding is in the eating, a FA is an example of how rules are applied. No negatives in the aforsaid FAs.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Then you should be raising this issue there and editing those article leads to represent their respective bodies. There is no rule like "we don't mention negatives in the lead". We summarise and the current lead is an excellent summary.--Sodabottle (talk) 13:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Israel notes quite a few times it is against the international community, I consider that "negative". As for another FA with negatives, see Indonesia. Does Australia, Canada, or Japan have any notable "negatives" that you feel are excluded? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

What do we have here? Just the hundredth time someone has posted the same question and made the same arguments. Kahndke, please read previous archives, all 99 of them, for answers. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

PS There are at least five FAs, Chad, Belgium, Belarus, Cameroon, Indonesia, which do mention "negatives" in the lead. Since the vast majority of India's citizens are poor, a large percentage of its children malnutritioned, and since corrupt politicians and administrators regularly ride roughshod over the rights and needs of this majority, not reporting the "negatives" would mean describing only 40% of India. That would not be encyclopedic. Paying attention to the condition of the majority is not negative, it is obligatory. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The same can not said of illiteracy though (India's literacy rate is about the world median) and, as Mike points out, is not mentioned in the article so that word should be removed. Munci (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Poverty sort of covers illiteracy anyway. That said, it shouldn't be removed on the grounds of being too negative, but not appearing in the text. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid, Munci, it is nowhere near the median. India is ranked 149 in literacy out of the world's total of 180 countries (or 174 out of 205, according to the CIA factbook). According to the CIA factbook, in the last census (2001), India's literacy rate was 61%, in contrast to the world's rate of 82%. Its female literacy rate (47.8%) is particularly appalling and linked to many of India's ills, including child malnutrition. The world's female literacy rate is 77%. If illiteracy is not mentioned in the article, then it should be. I'll try to write something in the next few days. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Negatives should stay. No whitewashing here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.13.11 (talk) 08:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree, negatives should stay. 59.95.31.117 (talk) 09:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Like Flower has pointed out, the figures should be displayed, such as India figures xxx in the Human Rights index etc., the negative statement comes across as a weasel.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, the lead is not meant to be explanative in nature. If all these poverty, illiteracy etc. are mentioned in the body of the article, and well sourced, then there should be no issue. Or so I feel. TheMike •^{Leave me a message!} 08:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Statistics ain't hurt nobody. There are statements like India is the seventh largest country in the world in terms of area, the worlds biggest democracy..., figures, cold facts, we can have it stands xxx among yyy nations in GDP and so on, and not the weasel words. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh no, please don't misread me. Weasel words should not be there. What I mean to say is that the lead is meant to be a summary of the article. The statistics should definitely be mentioned, but all of them need not be in the lead. TheMike •^{Leave me a message!} 12:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

poverty, illiteracy, corruption and public health are not weasel words but are accurate descriptors of the challenges that India faces today and are well documented in the article. It is not possible to include all supporting detail and statistics in the lead because the lead is meant to be a summary of the key points contained in the article. It doesn't make sense to exclude this sentence from the lead because these are important challenges faced by India and we would be doing a disservice to our readers if we excluded them from the lead. Personally, I don't view them as 'negatives' but rather as challenges. IMO, India is facing these challenges reasonably well and trying to make good on all fronts, and I say this with direct personal experience since I've worked extensively with NGOs, but it has a long way to go before they can disappear from our lead. But these are personal observations so make what you will of them.--rgpk (comment) 16:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree with RegentsPark. YK's proposal is not a bad one, though, but if we write, for example, "India ranks 137 out of 182 in the IMF's per capita GDP (nominal) rankings; 149 out of 180 in the UNDP's literacy rankings, 153 out of 194 in WHO's healthcare expenditure rankings, and 87 out of 178 in Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index," beyond being a mouthful, we'll be inundated with all sorts of objections, including ultimately that poverty, literacy, corruption are complex problems that can't be reduced to a number. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the figures F&F has shared India is relatively less corrupt, it is in the top half in transparency whereas it is in the bottom quarter in GDP and Healthcare, and bottom 20% in literacy. Figures provide information that is objective. QED. Park please take the weasel words off. Repeating what I have written earlier, like the figures biggest democracy, second most populous nation etc, we should have the above figures and not weasels. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Misleading locator map of J&K

• 
  These two maps dont conform to each other.
• 
  More area needs graying to avoid contradiction

Current locator map used in more than 50 pages misleads fellow Indians. It even contradicts other maps including India locator map File:India_location_map.svg. Please join discussion here [10] No information is better than wrong information. How can PoK and Aksai chin can have same colour as Himachal pradesh? Avoided blue (talk) 06:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC) Help would be appreciated. Avoided blue (talk) 04:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Rollback of History Section

As I have stated above in the FAR differences sub-section, almost all the new edits in the history section have been introduced in a series of edits between early November 2010 and early February 2011. See my subpage: User:Fowler&fowler/Significant edits to India history section. Some of these edits were reverted by others, but they were finessed back in.

• No discussion was conducted on the talk page before inserting these highly POV edits, and the edit summaries often were less than transparent (e.g. "adding info.")
• Wikipedia's own policy regarding featured articles states: (see Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles#Featured_articles):

  While Featured articles (identified by a bronze star in the upper-right corner ) are open for editing like any other, they have gone through a community review process as Featured article candidates, where they are checked for high quality sources, a thorough survey of the relevant literature, and compliance with image policy and with Wikipedia's Manual of style. Editors are asked to take particular care when editing a Featured article; it is considerate to discuss significant changes of text or images on the talk page first.

• Besides, editing etiquette for the India page has been discussed many times before on this talk page. Many RfCs have been held on the Talk:India page in which experienced Wikpedians—including ArbCom members, bureaucrats, and administrators—have all come down on the same side, namely that significant changes to content should be discussed on the talk page first. Please read the archives.
• Please also read the FAQs on the Talk:India page. The answer to Question 3 ("Why was my content removed?") says:

  If you wish to expand the content, consider editing daughter articles (Such as History of India) instead. ... Please read Wikipedia:Main article fixation.

As far as I am aware none of these edits were introduced in the History of India. I am therefore rolling back the history section to the version of November 3, 2010, the day before the first significant addition of text was made. All significant future changes should be discussed here first. I have left the neutrality tag in for now, since there are some other issues remaining. However, I believe, this is a good first step. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Fowler - you have in effect stopped King Zebu from editing this page and now are suggesting that this article be frozen to your favorite version. You need to read WP:Bully, WP:OWNERSHIP and other relevant guidelines, policies and essays. I would recommend the re-introduction of all famine content to the article. Zuggernaut (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I haven't stopped anyone from editing the India page. I have merely pointed out certain principles observed by most previous editors of the page. It has nothing to do with ownership; in fact, the Wikipedia policy that recommends, for featured articles, "it is considerate to discuss significant changes to the text or images on the talk page first," is in the Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles#Featured_articles page. Moreover, the current version is hardly my favorite version. There are plenty problems in it too. That is why I have left the POV tag in for now. I have had nothing to do with the writing of the history section (in the past); as I recall, it was originally written by Nichalp. If someone wants to introduce famines or any other significant content, they should discuss it here first. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Zuggernaut is right. Fowler, you just can't come in one fine day and say," I am reverting to a older version b'cos there was no discussion on the said edits". The changes made to the article need to be challenged and discussed then and there itself. The very fact that no other editor challenged the edits, give it legitimacy. Now if you have any issue regarding the edits you need to discuss before undoing the edits. Simple reverting to an older version is not proper.188.52.121.156 (talk) 19:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

"Changes made to the article need to be challenged then and there itself" According to whom or to which Wikipedia rule? When procedures are not followed, a rollback is legitimate. It has been done here before, on the entire India page, as late as six months later. Besides, many editors reverted these latest edits when they were made, but they were edit warred. And who are you? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler is correct, and is supported by several editors including myself. Johnuniq (talk) 00:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Johnquiq - Please read the behavioral guideline WP:VOTE which you repeatedly violate by simply butting in on discussions and voting in favor of an anti-India position without enhancing the quality of discussion even a little bit. I've observed this pattern more than once and this is just a friendly observation to help you rectify the behavior. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Fowler - a detailed discussion has already taken place before the famine content was added to the article so I am not going to waste everyone's time all over again by discussing/re-adding the famine content to the article. Your rollback is unilateral, improper and dictatorial. Just a friendly recommendation that you should add back the content by your self. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Zuggernaut, please don't misrepresent the facts. In all your previous attempts, Attempt 1, Attempt 2, Attempt 3, and Attempt 4, you had no consensus, not even remotely. Your last proposal about including famine content was immediately opposed by SpacemanSpiff, Chipmunk, dab, and Sodabottle, and you had no supporters, you nevertheless edit-warred. Here is an example:

• Zuggernaut introduced the content this edit of January 19, 2011, 06:50 with this false edit summary, "Add famine content per consensus from September 2010" and without prior discussion.
• A minute later, at 06:51, Zuggernaut made a post about including famine content on this talk page, and was immediately opposed by SpacemanSpiff, Chipmunk, dab, and Sodabottle, and Zuggernaut had no supporters, besides.
• At 07:07, Zuggernaut's famine edit on the India page was reverted by SpacemanSpiff, with this edit summary, "Undid revision 408741640 by Zuggernaut (talk) do not misrepresent; there was no consensus; besides, the current version is NPOV"
• At 15:18, the same day, Zuggernaut attempted to make another edit with edit summary "Accurate"
• At 15:49, this was reverted by Chipmunk, with edit summary, "Undid revision 408794632 by Zuggernaut (talk) It may be accurate, but it unnecessarily loads the text and doesn't read well."
• At 17:13 the next day, January 20, 2011, Zuggernaut added a slightly changed famine text again, with edit summary, "Accurate, concise, and better."
• At 17:21, the edit was reverted by SpacemanSpiff with edit summary, "Undid revision 409005300 by Zuggernaut (talk) no, neither accurate nor concise, that happened in the Bengal region, not all of which was in India"
• At 03:19, January 23, Zuggernaut reverted SpacemanSpiff with edit summary, "Undid revision 409006811 by SpacemanSpiff (talk) See talk".
• A few hours later the edit was reverted by Chipmunk, with edit summary, "Undid revision 409482913 by Zuggernaut (talk)"
• And so it went ...

Zuggernaut, you will have a hard time convincing anyone that you had consensus for these edits. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

@Zuggernaut: Re your friendly observation above, naturally I am well aware that voting is not helpful, and that's why I have not voted. I am also well aware that regular editors often leave a prolonged and unproductive discussion when there is a good editor such as Fowler&fowler, who is presenting the situation well. It is sometimes necessary to comment in a discussion such as this to avoid anyone claiming that consensus overrules the one editor who is left to defend the article. Johnuniq (talk) 04:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Providing support or opposing a certain position without providing a reason does not enhance the quality of discussions and is damaging to Wikipedia. And unfortunately you have a pattern of showing up at Famine in India and elsewhere and doing just that. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

@Fowler, I am a regular tracker of the India article. (I am answering this even though you are not entitled to any answer from me). As said by Zuggernaut, you should revert back your edit. You can suggest changes to the history section, which can be discussed and appropriately added/deleted to/from the article.188.52.121.156 (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, Regular Tracker, in your long history of regular tracking, you've been moved only twice to post anything on Wikipedia, and both times just happen to be your two posts above? Why didn't you post here, Regular Tracker, when the POV edits were being stuffed willy nilly into this page in December and January and offer up the same advice? What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Have you considered that the person might be a regular editor who prefers to stay anonymous when arguing with you? Please assume good faith and focus on what the IP is saying rather than launching attacks. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Zuggernaut, using anonymous IP addresses when posting on talk pages is not a legitimate use of socking. There is no good faith assumption that can be made in that case. FYI. --rgpk (comment) 14:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Then let us at least take the IP at face value when he says he is a regular tracker here. And then let us focus on the content of the IP instead of attacking him unless one has double standards. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Fowler - 'Misrepresenting' is a strong and misleading word. There was plenty of discussion on the topic of famines before the content was added. I did not add the content myself. A regular editor here decided to add it and nobody objected strongly to it. Rather than politely discussing the issues, assuming good faith and working in a constructive way you are being far too dictatorial here and elsewhere and you are driving away contributors with a long history of contribution to a variety of articles. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

There may have been plenty of discussion, but there was no resolution, and therefore no mandate to make those edits. If you are three feet short of reaching the summit of Everest, you haven't summited Everest. In this case it was a long way short, more like 10,000 feet. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

PS The Regular Editor, btw, added the famine text in this edit of 16 November. He did this without any previous discussion on the talk page. Later the same day, RegentsPark reverted the edit and made a post here Talk:India/Archive_29#Bengal_famine_.28redux.29 to which there was only the response of the Regular Editor and a perfunctory one by another editor. That is hardly resolution. Had it been one time, one could have overlooked it, but Regular Editor had been flaunting Wikipedia recommendations for Featured Articles (as well as Summary Style) relentlessly in edit after edit from November to February. And I have only looked at the history section. He has made prolific edits in other sections as well. They need to be examined as well. All were made without previous discussion. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Flaunts recommendations? Good. Better than flouting them!Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

An edit was made and it stuck. You seem unhappy because it didn't go with your POV and that the edit was allowed to stay. If you feel strongly about the way King Zebu has edited this FA, please take it to WP:ANI or an appropriate forum. What you have done effectively is that you have sent a strong "DO NOT EDIT" message to King Zebu, a constructive and valuable contributor, and you have bullied him away not only from this article but from editing Wikipedia altogether. Zuggernaut (talk) 07:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Zuggernaut, the article talk page IS the appropriate forum for discussing article content. ANI should be used in situations where administrator intervention is required. Fowler&fowler is civilly discussing the issues here and I suggest that you assume good faith and do the same. I don't think anyone has been driven away from wikipedia by this discussion. --rgpk (comment) 15:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that I've not assumed good faith or I am being uncivil? Please provide diffs or take it to ANI as a behavioral problem. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Though I thought it fairly obvious which edit I was referring to. In this diff you accuse Fowler of sending a 'strong "DO NOT EDIT" message to King Zebu" and accuse him of bullying him away. The assumption here is that Fowler is driving away editors rather than acting in good faith to improve the India article. Hope this helps. Regards. --rgpk (comment) 13:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I haven't driven King Zebu off Wikipedia. Why is it that when aggressive unrelenting editors are challenged, they curl up in fetal position and start whining like newbies and have their friends cry foul? How do we know that the battlefield of King Zebu's own aggression is not littered with corpses of Wikipedia editors who too were turned away by what they saw? I'm sure I can dig up some evidence. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia India page's history section had remained stable for at least four years. Judge for yourself by examining the versions of 19 February 2007, 2 January 2008, 4 January 2009, and 2 January 2010. As late as 3 November 2010, the page was more or less the same. In a series of edits by one editor between November 4, 2010 and Feb 3, 2011, the history section increased by more than 10 KB of text. None of the additions were discussed first on the talk page. The additions were edit-warred over or finessed in by misleading edit summaries. Do you think it fair to the hundreds of Wikipedia editors who had maintained this FA page for four years (over more than 10,000 edits) that someone should be allowed to get away with this? More evidence coming. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Same with the lead, which had remained stable for four years, even as late as 24 July 2010, in this edit of Ragib, which incidentally, has edit summary, “since this is an FA, this needs to be discussed first ...”

• The order of sentences in the lead was changed by King Zebu in: this edit of 25 July 2010 with edit summary, “The lead paras should contain only that information which is highly relevant and necessary. UN peacekeeping operations are not that important and the topic is already covered” Gives no clue to what he has done.
• The edit was reverted by user:Kkm010 in: this edit of July 26, 2010 with ominous edit summary, “rv please do not change, frequent changes of this top most section, we may pay a heavy price and lose the features tag sooner or later”
• This, however, was reverted again by King Zebu in: this edit of July 26, 2010 with a mysterious edit summary, “Undid revision by Kkm010 A) Various changes were made to the lead paras in the past few days which are more detrimental to this article. B) Read edit summaries.” which makes it sound that Kkm010 was the one who made the changes. The lead has remained in this ungainly arrangement since. More evidence coming. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Same with you Zuggernaut. You too have been flouting FA practice, and edit-warring in aid of King Zebu:

• King Zebu added content on famines in this edit of Feb 3, 15:43 with edit summary, “note on British economic policy and 19th century famines”. He obviously already knew from the numerous discussions of earlier months that there was no consensus on including famines. So, this was a deliberate act of flouting Wikipedia practice.
• It was reverted by SpacemanSpiff in: this edit of 17:03 Feb 3 with edit summary, “reverting the famine content, see talk”
• Spaceman was reverted by Zuggernaut in: this edit of 17:09 Feb 3 with edit summary, “Undid revision 411808459 by SpacemanSpiff (talk) No explanation provided by SpacemanSpiff on talk, undoing.”
• Zuggernaut was reverted by Spaceman Spiff in this edit of 17:11 Feb 3 with edit summary, “Undid revision 411809384 by Zuggernaut (talk) look on talk before reverting”
• The famine edit was again restored by King Zebu in: this edit of 18:27 Feb 3 with edit summary, “Restored content on British economic policy. Delinked British economic policy and famine. Added famine statistics from CUP; seems like feminists have no respect here. :P” As if to say the objection was only to linking famine with British economic policy. Is this what Wikipedia is about? Getting your edit in one way or another? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, King Zebu knew at the time (February 2011) that there was no consensus and that the famine edit had been edit-warred over earlier, for example, in this back and forth in September, 2010:

• Zuggernaut introduced famine text in: this edit of September 10, 2010 with edit summary, “famines were a major event.”
• This was reverted by Sodabottle in: this edit with edit summary, “i am reverting back to pre-famine section, since there are POV concerns; there is a discussion in the talk page and we can add the text once consensus is reached”
• This revert was reverted by Amartya ray2001 in this edit with edit summary, “Undid revision 384180004 by Sodabottle (talk) (I did not write this section... But why is this a PoV and not fact? Please explain and then)”
• This was reverted by BritishWatcher in this edit with edit summary, “Undid revision 384373418 by Amartya ray2001 (talk) - there is a debate about this on the talk page”
• This was reverted afain by Amartya ray2001 in this edit with edit summary, “Undid revision 384373695 by BritishWatcher --- Do NOT revert the section till the debate is over! it has citations! That's being fair! Read my post in talk.”
• Finally, the revert was again reverted by Spaceman Spiff in this edit with edit summary, “Undid revision 384374942 by Amartya ray2001 (talk) do not add this back unless consensus changes.”

Frankly, I'm astounded at the relentless manner of pushing through these edits. Do you seriously expect, after such a track record, to convince others that King Zebu and you are the victims and I am the aggressor? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

@Fowler,I feel that you are unnecessary getting worked up. What I felt wrong and which made me comment here, is the way in which you reverted the article to an earlier version. As I have said earlier, any edit can be challenged and your is being challenged. Kindly discuss your edits rather than bullying around. All the edits that you undid (were made over a course of time) should have been challenged immediately by you, why didn't you do that?. Now reverting unanimously it is not correct. Rather a way out of this impasse will be that you provide a reasons for the revet you made. 188.52.121.156 (talk) 15:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, instead of doing investigations here and now, if Fowler could provide item-by-item reasons for the removal of content, that would be more constructive. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The reason is very simple, as the examples above demonstrate in painstaking detail. The edits were not discussed (item-by-item) on the talk page before they were made, as Wikipedia's own recommendation for FAs states. In fact, there was hardly any discussion afterwards either, unless the discussion was begun by an editor reverting the edit. In the rare cases of discussion, there was never any consensus for them, not even remotely. They were edit-warred over. They were sneaked in with misleading edit summaries. It wasn't just one edit; it was 10 KB of text that ended up doubling the history section that had been stable for over four years. Consequently, no reasons need be offered, item-by-item, for their removal. It's bilateral symmetry, a level playing field. Or like I said, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

You are not assuming good faith in King Zebu.

A few observations:

• A neutrality tag was added on 04:53, February 7, 2011.
• We've had a roll back to a November 3, 2010 version on 07:34, February 19, 2011
• Today we have a proposal to rollback the lead.

There are 349 edits between November 4 and the rollback. As anyone can see, we have lost a lot of constructive edits in those 349 edits due to the rollback. As a result, I do not see the rollback as constructive. The right way to move forward would be for Fowler to revert the rollback and take up the specific edits he objects to one by one or in groups (by topic) if the number is large.

Not reverting the rollback may be a case of disruptive editing.

The NPOV tag has been added arbitrarily without providing a list of specific issues. Without such a list it is impossible for the community to know what has caused Fowler to add the tag and it's impossible for us to address the issues to resolution. At present we have been given no chance of working on removing this tag. This strengthens the case of disruptive editing.

Your rollback based on the goose-gander logic reminds me of "an eye for an eye will only make the whole world blind". Lets be constructive. Zuggernaut (talk) 16:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

That's not accurate. I made a subpage, User:Fowler&fowler/POV Issues in India-History Section, which I referred to in the FAR section above just before I added the neutrality tag. The neutrality tag was a way to avoid taking the page to an FAR as the history section and the lead were the two major problem areas. The other sections are not too bad. And it wasn't just me; Chipmunk compared the two versions and found a large number of POV additions. As you can see in the subpage, the rollback has taken care of the problems in the later paragraphs in the history section, but issues remain in the first two paragraphs, for example, claiming that the first neolithic settlements appeared in India about 8,500 years ago and led to the Indus Valley Civilization in Western India. This is not accurate. The first neolithic settlement is in Mehrgarh in Baluchistan in Pakistan, and most of the IVC sites, at least the more famous ones are in Pakistan as well. Many people will not understand that the entire subcontinent was called India before 1947 and that perhaps "India" is being used in that sense. As it currently stands, the sentences in the history section are confusing, and can be seen as POV. I am happy to write out the remaining issues again. As for the 347 edits, they are not edits by a large number of editors, or even by a handful; they are all edits by one editor, King Zebu, who was not following Wikipedia guidelines for featured articles and, in addition, was edit warring over and over again, as the examples above make plain. There is nothing that has been added by anyone else! On the other hand, during four years, over 10,000 edits were made to the India page, and a large number of editors together managed to keep the history section stable. Stability is important because it is criterion 1 (e) of the featured article criteria, and clearly says:

(e) stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process.

The featured article process of discussing on the talk page first, was not observed. As you must already know, featured articles are taken seriously by the Wikipedia community; your attempt to amend the wording of Wikipedia policy even slightly, on this policy talk page, have not proved very popular. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I've moved your sub-page to a new location: Talk:India/POV Issues in India-History Section. The policy already states that anyone can edit FAs as long as they take care. which I think King Zebu did amply. The policy needs to be watered down further to 'encourage' people (even Randy) to edit within policies. I do not agree with your repeated flouting of good faith in King Zebu. I urge you to reintroduce the famine edits to the history section for reasons already stated on multiple occasions. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

You should not have moved a subpage of mine. You could have copied it, but I had said above, "I'd be happy to rewrite the remaining issues again." Please be more considerate in the future. The remaining issues are now in the subpage, Talk:India/Remaining POV Issues in India-History Section. As for the famine edits, there was never any consensus for them. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, sorry, my mistake. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I chanced upon a comment that Zuggernaut does not have consensus, but along with consensus there is another of Wikipedia guidelines that Wikipedia is not about numbers, Zuggernaut has come up with carefully researched statements based on wp:RS. His being in the minority should not make his edits bad. The opposers should not make a virtue of their numerical superiority.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The lead

During the last year, the lead has gone from being a readable succinct version of January 1, 2010 to the monstrosity in ugly prose that it has become today. I don't care what the rest of the page says, but a page with a lead like that will not pass an FA process. Not in a hundred years. It is the usual case of WP:Main article fixation where every passer-by and their sister have stuffed their two cents in. I am of the view that nothing needs to be changed in the first two paragraphs of the version of January 1, 2010. In the third paragraph only one sentence needs to be added mentioning India's membership of various organizations in the manner of the leads in the Australia or Canada pages. Short and sweet. As it stands the current version is impossible to read.

For example, there is no reason to mention the population of India in the lead. There is no reason to mention "Mainland India." India doesn't have islands that are big enough to make that distinction. It sounds ludicrous. I can keep going, but the thing to remember is that a lead is not a legal document where every nuance is mentioned, every t crossed, and every i dotted. It is an invitation to a reader to read on by providing an appetizing summary of the page. I am therefore advocating that we roll back the lead to the version of January 1, 2010 and add one sentence describing India's membership of some important organizations. The rest is clutter. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree with the sentiment, but can we get someone with FA prose skills to expand the lead a bit?. IMO The older version is too short to be a "proper appetizer" --Sodabottle (talk) 07:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think a small expansion would be useful. I would think the lead to India would somehow mention Kashmir, which is a pretty large issue. Nuclear status is probably worth mentioning somehow as well. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I understand what you mean about "mainland India". I suggest we keep the more specific religion links in the lede though. Munci (talk) 10:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The limit for the lead is four paragraphs which the current version has. I would rather suggest we improve the prose and simplify the present version rather than go back to a previous version. As such, it is more important to have a good lead rather for the article's sake than for the sake of helping pass FA. AshLin (talk) 11:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The lead can do with some improvement but there has been no vandalism and there are no other problem edits to the lead. A rollback is not warranted. The right way is to improve it is to start from the existing version and propose improvements one by one. Zuggernaut (talk) 16:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll take a stab at rewriting the lead. Will present it here soon. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Lead rewrite

How is this for a first cut?

India (/ˈɪndiə/), officially the Republic of India (Hindi: भारत गणराज्य Bhārat Gaṇarājya; see also official names of India), is a country in South Asia. It is the seventh-largest country by geographical area, the second-most populous country, and the most populous democracy in the world. Bounded by the Indian Ocean on the south, the Arabian Sea on the west, and the Bay of Bengal on the east, India has a coastline of 7,517 kilometres (4,700 mi). It is bordered byPakistan to the west; Bhutan, the People's Republic of China and Nepal to the northeast; and Bangladesh and Burma to the east. In the Indian Ocean, India is in the vicinity of Sri Lanka and the Maldives; in addition, India's Andaman and Nicobar Islands share a maritime border with Thailand and Indonesia.

Home to the Indus Valley Civilisation and a region of historic trade routes and vast empires, the Indian subcontinent was identified with its commercial and cultural wealth for much of its long history. Four major religions—Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism—originated here, whereas Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam arrived in the first millennium CE and shaped the region's diverse culture. Gradually annexed by the British East India Company from the early 18th century and colonised by the United Kingdom from the mid-19th century, India became an independent nation in 1947 after a struggle for independence that was marked by widespread non-violent resistance.

The Indian economy is the world's eleventh largest by nominal GDP and fourth largest by purchasing power parity. Following market-based economic reforms in 1991, India has become one of the fastest growing major economies, and is considered a newly industrialized country; however, it continues to face the challenges of poverty, illiteracy, corruption and inadequate public health. A nuclear weapons state, it has the third-largest standing army in the world, and ranks tenth in military expenditure among nations.

India is a federal constitutional republic with a parliamentary system consisting of 28 states and seven union territories. It is a member of the United Nations, the Non-Aligned Movement, the World Trade Organization, the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation, the East Asia Summit, the G20, the G8+5, and the Commonwealth of Nations; and is one of the four BRIC nations. A pluralistic, multilingual, and multiethnic society, India is also home to a diversity of wildlife in a variety of protected habitats.

---

• Removing "with a population of 1.2 billion people" (linked to Demographics of India), since Demographics is a section in the page and that link appears there.
• What is the point of saying, it is a regional power in South Asia. It always was, being the biggest country in South Asia.
• No reason to mention "founding member" of UN, since dozens of countries are founding members. It is not notable.
• Does anyone really care about "an observer state in the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation?"

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

PS Here's the diff that will give you an idea of what has changed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Chipmunk suggested that we should say something about Kashmir. I personally think it is a good idea, since it is a major bone of contention in the region, but this needs to be discussed here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed that although the lede mentions the arrival of religions in the first millenium, this doesn't appear in the text, which simply mentions their existence. Perhaps this should be included under demographics?

Wildlife should wikilink to Wildlife of India, not Fauna of India.

I hear there are now 5 BRIC nations, now BRICS, due to South Africa's inclusion, although editors of the article seem to be unsure.

We don't need references in the lead do we? The sources should appear in the article body. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Chipmunk. Will add something to the demographics section. (Or, should I add something in the history section, since the sentence in the lead occurs in a history paragraph?) Have changed the link to Wildlife of India. I have removed all the references from the lead, but have left BRIC as is, because the page itself hasn't changed yet. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

PS Have changed "parliamentary democracy" to "parliamentary system" (which is also the real link) since democracy is already mentioned in the lead. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

This line should be kept in a NPOV, non-peacock way:

A pluralistic, multilingual and multiethnic society where more than 400 languages are spoken...

It should be kept because running a country with that kind of diversity is no mean feat. We should add the word 'multi-cultural' to make it accurate.

This would be a good time to fix the line

...while Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam arrived in the first millennium CE and shaped the region's diverse culture.

Zoroastrianism, Judaism and Christianity have not shaped the Republic of India's culture in a major way. Islam probably has but that's limited to North India. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• There is no reason to mention the number of languages. One can read about it in the "multilingual" (Languages of India) link that precedes it. India does have 452 languages, but most countries have a lot of languages. Papua and New Guinea has 841, Indonesia, has 719, Nigeria has 527, Mexico had 298, China has 293, the US has 245. Closer to India, Nepal has 126, Burma has 113, Pakistan has 72, Bhutan has 26. Only Papua and New Guinea mentions this fact in its lead, but PNG is an exception and has long been the topic of anthropology books. The other countries don't. There is nothing notable in that extra piece of information that the reader can't already find in the link that precedes it.
• As for, Zoroastrianism and Christianity, yes they have shaped the region's culture. The Portuguese opened up the trade of Europe to India. The English language, the Indian justice system, they are linked to Christianity; in fact it was the Christian evangelists who promoted English language education in India. (Had Warren Hastings or the early Orientalists, had their druthers, everyone would have been learning Sanskrit.) Similarly, Zoroastrians and Jews both found refuge in India and thrived in its culture of religious tolerance. Zoroastrians, influenced the Indian nationalist movement, with many early nationalists such as Dadabhai Naoroji, Dinshaw Wacha, Pherozeshah Mehta, ... and entrepreneurial nationalism, with Tatas, Godrejs, .... Judaism probably less so, but it certainly has influenced the culture of India's west coast from Gujarat to Kerala. I would like to leave Judaism in, but it could be discussed. Saying that Islam only influenced North India, is untrue. The Mughal empire reached down well into west and south India. Aurengzeb had his base in Aurangabad. Haidar Ali and Tipu Sultan were Muslim rulers of Mysore. The Nizams of Hyderabad ruled the Andhra Pradesh region for some two centuries. The second paragraph, by the way, is not about the Republic of India, but rather about the Indian subcontinent, as the first sentence takes pains to point out.
• There is no reason to add multicultural, especially, since it has many meanings; it is enough to say it is multiethnic. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Is the Indian Judicial system linked to Christianity? How? Infact the Indian judicial system is linked to the English/British judicial system and has nothing to do with any religion. The assumption that Indian would have been learning Sanskrit if Christian evangelists did not promote English is absolute rubbish.188.48.126.42 (talk) 09:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you read Company_rule_in_india#Education, dear IP. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Zoroastrians participated in Indian independence movement is not the same as Zoroastrianism shaped India's culture. English was introduced by people who practiced Christianity is not the same as Christianity played a big role in India's culture. --CarTick (talk) 12:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Christians have definitely helped shape the culture of parts of India, in the south (Kerela, in particular) and in the north-east. Zorastrians, less so probably, but to some extent in the west and they have a huge impact on the culture of business (which, unfortunately, is a part of culture as well!). Since India is not monolithic, I suggest leaving the line in, perhaps with the modification "and have also helped shape the region's culture". --rgpk (comment) 13:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Good job, Fowler&Fowler. Regarding Zorastrianism & culture, either we remove mention of it as a very small part of the culture or we let the sentence be. Trying to bring in finer grading about impact in culture will ruib the flow of English. Imho, Parsis have been adequate part of Indian culture to merit mention here. I would add Bahai's too but the case for them is much weaker.

I suggest we change the word It is bordered by with India shares borders with.... Because bounded by, bordered by seems repetitive. AshLin (talk) 14:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

This proposal of mine may not have been noticed. Please confirm whether this minor change in wording is acceptable to you all. AshLin (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

That is a good suggestion. Come to think of it, should we say, "It shares land borders with ..." since both the previous sentence and the very next sentence, "... Andaman Islands share a maritime border with ..." are about the ocean? Or is that redundant? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

We should keep the Andaman Islands and maritime border sentence as it is. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

That's not what I'm saying Zuggernaut. Please read my sentences again. The post is about adding "land." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Good observation AshLin. Yes, bounded, bordered sound repetitive. I find your proposal a good improvement and I support it. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• Christianity - an example of how much the Christians have been shaped by Indian culture can be seen by just knowing the presence of an article on the Roman Catholic Brahmin. Almost all Christians in India have adapted the caste system. Where else in the world can you find this? It is the Christians who have been Indianized if not Hinduized rather than the other way around.
• Sadly, the Parsis are a dying breed. Their worldwide population is about 100,000 and about 69,000 in India, mostly in Mumbai (roughly 0.000058% of India's population). While they are much admired, respected and always remembered with positive connotations, listing them in the lead of an article on India (a nation of 1.2 billion) is definitely giving preferential treatment to a very, very, very small group of people. Parsis have not intermingled with Indians as the rest of the migrant groups have. They almost always endogamous and are no longer counted as Parsis if they marry outside the community. The Parsi culture has been shaped by the Indian religions, not the other way round. Don't get me wrong, they certainly belong to the article but putting them in the lead is a WP:WEIGHT problem.
• The case of Jews is similar. They form a very small community and Jewish communities like the Bene Israel have migrated out of India to Israel. Only about 5000 Bene Israel remain in India, the rest choosing to migrate to Israel (where they still play cricket and stick to other habits of Mumbai). India has influenced them more than the other way around. According to the Jewish population article Indian Jews number 15,405 or 0.000012% of the total. Again they belong to the article but not in the lead due to WP:WEIGHT.
• In terms of give-and-take, these religions have taken more from the Indian religions than they have given back.
• Lastly, we are not in a competition with other countries about the number of languages and I see no harm in providing the number of languages but I'm also good if its left out as long as we keep the word 'multilingual' in the lead since it is a key feature of Indian life. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Multilingual is included, so that's settled. As a response to the current indian populations of certain religions, the included sentence isn't about the current situation, but about historical effects. I think it would be a great faux pare to deny the impacts these have had on India. Of course, a source is still needed. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

These populations have always been minuscule throughout Indian history. Zuggernaut (talk) 16:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

So was the Indo-European migration into the Indian subcontinent (according to modern genetic evidence), but it completely changed the culture of India, including most of the languages of North, Central, Western, and Eastern India. More importantly, it brought Proto-Indo-Iranian religion with it, which, after interaction with the local religions, gave rise to Hinduism. I agree with Chipmunk. Influence has little to do with numbers, especially current-day numbers. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

We need high quality, mainstream reliable sources which are in a majority to state that Christianity, Judaism and Zoroastrianism have had an influence on India. WP:WEIGHT still applies and the content is appropriate in the body, not in the lead. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Sidenote Regional power, cut out from the lead here (which I agree with), is not mentioned elsewhere in the article. I suggest it is added to the Foreign relation section. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. it is not incorrect. just WP:UNDUE for the WP:LEAD. --CarTick (talk) 17:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

That's fair. I think it's an interesting aspect of India worth mentioning in the lead, but whatever the consensus is is good by me. --rgpk (comment) 17:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Regional power is a somewhat vague concept, I myself misunderstood it, and may have removed it for the wrong reasons; I wonder if it might be more precise to say, India has regional hegemony in South Asia, if that is indeed the case, and we'll need a source for that. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

That is incorrect, one may say India is a regional power but it is clearly not a successful hegemon. To be a hegemon, the other nations should by their own will or by the hegemon's diplomacy or threat of force conform to policies friendly or advantageous to the hegemon. That is clearly not happening. AshLin (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

:) Well put. OK, I'm happy to put the regional power bit back in if others feel that it should; however, since India is not a successful hegemon, should the sixty year rivalry and dispute with Pakistan (over Kashmirj) be mentioned in the lead? Britannica mentions Kashmir in its lead: "The Kashmir region in the northwest has been a source of constant tension." The CIA Factbook says in its background, " The two countries have fought three wars since independence, the last of which in 1971 resulted in East Pakistan becoming the separate nation of Bangladesh. India's nuclear weapons tests in 1998 caused Pakistan to conduct its own tests that same year." How about, "A nuclear weapons state and a regional power with a longstanding dispute with Pakistan over Kashmir, it has the third-largest standing army in the world, and ranks tenth in military expenditure among nations." How does that sound? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Kashmir conflict is one of the problems India faces along with others like poverty, illiteracy, corruption and public health. Since only a small percentage of population is directly affected by the Kashmir problem, having it in the lead would be WP:UNDUE. The others are already covered in the lead and the Kashmir issue is covered in the body. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

A small percentage of the population is directly affected by the Kashmir issue? What about the two wars with Pakistan directly over Kashmir? What about the 26/11 terrorist attack in Bombay? What about the various bombings in Delhi, including the attack on the Indian parliament? What about the war with Pakistan in Kargil? What about the tensions (including nuclear ones) that periodically build up along the borders with Pakistan, especially in Kashmir? Not too long ago, the entire world was on tenterhooks. Obviously, the tertiary sources think it is important to mention in the lead. Kashmir is the source of the longstanding dispute. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree with the view put forth by Zuggernaut. A short mention of the Kashmir dispute is appropriate. The sentance you proposed sounds good. AshLin (talk) 05:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

AshLin - please see my reply to Fowler below and I urge you to reconsider your position. Zuggernaut (talk) 06:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

26/11, bombings in Delhi, including the attack on the Indian parliament are all problems of Pakistani state terrorism (much like 9/11) of a particular brand. Given that numerous other countries have territorial disputes too (CHina, Japan, Russia, etc), they have little to do with Kashmir and more to do with civilizational differences. The inability to act in a civilized manner to solve disputes in a non-violent, peaceful means by discussion and consensus is the real problem, not Kashmir itself. We cannot have Kashmir in the lead without having a mention of terrorism. Zuggernaut (talk) 06:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: regional hegemony see: The dimensions of regional hegemony as well as the facilitating and obstructing con-ditions of its existence will be analyzed in case studies of India in South Asia and South Africa in Southern Africa., [11]. Munci (talk) 12:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no need to mention the Kashmir issue. The Kashmir issue is being explained in the politics and government section. Nikkul (talk) 20:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Lead take 2

I've taken in the various suggestions and have come up with this take 2. I'm leaving out Judaism and have incorporated RegentsPark's suggestion.

India (/ˈɪndiə/), officially the Republic of India (Hindi: भारत गणराज्य Bhārat Gaṇarājya; see also official names of India), is a country in South Asia. It is the seventh-largest country by geographical area, the second-most populous country, and the most populous democracy in the world. Bounded by the Indian Ocean on the south, the Arabian Sea on the west, and the Bay of Bengal on the east, India has a coastline of 7,517 kilometres (4,700 mi). It shares land borders with Pakistan to the west; Bhutan, the People's Republic of China and Nepal to the northeast; and Bangladesh and Burma to the east. In the Indian Ocean, India is in the vicinity of Sri Lanka and the Maldives; in addition, India's Andaman and Nicobar Islands share a maritime border with Thailand and Indonesia.

Home to the Indus Valley Civilisation and a region of historic trade routes and vast empires, the Indian subcontinent was identified with its commercial and cultural wealth for much of its long history. Four major religions—Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism—originated here, whereas Zoroastrianism, Christianity and Islam arrived in the first millennium CE and have also influenced the region's diverse culture. Gradually annexed by the British East India Company from the early 18th century and colonised by the United Kingdom from the mid-19th century, India became an independent nation in 1947 after a struggle for independence that was marked by widespread non-violent resistance.

The Indian economy is the world's eleventh largest by nominal GDP and fourth largest by purchasing power parity. Following market-based economic reforms in 1991, India has become one of the fastest growing major economies, and is considered a newly industrialized country; however, it continues to face the challenges of poverty, illiteracy, corruption and inadequate public health. A nuclear weapons state and a regional power with a longstanding dispute with Pakistan over Kashmir, it has the third-largest standing army in the world, and ranks tenth in military expenditure among nations.

India is a federal constitutional republic with a parliamentary system consisting of 28 states and seven union territories. It is a member of the United Nations, the Non-Aligned Movement, the World Trade Organization, the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation, the East Asia Summit, the G20, the G8+5, and the Commonwealth of Nations; and is one of the four BRIC nations. A pluralistic, multilingual, and multiethnic society, India is also home to a diversity of wildlife in a variety of protected habitats.

What say you? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I think thats it! AshLin (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)A couple of minor nits, I think it might be a good idea to link United Kingdom to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland as it was a slightly different entity compared to our current understanding of the usage. The other piece is that I'm not sure that demographics and flora/fauna should be combined to one sentence, I'd rather see them in independent sentences with a little more context (I don't think the total number of languages matters, but one key aspect of third party references to India is the no of million-plus speaker languages, so that could be added), as for the flora/fauna bit I'm sure that the number of native/indigenous species and/or unique species might be a feasible addition. Also, given that we don't mention any other numbers, is the coastline significant enough for mention? —SpacemanSpiff

A few observations:

1. Colonised is currently pipe-linked to British Raj. This needs to be be linked to the article on colonialism

2. AS I've stated above, Kashmir should not be mentioned without a mention of the problem of terrorism faced by India

Terrorism is an issue linked to Pakistan and not to Kashmir. AshLin (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

3. We can note that Judaism arrived before the Christian era and we will need sources for Christianity and Zoroastrianism 'shaping' Indian culture before we include that in the lead if others think it is WP:DUE at all.

Disagree with Zuggernaut about minority cultures not shaping Indian history and culture. Not in the the spirit of Indian culture at all. AshLin (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

4. I'm not so sure about this but British Raj is not linked (assuming people agree with point 1), it can be pipe-linked via United Kingdom. Zuggernaut (talk) 06:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Not United Kingdom but just wikified as British Raj. AshLin (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with point no. 2 and 3 raised by Zuggernaut, we need to mention about terrorism and a source should be provided for inclusion of Christianity and Zoroastrianism.188.48.126.42 (talk) 11:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

My review

1. Without a doubt Zoroastrians (Parsees) have influenced Indian economy (Tatas, Godrej etc.) and Indian history (Dadabhai Naoroji). However their "influence" on India's "culture" is questionable? Maybe the culture of city of Bombay... But India? I dont think so!
2. If you are mentioning Kashmir, then why not mention the long-standing dispute with China?
3. I feel there should be a line about its "uneven growth" (gap between the rich and the poor).
4. A line about the "diversity" in landscape, climate, race, traditions, etc needs to be there.

59.182.71.68 (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)-

Based on the feedback from the IPs, here's a modification for the sentence under contention:

Four major religions—Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism—originated here, whereas Christianity and Islam arrived in the first millennium CE. Small groups of Jews and Zoroastrians arrived in the first millennium BCE and first millennium CE respectively looking for refuge from religious persecution which they received from the religiously tolerant Hindus Indians.

This is based on the sources found in the two Wikipeida articles on Jewish_persecution and Persecution_of_Zoroastrians, particularly the following content:

• Jews in India faced no persecution from Hindus from the time they migrated to India, but they were subjugated by Christian missionaries during the Goa Inquisition from the year 1552. Portuguese invaders in the South India committed massive atrocities on South Indian Jewry in the 17th Century.

• At the beginning of the 10th century a small group of Zoroastrians living around the town of Nyshapour and Fort of Sanjan in the province of (greater) Khorasan, decided that Iran was no longer safe for Zoroastrians and their religion, and decided to emigrate to India.

I am sure we can find better sources if that becomes an issue. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Disagree, WP:UNDUE for lead of India. AshLin (talk) 16:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback AshLin, I've addressed your concern, please take a look at the quote box above. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Imho too detailed and clunky for a lead. I dont see that being slightly generic as in Fowler's #2 affects India or Indians'adversely. This level of detail should go into main text or even into the specialist article on religion in India but not in the lead. AshLin (talk) 04:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I dont think this is a good lead. There is no need to describe the Kashmir issue in the lead. Nikkul (talk) 20:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Many Jews, particularly in the south, arrived as traders. Also, I'm not sure if 'religiously tolerant' Hindus or Indians is actually discussed in the article. And, are Jainism and Sikhism 'major' religions? Perhaps we should keep it simple with something along the lines of 'Two (or three or four) of the world's major religions - H, B, and possibly J and S - originated here and today India is home to many religions, including a sizable muslim minority.' I agree with CarTick that we can drop Christianity and Zorastrianism from the lead. --rgpk (comment) 20:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Indian inventions

I have started a new thread at Talk:List of Indian inventions and discoveries about whether the title of the article "List of Indian inventions and discoveries" is really accurate. I would like to hear the valuable input of users interested in India about what they have to say. Please read the comment and express your thought there; Mar4d (talk) 08:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I think this would find a place in WT:IN. TheMike •^{Leave me a message!} 11:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, this is a fantasy page. Two-thirds or more of the claims are bogus. It needs to be tagged or moved to the humor Wikipedia (whatever its name is). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Lead: take 3

I've incorporated suggestions by various people:

India (/ˈɪndiə/), officially the Republic of India (Hindi: भारत गणराज्य Bhārat Gaṇarājya; see also official names of India), is a country in South Asia. It is the seventh-largest country by geographical area, the second-most populous country, and the most populous democracy in the world. Bounded by the Indian Ocean on the south, the Arabian Sea on the southwest, and the Bay of Bengal on the southeast, it shares land borders with Pakistan to the west; Bhutan, the People's Republic of China and Nepal to the northeast; and Bangladesh and Burma to the east. In the Indian Ocean, India is in the vicinity of Sri Lanka and the Maldives; in addition, India's Andaman and Nicobar Islands share a maritime border with Thailand and Indonesia.

Home to the Indus Valley Civilisation and a region of historic trade routes and vast empires, the Indian subcontinent was identified with its commercial and cultural wealth for much of its long history. Two of the world's major religions, Hinduism and Buddhism, originated here and today India is home to many religions, including a sizable Muslim minority. Gradually annexed by the British East India Company from the early 18th century and colonised by the United Kingdom from the mid-19th century, India became an independent nation in 1947 after a struggle for independence that was marked by widespread non-violent resistance.

The Indian economy is the world's eleventh largest by nominal GDP and fourth largest by purchasing power parity. Following market-based economic reforms in 1991, India has become one of the fastest growing major economies, and is considered a newly industrialized country; however, it continues to face the challenges of poverty, illiteracy, corruption and inadequate public health. A nuclear weapons state and a regional power with a longstanding dispute with Pakistan over Kashmir, it has the third-largest standing army in the world, and ranks tenth in military expenditure among nations.

India is a federal constitutional republic with a parliamentary system consisting of 28 states and seven union territories. It is a member of the United Nations, the Non-Aligned Movement, the World Trade Organization, the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation, the East Asia Summit, the G20, the G8+5, and the Commonwealth of Nations; and is one of the four BRIC nations. A pluralistic, multilingual, and multiethnic society, India is also home to a diversity of wildlife in a variety of protected habitats.

---

• I've incorporated Zuggernaut, CarTick, and RegentsPark's suggestions and removed mention of all religions except Hidduism, Buddhism, and Islam.
• I've incorporated Chipmunk and AshLin's suggestions and added Kashmir; but more importantly because, other tertiary sources, Britannica, CIA factbook, in particular, mention it.
• I've linked "United Kingdom" to the British Raj. Added later: I've linked "colonised" to Colony.
• I've incorporated Spaceman's suggestion and linked "United Kingdom" to United Kingdom (disambiguation); this way the years, 1922 to 1947 are also accounted for. I've also removed the part about the length of the coastline. (Updated later.)
• I haven't incorporated Spaceman Spiff's other suggestion (sorry), in part because large numbers of million plus speaker langues is not mentioned in the "Languages" section, but also because there are other subsections in the article that are not mentioned in the lead: for example sports, culture, caste system, and so forth, and they would need to be added first.
• I've linked "multiethnic" to Culture of India

I hope this satisfies most people. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC) Clarifying and updating in response. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• There is not enough support for the inclusion of Kashmir so we should drop that.

Both Chipmunkdavis & I support this. Kashmir is one of our biggest foreign policy challenges, a place where a proxy war is being fought, where the population is not at peace and so many lives lost there. Imho it needs to be mentioned. AshLin (talk) 04:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• There should be a way to mention Sikhism and Jainism for they have shaped the Hindu religion and Indian culture in a very substantial way.
• If there is support, I wouldn't mind including the fact Zoroastrians and Jews came to India seeking refuge from persecution.

Zuggernaut (talk)

• Why not link colonised to colonisation and the United Kingdom to British Raj?

* There are two/three spaces after full stops in this. Per MOS:PUNCTSPACE that's pointless, but anyway.

• Kashmir is extremely relevant to India, I can't really see a lead not mentioning it as being a good coverage of India.
• If the choice is between leaving it as current with few religions, or going into detail about each one and why it appeared, I think it should be the first short and concise option. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Colonization usually refers to settler colonies, trading posts, and plantations; the colony page, in addition, includes the ruling of new territories' existing peoples. Not sure I can do anything with Zuggernaut's suggestions. Consensus in tertiary sources trumps informal voting here, which includes two regulars masquerading as IPs. Kashmir is important. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Chipmunk. Sorry about three spaces. I've changed it to two after full stops/periods and one after commas. True, it doesn't make a difference in the displayed output, but (at least for me) it is a little easier to read in the edit version. You are welcome to change it if you'd like. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you please point to a policy that states that "Consensus in tertiary sources trumps informal voting here"? Your statement that "which includes two regulars masquerading as IPs." is a failure of WP:AGF. Sadly, this is becoming a pattern and isn't too constructive. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Please read: Policy: Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources. The lead is such a summary. As for IPs, you must be aware that in your numerous failed RfCs, for example in the Talk:British Raj page or the Talk:Presidencies and provinces of British India page, IPs weren't allowed to vote (See also, Wikipedia:IPs_are_human_too#What_an_unregistered_user_can.27t_do). Their comments should be considered of course. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The lead should mention the Bene Israel community, a micro-minority, descended from Jews who arrived in India before the fall of the Second Temple, in the Sixth Century BCE,[12] and is the only Jewish community in the world that did not suffer from anti-Semitism, historically and contemporarily[13][14].Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

That seems quite UNDUE for the lead...It's not even in the actual article. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

That it is not in the article only means that an important aspect was overlooked, it should be included in the article and the lead.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

(undent) It must first be placed in the article with appropriate references to support the text. The lead summarizes the article. If this point is seen as something that should be added to the lead, that could be done, but I do not think it carries enough weight, given the vastness of the topic, to be included in the lead--BwB (talk) 08:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems mostly fine but Islam should link to Islam in India instead of Islam. As for talking about Jews and Zoroastrians not being persecuted in India, that should left for the articles Parsi, Judaism in India and Religious freedom in India, maybe also Religion in India. This is where they would discuss the topic at hand. People coming the India article want an overview of the whole of India, not details about a particular aspect right from the start. Munci (talk) 21:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Munci. Have changed the "Islam" wikilink to Islam in India. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Suggest we link trade route. Yes, I know we have a great number of links already. AshLin (talk) 02:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

That sounds good. It used to be linked, as you can see here; someone must have removed it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Mention of biodiversity hotspots in section "Biodiversity"

India is home to three of the world's major biodiversity hotspots - Himalayas, Indo-Burma and Western Ghats & Sri Lanka. It is proposed to change the first sentence of the first paragraph as follows:

India, which lies within the [[Indomalaya ecozone]], displays significant [[biodiversity]] with three [[biodiversity hotspot|hotspots]]s located within <s>in</s> its area.<ref name="Biodiversity hotspots">{{cite web |url=http://www.biodiversityhotspots.org/xp/Hotspots/hotspots_by_region/Pages/default.aspx |title=Hotspots by region |author= |date= |work=Biodiversity Hotspots |publisher=Conservation International |accessdate=28 February 2011}}</ref> ....

AshLin (talk) 04:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Can we say, "within its area?" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Change made (symbolically). Is it okay now? AshLin (talk) 09:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

A-OK! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The change looks good. I'm just not clear about the location this needs to be added at. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Where do you feel it will blend in better? The very last sentence of the section? AshLin (talk) 12:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

It makes more sense to me to start the section with a description of the biodiversity India has rather than starting with what is threatened by human beings. So perhaps the last sentence of the first or second paragraph would be good. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

...So place the proposed sentence at the very beginning of the section? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is right. Sorry I jumped the gun on this one and got it wrong the first time. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that means the same position I proposed it in the first place. Please correct me if I am wrong! AshLin (talk) 02:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I think this one has consensus, Making the change. AshLin (talk) 02:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Lead: take 4

India (/ˈɪndiə/), officially the Republic of India (Hindi: भारत गणराज्य Bhārat Gaṇarājya; see also official names of India), is a country in South Asia. It is the seventh-largest country by geographical area, the second-most populous country, and the most populous democracy in the world. Bounded by the Indian Ocean on the south, the Arabian Sea on the southwest, and the Bay of Bengal on the southeast, it shares land borders with Pakistan to the west; Bhutan, the People's Republic of China and Nepal to the northeast; and Bangladesh and Burma to the east. In the Indian Ocean, India is in the vicinity of Sri Lanka and the Maldives; in addition, India's Andaman and Nicobar Islands share a maritime border with Thailand and Indonesia.

Home to the Indus Valley Civilisation and a region of historic trade routes and vast empires, the Indian subcontinent was identified with its commercial and cultural wealth for much of its long history. Four Indian religions originated here and the country gave refuge to adherents of Zoroastrianism and Judaism who were fleeing religious persecution. Gradually annexed by the British East India Company from the early 18th century and colonised by the United Kingdom from the mid-19th century, India became an independent nation in 1947 after a struggle for independence that was marked by widespread non-violent resistance.

The Indian economy is the world's eleventh largest by nominal GDP and fourth largest by purchasing power parity. Following market-based economic reforms in 1991, India has become one of the fastest growing major economies, and is considered a newly industrialized country; however, it continues to face the challenges of poverty, illiteracy, corruption and inadequate public health. A nuclear weapons state and a regional power with a longstanding dispute with Pakistan over Pakistani state terrorism and the region of Kashmir, it has the third-largest standing army in the world, and ranks tenth in military expenditure among nations.

India is a federal constitutional republic with a parliamentary system consisting of 28 states and seven union territories. It is a member of the United Nations, the Non-Aligned Movement, the World Trade Organization, the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation, the East Asia Summit, the G20, the G8+5, and the Commonwealth of Nations; and is one of the four BRIC nations. A pluralistic, multilingual, and multiethnic society, India is also home to a diversity of wildlife in a variety of protected habitats.

---

Changes are highlighted in yellow. Summary of what is and is not addressed:
Addressed

• IP188.48.126.42, IP 59.182.71.68, Zuggernaut: Zoroastrians had little influence on Indian culture
• IP 188.48.126.42, Nikkul, Zuggernaut: Either drop Kashmir from the lead or balance it
• Yogesh Khandke, Zuggernaut: Bene Israel were not persecuted in India (partially addressed)
• Colonised is now linked to colonialism instead of British Raj

Not addressed

• AshLin, Fowler&fowler, Chipmunkdavis: Include Kashmir dispute
• IP 59.182.71.68: I feel there should be a line about its "uneven growth" (gap between the rich and the poor).
• IP 59.182.71.68: A line about the "diversity" in landscape, climate, race, traditions, etc needs to be there.

Zuggernaut (talk) 15:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

If you remove the sections in yellow, and rewrite the religion parts, then the lead is ok. The 'Indian religions' phrase should not be used because Buddhism for one is a world religion. I don't think the 'gave refuge' works for the lead. We would need to support this with a lot of detail in the main article. The pakistani state terrorism dispute is a bit on the pov side. 'Colonized' is fine. Regards. --rgpk (comment) 15:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I would have preferred balancing Kashmir but I am OK removing it all together. The article on Indian religions give the rest of the details including the history and geography of Buddhism. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that article does not address the points about religion made here and, even if it did, the lead in the India article should summarize content in this article rather than the content in the myriad of Indian articles that exist on Wikipedia. Regards. --rgpk (comment) 15:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea of wikilinking to Indian religions somehow, but the refugee detail is highly UNDUE. Agree with colonialism wikilink, disagree with mentioning Pakistani state terrorism. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Indian religions opens with Indian religions is a classification for religions that originated in the Indian subcontinent; namely Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism.[1] and that's exactly the content we've just replaced. It is brief, goes with the practice of interlinking and gives the reader an opportunity to read another very relevant article. Similarly articles on Judaism and Parsis do their job of explaining the religious persecution and migration to India. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Zuggernaut, you tend to do this over and over again. Please remember, "Duplicating the same discussion in multiple sections on a talk page causes confusion, ..." Most people have responded to the lead:take 3 section. That discussion has not concluded. You have already made all your points there. There is no need to start another thread. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Given that new points were made and that the discussion had evolved, this one isn't the same as the earlier ones. You also said "Not sure I can do anything with Zuggernaut's suggestions" so I thought it was very important to take it up myself. Zuggernaut (talk) 16:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

We have 5 level 2 sections discussing the lead already, so no matter what's happened so far we should keep new sections to a minimum, for convenience's sake. Back on topic, Zug could you explain how Kashmir is "balanced" here, and why exactly it needs to be "balanced".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chipmunkdavis (talk • contribs)

Zuggernaut, you must be aware that we are not writing a new lead, as you apparently seem to be announcing on a noticeboard; only trying to form consensus to make some changes to sentences that resulted from a previous consensus in a featured article. The mention of Judaism and Zoroastrianism was the result of such a previous consensus. They can only be removed when there is consensus for their removal. As yet I don't see any such consensus (even though in an attempt to be flexible, I removed mention of most religions except Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam.) You started the discussion by saying that it was also an opportunity to remove Zoroastrianism and Judaism from the lead. After I removed them, you went to wanting them back in a bizarre context that has no mention either in the history section or in the History of India page. You are bordering on being disruptive. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Really? If you read my response closely, you will find that I never asked for the removal of Zoroastrianism and Judaism from the lead. I put forward the fact that those religions did not shape Indian culture and then added a {{fact}} tag. I would like to stay focused on content issues and to article space and I am not going to engage in this type of a conversation anymore. Zuggernaut (talk) 17:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Zuggernaut, didn't you ask for the removal of Judaism and Zoroastrianism from the lead? What is this, where you clearly say, "The Parsi culture has been shaped by the Indian religions, not the other way round. Don't get me wrong, they certainly belong to the article but putting them in the lead is a WP:WEIGHT problem." and "According to the Jewish population article Indian Jews number 15,405 or 0.000012% of the total. Again they belong to the article but not in the lead due to WP:WEIGHT." How are you justifying their inclusion now, especially since the magnanimity of Hindus in giving refuge to these persecuted peoples is mentioned nowhere either in the India page or the History of India page? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The EB article is roughly 1,028,096 bytes and it dedicates 74 bytes to the Kashmir issue in the lead (or about 0.0073% of the article; it says "The Kashmir region in the northwest has been a source of constant tension".) and that's after going in to the details of the Kashmir conflict towards the very end of the article. Since we don't treat the topic in such detail in our article of 132,420 bytes, we should not have a mention of it in the lead. Should we decide to follow tertiary sources like EB so closely we would be allowed a total of 9 bytes ("Kashmir is" takes up 10 bytes) by the same measure. Zuggernaut (talk) 17:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Please don't make bogus arguments. The Britannica India page is not written in summary style, except for its lead. Britannica doesn't have a Geography of India page, the geography is in the India page itself; it doesn't have a History of India page, the history is also a part of the India page, etc. etc. It does have a Kashmir region page though, which because of the dispute, is not a part of the India page. It has approximately 2,400 words. By your logic, Britannica's India lead itself would be a negligible percentage of the total India article, so we shouldn't have a lead either! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

(od) I agree with Fowler that this lead section explosion has the appearance of being disruptive. If there are only a couple of sentences that need to be discussed, it makes more sense to discuss those sentences rather than reproduce the entire text. --rgpk (comment) 17:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

After Indus valley, the history jumps directly into the British time in India, which makes it look like a 2000 years of less eventful time in India. I guess, we should list a few notable rulers. --CarTick (talk) 14:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I can understand dropping the Maratha Empire but where is the Cholan Empire, the Vijayanagar Empire and the older rulers like Ashoka and the Mauryas. Looks like we give preferential treatment to the British! Zuggernaut (talk) 15:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, the lead should not be cluttered with lists. The Indus Valley Civilization is mentioned because it was the starting point in the development of Indian civilization, and perhaps even world civilization. After that there was a string of rulers, but in the end it was British rule which created what today is India. Before that it was all separate kingdoms, and no kingdom controlled the entirety of modern India. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at the map of the Maurya Empire. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Chipmunk. The old lead was the result of a long-fought consensus. In it both "trade routes" and "vast empires" were wikilinked, the latter to History of India (as can be seen here). All empires such as the Mauryan and the Mughal are subsumed in that link. It was felt that an article about the Republic of India (which came into being in 1947) should not spend too much space on ancient history. IVC is mentioned because it was the starting point. Besides, I don't see any consensus of including the Mauryas or the Mughals. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

well, linking is not the same as mentioning in the lead. i would say we mention both mauryas and Mughals in addition to a few others. not mentioning would be similar to mentioning only hinduism in the lead. the arbitrary rule that an empire had to have ruled the entire India to be worth a mention in the lead doesnt make a lot of sense to me. besides, the lead is not really that long, not yet. let us see if we will get a consensus for this. --CarTick (talk) 16:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Wrapping this up

Alright, let's sort this. I gather we have consensus on the first and last paragraphs. In regards to the contested line in the second paragraph, I think we can combine both suggestions:

• Four religions originated here, of which Hinduism and Buddhism are major world religions.

I prefer Zuggernaut's version's colonialism wikilink. In regards to the third paragraph, I prefer Fowler's. Pakistani state terrorism seems very UNDUE, so much so that it isn't in the actual article. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like we have consensus for the first and last paragraphs.

• For the sake of completeness, we do need to include other religions like Islam, Christianity, Jainism and Zoroastrianism. Just that we cannot claim that Zoroastrianism and Christianity have shaped Indian life or Hinduism.
• A new point - we would also need to include India's tribes which still practice some of the oldest religious practices on the subcontinent in the from of animist religions.
• In the post 26/11 world, mentioning Kashmir without 26/11 and Pakistani state terrorism is unbalanced. I am alright to drop Kashmir altogether. That would also take care of the problem pointed out by another user about why special treatment is given to Kashmir when India has similar territorial disputes with China.
• New point per CarTick above - a direct jump from IVC to British Raj seems awkward. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Zuggernaut (talk) 14:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Can we all please stop suggesting adding things to the lead which aren't in the article. We cannot add things to the lead which aren't in the article. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense but I'm not sure what proposed addition you are referring to. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Animism is not mentioned in the article. Pakistani state terrorism is not mentioned in the article. Therefore they simply can't be placed in the lead. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

You are right Pakistani state terrorism is not included in this article (which reached FA status in the pre 26/11 world) but terrorism is. If there is consensus we should include a line on it in the body and then perhaps in the lead - just my opinion. Animism comes along with adivasis which is in the article. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

(Reply to Chipmunk above) I don't like the Indian religions page, in part because it is poorly written, in part because it might be a content fork (see also Religion in India), in part because it is not mentioned anywhere in the article, and in part because many religions originated in India, not just four as the page states. The page says nothing about tribal religions. It says nothing about adaptations that introduced religions (such as Christianity and Islam) have made in India. The problem with the sentence: "Four religions originated here, of which Hinduism and Buddhism are major world religions." is that it seems to suggest that Sikhism and Jainism are not major world religions. However, Sikhism is larger than Judaism in terms of adherents; and Judaism is a major world religion. In fact all four religions are listed in the page Major religious groups and the page Religion in India begins with stating just that. I prefer this rephrase of RegentsPark's formulation: "Two world religions, Hinduism and Buddhism, originated here and today India is home to many religions, including a sizable Muslim minority." ("many religions" is linked to the page Religion in India). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

India might have a dispute with China, but, at this stage, it is more of a cold case, with neither party keen on dusting the files. Kashmir, on the other hand, is a potential conflagration that the world worries about. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

@Zug: Animism doesn't come along with anything. WP:LEAD. The lead is a summary. Most information in the article won't be mentioned at all in the lead. It is inconceivable to include information in the lead not once mentioned in the article. I don't think terrorism is important enough to mention, let alone one specific kind.

@Fowler: Yes we've noted this page says nothing about tribal religions. Perhaps a religion subsection should be created in demographics. On point, I understand the reasons for avoiding mentioning world religions. However, that problem also exists for RegentPark's wording. I'd call them widespread religions, but Hinduism isn't really quite widespread. It may be best to avoid origin talk, and just say that the population is predominantly hindu with a muslim minority. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

@Chipmunk. You are right. Hinduism is not widespread. We could say, "The population is predominantly Hindu ..." but it wouldn't fit very well in a history paragraph prose-wise. It needs to be in past tense. Alternatively, we could just keep the old second paragraph but do away with "major" and "world" and Judaism and Zoroastrianism, and add "also" per RegentsPark, i.e. : "Four religions, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism originated here, whereas Islam and Christianity arrived in the first millennium CE and also shaped the region's culture." It was, as I said, the result of a long-fought consensus; as yet, I don't see a consensus to change it. If we can agree to this, then the second paragraph is good to go. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec x2) As far as I can tell anyway, the main issue that has been given about the old second paragraph is people questioning the extent to which x or y religion shaped the culture. Perhaps something more like "and also became part of the region's culture."? Your suggestion (concurrent to this edit) of leaving out Zoroastrianism may solve the issue anyway though. I suppose that Judaism has about as much claim to be mentioned as Zoroastrianism. Munci (talk) 18:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) That's a very good point. How about this compromise: Four religions, including Hinduism and Buddhism, originated here, whereas other religions, including Islam and Christianity, arrived in the first millennium CE and also became a part of the region's culture." "Four religions" is linked to Indian religions (so, I am compromising!) "other religions" is linked to Religion in India. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

How about Home to the ancient Indus Valley Civilisation and a region of historic trade routes and vast empires, including the Maurya and Mughal empires, the Indian subcontinent was identified with its commercial and cultural wealth for much of its long history.[19] Four of the world's major religions—Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism—originated here, while Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam arrived in the first millennium CE and became a part of the region's diverse culture. I'm not keen to add even the Maurya and Mughal empires because of the proverbial slippery slope so this is just a suggestion. I think the current formulation in the article actually reads the best but believe that 'became a part of' is more accurate than 'shaped'.--rgpk (comment) 21:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

getting better. understand the slippery slope. Tamils would want Cholas, kannadigas would want Vijayanagara and so on and so forth. the part about British involvement is covered in about 23 words as opposed to about 33 words about the rest of the history that includes 3 words from 'indus valley civilization' and a vague generic description of the "greatness" of the country in remaining 30 words. This needs to be put in context with the roughly 390 words of the curent lead size. a few more words describing the rest of the history woundn't be hurtful. we could also do away with some of the vague description and reduce the size of British period. --CarTick (talk) 22:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I, guess, I agree with CarTick that the history text may seem a little abrupt, but I'm not agreeable to adding the Mauryas and other pre-Mughal "empires." As I stated earlier, the article is about the Republic of India. It stresses later history. The British period is pivotal. Almost everything, including the boundary of India, the army, the police, the administration, the legal system, the lingua franca are a result of that period. What does the Republic of India owe to the Mauryas that is not reconstructed? Indians had no awareness of India's ancient past until British linguists and historians (such as James Prinsep and William Jones) uncovered it. Even Ashoka's name was not known. India had a largely ahistorical culture before the British and even more so before the Mughals. We can add one more sentence about Islamic invasion and the Mughals after the religions one. The history paragraph would then read:

Home to the Indus Valley Civilisation and a region of historic trade routes and vast empires, the Indian subcontinent was identified with its commercial and cultural wealth for much of its long history. Four religions—Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism—originated here, whereas Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam arrived in the first millennium CE and became a part of the region's culture. Islamic invasions from Central Asia began in the early second millennium and Muslim rule rose to its height under the Mughal empire in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Gradually annexed by the British East India Company from the early 18th century and colonised by the United Kingdom from the mid-19th century, India became an independent nation in 1947 after a struggle for independence that was marked by widespread non-violent resistance.

How about it?

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I feel this almost implies that India should be Muslim now. If we mention Islamic invasion we need to somehow note it is still about 4/5 Hindu. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

well, when was this arbitrary decision made that India article is about Republic of India. and i am not sure if i would agree with you whether everything India is and has, it owes to British. but i am glad to know your belief and rationale (unless it was expressed elsewhere and I had missed it) behind why you would like the British period unduly emphasized in the lead. Even if your argument that India owes everything to British is accurate, that still wouldnt preclude it from mentioning the History played out in the same geographical area that predated them. just doesnt make a lot of sense. --CarTick (talk) 03:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

@CarTick: The article is about the Republic of India, it says so in the first sentence. As for what the history should stress, that decision was made long time ago, long before I arrived on Wikipedia. It was a part of the FA drive under Nichalp. Also, Ashoka's most important contribution, the spread of Buddhism, is mentioned under Buddhism. If there's consensus for including Mauryas, Guptas, Cholas, Vijaynagara, and so forth, I'll go along with it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

@Chipmunk: How about:

Home to the Indus Valley Civilisation and a region of historic trade routes and vast empires, the Indian subcontinent was identified with its commercial and cultural wealth for much of its long history. Four religions, including Hinduism—India's ancient and majority religion—and Buddhism, originated here, whereas other religions arrived in the first millennium CE and became a part of the region's culture. Islamic invasions from Central Asia began in the early second millennium and Muslim rule rose to its height under the Mughal empire in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Gradually annexed by the British East India Company from the early 18th century and colonised by the United Kingdom from the mid-19th century, India became an independent nation in 1947 after a struggle for independence that was marked by widespread non-violent resistance.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) The Concise Britannica's lead is not too different:

an urban civilization, that of the Indus valley, was established by 2600 bce. Buddhism and Jainism arose in the 6th century bce in reaction to the caste-based society created by the Vedic religion and its successor, Hinduism. The first Muslim contact with the subcontinent was in the 8th century ce. Muslim invasions began after c. 1000, establishing the long-lived Delhi sultanate in 1206 and the Mughal dynasty in 1526. Vasco da Gama’s voyage to India in 1498 initiated several centuries of commercial rivalry between the Portuguese, Dutch, English, and French. British conquests in the 18th and 19th centuries led to the rule of the British East India Co., and direct administration by the British Empire began in 1858. After Mohandas K. Gandhi helped end British rule in 1947, Jawaharlal Nehru became India’s first prime minister, ..."

So, we are in broad agreement with other tertiary sources. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with CarTick, we need to include the Maurya empire and we need to cut down on the disproportionate weight given to the British period. Mentioning Mahatama Gandhi in the lead will also help. I am not sure why Fowler removed it in the first place. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

That is because Mahatma Gandhi was not in the last consensus version, the "struggle for independence" and "nonviolent resistance" links give plenty references to Gandhi. As for the Mauryan empire, you'll have to get consensus to change it. As it stands, I'm not on board. Clearly Britannica doesn't include it in its lead either. You can keep doing your nickel and diming, but you'll be wasting your own and everyone else's time, and at some point your contributions will begin to sound disruptive, if they aren't already. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

PS I've said over and over again, this is not an attempt to write a new lead; just one to gain consensus to change a couple of words in the last consensus driven version. We can't have people endlessly keep adding their two cents and holding up the process. We will have to agree to some version and then leave other changes to later talk page posts. With that in mind, I'm happy to leave Kashmir out as well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

PPS. CarTick, the discussion began on 24th February; everyone provided their input, including you (and you never said a word about the Mauryas) in the first week. Now that we are trying to wrap it up, you thrown the Mauryas in on March 4. Please start a discussion about the Mauryas in a later talk page post, after we've agreed upon a lead. We can't prolong this discussion forever. People lose patience. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

i am sorry to bring this issue up late. i have to admit that the brittanica description surprises me. i wonder if the 'Britain' word in 'Brittanica' has anything to do with the exclusion of any Hindu rulers from the lead. no, it cant be. we all know editors of Brittania are noble godlike creatures with no genetic disposition to bias. --CarTick (talk) 15:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Britannica is published in the US, and advised by the University of Chicago. The India article has been written collectively by many historians, including, Raymond Allchin, Romila Thapar, Muzaffar Alam, Sanjay Subrahmanyam, and Stanley Wolpert. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

i dont want to make blanket accusation of bias about everything written in Brittanica. I also dont like the idea of treating any source as holy scripture that we have to base all our writings in wikipedia on. we just have to remind ourselves that editorial decisions (just like we are trying to accomplish in wikipedia) play a large part of what stays and where in an article. --CarTick (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Minor change

If we would like to introduce the predominantly Hindu part, it could be done this way :

and today pre-dominantly Hindu India is home to many religions

AshLin (talk) 06:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Latest version?

I'm getting confused here. Please point to the latest version which incorporates all points having consensus. Let's have specific objections tackled one by one in seperate subsections too. AshLin (talk) 06:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

My last attempt to create a consensus for the second paragraph was:

Home to the Indus Valley Civilisation and a region of historic trade routes and vast empires, the Indian subcontinent was identified with its commercial and cultural wealth for much of its long history. Four religions, including Hinduism—India's ancient and majority religion—and Buddhism, originated here, whereas other religions arrived in the first millennium CE and became a part of the region's culture. Islamic invasions from Central Asia began in the early second millennium and Muslim rule rose to its height under the Mughal empire in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Gradually annexed by the British East India Company from the early 18th century and colonised by the United Kingdom from the mid-19th century, India became an independent nation in 1947 after a struggle for independence that was marked by widespread non-violent resistance.

I guess, we are no longer going with the version that had, "... and today India is ...." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Building on Fowler's latest version, the points raised by CarTick and new information I just learned, I am proposing this newer version for the concerned paragraph:

Home to the Indus Valley Civilisation and a region of historic trade routes and vast empires, the Indian subcontinent was identified with its commercial and cultural wealth for much of its long history. The four Indic religions are a product of the Indian civilisation, other religions arrived over the millienia and became a part of the region's culture. The Maurya empire of the 2nd and 3rd centuries BCE forms the classical period of Indian history which was later followed by the Golden Age of India in the 4th century CE under the Gupta Empire. Islamic invasions from Central Asia began in the early second millennium and Muslim rule rose to its height under the Mughal empire in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The British arrived in early 18th century and were forced out of India by non-violent means in 1947 after initially surviving the Indian Rebellion of 1857.

The new information I am talking about is:

1. Indic religions = the religions which originated in India. These include Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism
2. Indian religion = the religions that exist in India today, i.e., Indic religions plus Judaism, Zoroastrainism, Christianity and Islam.

A few redirects/move not directly related to this article may be required to ensure accuracy of the links. These include:

1. Move the current article titled Indian religions to Indic religions
2. Move the current article title Religions of India to Indian religions

Zuggernaut (talk) 08:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

A source would need to be found for calling the Maurya empire the classical period, and that would have to be added to the History section. The British sentence is terrible, it doesn't even mention India was a British colony, and really, "forced out of India"? "surviving the Indian Rebellion"? Fowler's was better.

As for Religion in India, it should definitely not move to Indian religions. The "Religions in X" title is a worldwide standard. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

i like the ideas in Zuggernaut's suggestion. just would like to change a few words. "classic period", "golden age" and "forced out" are the few words that stick out as obvious. Indian rebellion seems unnecessary. I would personally like to add Chola dynasty and Vijayanagara Empire and Maratha empire for balance. if there isnt much support and for the sake of compromise, i am wiling to settle down with the mention of Mauryas, Guptas and Moghuls. --CarTick (talk) 18:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

And so we come to the proposal below. Can we try and keep the conversation in one place? Preferably the latest section. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Language tweak

Proposed to improve the wording :

• Katabatic wind is not a proper noun.
• Use plural winds rather than singular.
• No change to linking.

Old wording :

The Himalayas prevent cold Central Asian Katabatic wind from blowing in...

New wording :

The Himalayas prevent cold Central Asian katabatic winds from blowing in...

AshLin (talk) 02:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Anyone other comments please? AshLin (talk) 08:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

You're right, definitely not a proper noun. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Since relatively minor issue, assuming consensus & making the change. If you disagree, please revert it and carry the discussion here further. AshLin (talk) 08:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Lead

We have had lots of discussion. The issues have interlinked and confused the hell out a simple mind like mine. I propose we load the latest consensus version of Lead to India, a la Fowler, archive this page and start afresh. Any further changes can be discussed later one by on. AshLin (talk) 08:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Just, in case people are wondering, this is the latest version:

India (/ˈɪndiə/), officially the Republic of India (Hindi: भारत गणराज्य Bhārat Gaṇarājya; see also official names of India), is a country in South Asia. It is the seventh-largest country by geographical area, the second-most populous country, and the most populous democracy in the world. Bounded by the Indian Ocean on the south, the Arabian Sea on the southwest, and the Bay of Bengal on the southeast, it shares land borders with Pakistan to the west; Bhutan, the People's Republic of China and Nepal to the northeast; and Bangladesh and Burma to the east. In the Indian Ocean, India is in the vicinity of Sri Lanka and the Maldives; in addition, India's Andaman and Nicobar Islands share a maritime border with Thailand and Indonesia.

Home to the Indus Valley Civilisation and a region of historic trade routes and vast empires, the Indian subcontinent was identified with its commercial and cultural wealth for much of its long history. Four religions, including Hinduism—India's ancient and majority religion—and Buddhism, originated here, whereas other religions arrived in the first millennium CE and became a part of the region's culture. Islamic invasions from Central Asia began in the early second millennium and Muslim rule rose to its height under the Mughal empire in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Gradually annexed by the British East India Company from the early 18th century and colonised by the United Kingdom from the mid-19th century, India became an independent nation in 1947 after a struggle for independence that was marked by widespread non-violent resistance.

The Indian economy is the world's eleventh largest by nominal GDP and fourth largest by purchasing power parity. Following market-based economic reforms in 1991, India has become one of the fastest growing major economies, and is considered a newly industrialized country; however, it continues to face the challenges of poverty, illiteracy, corruption and inadequate public health. A nuclear weapons state and a regional power, it has the third-largest standing army in the world, and ranks tenth in military expenditure among nations.

India is a federal constitutional republic with a parliamentary system consisting of 28 states and seven union territories. It is a member of the United Nations, the Non-Aligned Movement, the World Trade Organization, the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation, the East Asia Summit, the G20, the G8+5, and the Commonwealth of Nations; and is one of the four BRIC nations. A pluralistic, multilingual, and multiethnic society, India is also home to a diversity of wildlife in a variety of protected habitats.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support. AshLin (talk) 14:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
• my concerns not addressed. unsatisfied. --CarTick (talk) 15:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
• looks decent. However,
  • "Four religions" wikilink ---> Spell them out.
  • History para needs to mention that India was a country of divided "kingdoms" as opposed to the current united India (Suggestion: The same line can accommodate the various kingdoms that some readers are insisting on).

-111.119.204.50 (talk) 16:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Would your concerns be addressed if some of Zuggernauts paragraph is included? See box. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Second paragraph

Home to the Indus Valley Civilisation and a region of historic trade routes and vast empires, the Indian subcontinent was identified with its commercial and cultural wealth for much of its long history. The four Indian religions originated here, other religions arrived over the millienia and became a part of the region's culture. The Maurya empire of the 2nd and 3rd centuries BCE formed the classical period of Indian history, and was followed by the Golden Age of India in the 4th century CE under the Gupta Empire. Islamic invasions from Central Asia began in the early second millennium and Muslim rule rose to its height under the Mughal empire in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Gradually annexed by the British East India Company from the early 18th century and colonised by the United Kingdom from the mid-19th century, India became an independent nation in 1947 after a struggle for independence that was marked by widespread non-violent resistance.

Zuggernaut's version has glaring errors. Both Indic religions and other religions go to the same link Indian religions. In other words, "other Indian religions" arrived over the millennia. Which millennia and from where? His lead says, "The Maurya empire of the 2nd and 3rd centuries BCE forms the classical period of Indian history." However both the History of India page (in its lead) and the Middle kingdoms of India pages state that the classical period begins after the decline of the Mauryan empire. Both Golden Age of India and the Gupta Empire go to Gupta empire! If both the classical period of Indian history and the golden age of India begin after the decline of the Mauryas, why are we mentioning the Mauryas? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The version I posted above has the correct religion wiklinks. As I said to Zuggernaut earlier, without a source for classical period it can not go in. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

looks better. i guess it is better when the religions are explicitly spelt out in the lead. classical and golden age sound more like jargons without much meaning, it can be done away with. A generic description of other notable rulers, dynsaties and kingdoms (without mentioning names) can be added with a link to History of India. --CarTick (talk) 18:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• It looks like we will not have consensus for using the formal term 'Indic religions' which includes the four religions which originated in India. I thought it was an 'efficient' way of describing all four. But I am good to switch back to Fowler's version as far as this one line is concerned, i.e., " Four religions, including Hinduism—India's ancient and majority religion—and..." A drawback with this is that we leave out the fact that Judaism arrived before the Christian era.
• I am now learning that there might have been multiple classical ages in Indian history and that the use of "classical age" itself may be outmoded so we may need to rephrase that line as well. Gupta and Mauryas are worth the mention but we could add Cholas as well.
• It seems to me that we are giving disproportionate weight to British rule and the line on British rule needs to become terse. Another problem with this (seen at other articles as well) is that Indian independence is portrayed as 'passive' or something that was bestowed upon or given to Indians by the British. That is incorrect. While non-violent, independence was taken from the British in a very dynamic and forceful way. We need to capture the fact that the British were not wanted in India and were forced out. I will provide a newer version soon (but hopefully someone can beat me to it).

Zuggernaut (talk) 00:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't see the description of British rule as disproportionate. The sentence about Islamic invasions is longer than the sentence fragment (ending with "mid 19th century") about British rule. Sorry, neither the lead of the History of India page, nor the detailed description of the Indian independence movement in the British Raj page say that the British were forced out. That is blatant POV. Britain's departure from the subcontinent was the result of a long drawn out process that began with the Minto Morley reforms of 1907. In particular, the elections of 1937, in which the Congress won in a plurality of states, finally won over the British public to the idea of Indian independence. Without that there would have been no independence until much later. The timing of 1947, had much to do with Labour coming into power in 1946 and the depletion of Britain's exchequer after WWII. Besides the lead says, "struggle for independence." Struggle can hardly be passive. The handful of pipsqueak "revolutionaries" in India did not play any direct role in India's independence (other than making the youth wing of the Congress a little more impatient). The British, in spite of running a global empire of which India was but a small part and in spite of fighting World War II, neutralized them pretty easily. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

while theories abound what brought the British rule in India to an end, it must be refreshing for a lot of the watchers of this page to know which one Fowler believes in. I am open to the idea of shortening both British and Mughal rule part. as a matter of fact, i also had thought about it. no need to mention the company. --CarTick (talk) 01:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I feel refreshed. Anyway, mentioning the company is important, as the British government didn't control India during this period. As far as I can tell the Maurya are included as they were the first to unite huge swathes of India, the Gupta because they formed the Golden age, and the Mughals because they introduced Islam. Is there a specific reason to include the others? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

CarTick, You are also beginning to become disruptive. You should have mentioned all your gripes about Indian history earlier. The discussion went on for a week. You took part in that discussion. At the last minute when people are trying to arrive at consensus, you are now throwing wrenches in the works and making lame remarks about my views on Indian history. I will not agree to a "listy" sentence about ancient empires. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

How about this? :

Home to the Indus Valley Civilisation and a region of historic trade routes and vast empires, the Indian subcontinent was identified with its commercial and cultural wealth for much of its long history. Four religions, including Hinduism—India's ancient and majority religion—and Buddhism, originated here, whereas other religions arrived in the first millennium CE and became a part of the region's culture. Large swathes of ancient India were united under the Mauryas and the Guptas; these empires along with the middle kingdoms of India had a lasting cultural impact that reached well into the neighboring regions of Asia. Islamic invasions from Central Asia began in the early second millennium and Muslim rule rose to its height under the Mughal empire in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Gradually annexed by the British East India Company from the early 18th century and colonised by the United Kingdom from the mid-19th century, India became an independent nation in 1947 after a struggle for independence that was marked by widespread non-violent resistance.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I have a few points followed by a proposition.

• We need to stop the accusations of "being disruptive" simply because people have a different viewpoint than Fowler&fowler. CarTick and anyone else has the right to bring up any issue at any point in time as the situation evolves.
• The POV-street is a two way street and the POV being advanced by Fowler&fowler is very patronizing.
• All empires are built gradually so I see no reason to say "Gradually annexed by the British East India Company from the early 18th century..." unless the intention is simply to have a link to the EIC/Company rule in India. We need to truncate that sentence and limit it to giving the dates of British occupation and that they were not wanted in India. The word 'struggle' also needs to be dropped since it does not always imply success.
• We can also replace the wording of and the link to non-violent resistance by mentioning Gandhi since he is synonymous with non-violence resistance.
• I've kept the EIC detail for now; here's my version with changes highlighted:

Home to the Indus Valley Civilisation and a region of historic trade routes and vast empires, the Indian subcontinent was identified with its commercial and cultural wealth for much of its long history. Four religions, including Hinduism—India's ancient and majority religion—and Buddhism, originated here, whereas other religions arrived in the first millennium CE and became a part of the region's culture. Large swathes of the subcontinent were united under the Mauryas, Guptas and the Cholas, their cultural impact reaching well into the neighboring regions of Asia as well as having a presence in modern India in the form of the ubiquitous Nataraja bronzes, the Ashoka Chakra at the center of the Indian flag and the national emblem of India in the form of the Lion Capital of Ashoka. Islamic invasions from Central Asia began in the early second millennium and Muslim rule rose to its height under the Mughal empire in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Gradually annexed by the British East India Company from the early 18th century and colonised by the United Kingdom from the mid-19th century, Indians put an end to British rule in 1947 under the leadership of Gandhi.

Zuggernaut (talk) 06:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Zuggernaut, Your lead is ludicrous and you and CarTick are becoming more disruptive by adding new material (such as the "ubiquitous Nataraja bronzes" and other products of free association) even as others are bending over backwards to be accommodating. All empires aren't annexed gradually. Alexander's was created in a few years and was vaster than anything India ever produced. Chandragupta Maurya's empire was created in short order as well. The lead is not my POV. It was the result of a previous consensus in which Gandhi was left out. What you have is not a "proposition." Look it up. If you want to tie up the India page and want me to take it to FAR, be my guest. Take me to ArbCom if you find me patronizing and let others be the judge. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

PS "Indians" weren't annexed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

PPS. According to the Nataraja page, " Nataraja bronze was a Pallava innovation (seventh to mid-ninth century), rather than tenth-century Chola as widely believed." Please add the Pallava empire as well to your laundry list. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

PPPS. Please add your last sentence, "Indians put an end to British rule in 1947 under the leadership of Gandhi," to the dangling modifier page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Another point, you explicitly agreed above that adding stuff to the lead not in the article would be nonsensical. You've done it again. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

(od) I like Fowler's last version (the one with the cholas &c). Zuggernaut's additions are too verbose and the stuff about the bronzes is a bit, um, with apologies since I'm sure he means well, bizarre. I believe that the last sentence of Fowler's would be enhanced by the mention of Gandhi (clearly one of the iconic figures of the 20th century) suggested by Zuggernaut, perhaps by inserting 'lead by Gandhi' between struggle for independence and non-violent resistance. --rgpk (comment) 12:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

the new lead by Fowler seems good. we are getting there I suppose. Zuggernaut's ideas Ashoka Chakra and Gandhi seem good. just curious why Gandhi was kept out, i dont remember all the previous conversations. The british period can just be mentioned as something like "Colonised by United Kingdom, India became an independent country following Indian Independence movement under the leadership of Gandhi that united the nation." --CarTick (talk) 12:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

CarTick, for four years, over 7,500 edits, the lead had remained the same, with mention of Company rule and no mention of Gandhi. It was a principle followed on the India page to not name any individuals in the lead. The lead was about the country, not about individuals. Several hundred Wikipedians, who made the approximately 7,500 edits over four years had no complaints about the lead. Here's a brief chronology:

• On 27 November 2006 the lead was much the same, with mention of Company rule and no mention of Gandhi.
• On 16 September 2007, the lead was much the same, with mention of Company rule and no mention of Gandhi.
• On 16 September 2008, the lead was much the same, with mention of Company rule and no mention of Gandhi
• On 16 September 2009, the lead was the same, with mention of Company rule and no mention of Gandhi.
• As late as this edit of 16 September 2010 there was no Gandhi in the lead.
• Gandhi was added (can you guess) by none other than good old King Zebu in this edit of 17 September 2010 with his usual immaculately misleading edit summary, "ce intro paras" and with no discussion on the talk page! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, sorry for including the Natraja bronzes which do not appear directly in the text. That addition doesn't seem to be that popular with other editors anyway so I'm good if it is dropped. I am not sure whether we need to stick to WP:LEAD so closely in regards to the Ashoka Chakra which also doesn't find mention in the article directly. However, it is a part of the Indian flag which is mentioned in the article. I like CarTick's last line but I would propose a minor variation "Colonised by United Kingdom, India put an end to British rule under the leadership of Gandhi that united the nation" or something similar. I am as eager to move on with this as the others so as long as the Ashoka Chakra, the Sarnath Lion Capital of Ashoka are included, we have closure on this (assuming of course, there is consensus). Zuggernaut (talk) 17:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

India didn't do anything. That sentence construction is just weird. As for whether we need to stick to WP:LEAD, yes we do. Unless we want to remove FA status, which I suppose is also an option. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

To CarTick and Zuggernaut: The sentence about British rule was the result of long fought consensus that has lasted over four years. If you want to change it, now is not the time. Let's load up the new lead and then you can then try and gain consensus for the changes you seek. As it stands, you are not only not near consensus, you are also holding up the process. Busy editors, who have taken time out to attend to the India page, cannot endlessly keep their attention focused, especially when the discussion is getting becoming more random, with addition of "Ashoka chakra," "Lion capital of Ashoka," and so forth.

To all editors: As I see it, there are two issues remaining:

• There is the sentence about the ancient empires. I apologize for changing the versions I introduced and thereby causing some confusion. There were two versions:
  • "Large swathes of ancient India were united by the Mauryas, the Guptas and the Cholas, their cultural impact reaching well into the neighboring regions of Asia.
  • "Large swathes of ancient India were united under the Mauryas and the Guptas; these empires along with the middle kingdoms of India had a lasting cultural impact that reached well into the neighboring regions of Asia."

The reason why I changed to the second sentence (even though the first is cleaner) is that I feared that the first one would be unstable: various people, miffed that their favorite kingdom had been left out, might begin to make the list longer. But I'm happy with either version. (I should add, uniting large swathes was Chipmunk's formulation somewhere above.)

• The other issue is Gandhi. I've explained in my post above why Gandhi was absent in the lead for over four years. The basic principle (formulated I believe by Nichalp and one to which I subscribe) is that the lead should be about the country, not about individuals. The question of including Gandhi too I feel should be taken up later on the talk page. I have enormous admiration for Gandhi, having once edited both the lead and the first thirds (I believe, or thereabouts) of the Wikipedia Gandhi page. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Something lasting four years is not a good reason for continuing it for another four. I am appalled to see the lead of an article on India mention the British but not the Maurya, Gupta or other equally prominent empires. The contributions of those Indian empires are something every school student of Indian history knows. The Ashoka Chakra and the Lion Capital of Ashoka are national emblems which I feel should be included but I am willing to back off if more uninvolved editors feel they are unnecessary. We have made rapid progress in rewriting the lead of an article with more than 2300 watchers. I see nothing wrong if this takes some more time to reach consensus. We sure need to wrap things up but we should not hurry them up.

Gandhi belongs in the lead and it is good to know you have "enormous admiration for Gandhi" but I'm now going to have to watch that article for POV issues. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The new lead now mentions Maurya etc, so concern addressed. The only use of the word "Ashoka" in the entire article is its mention in the name Ashoka the Great in History. There is absolutely no way they merit a mention in the lead. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

(od) I like Fowler's latest version. I'm open to adding specific religions if it is necessary, as in "Christianity and Zorastrianism arrived in ...." (I don't think the whereas is necessary at the top of that sentence). Judaism seems too small in India to be specifically mentioned. The rest seems fine though I do think that a mention of Gandhi, who, whether you like him or not was the single most important cultural and philosophical export from 20th century India, would be helpful. --rgpk (comment) 21:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, so this is the version that I believe incorporates your concerns:

Home to the Indus Valley Civilisation and a region of historic trade routes and vast empires, the Indian subcontinent was identified with its commercial and cultural wealth for much of its long history. Four religions, including Hinduism—India's ancient and majority religion—and Buddhism, originated here, and other religions, arriving in the first millennium CE, became a part of the region's culture. Uniting large swathes of ancient India, the Maurya and Gupta empires, and some middle kingdoms of India, had a lasting cultural impact that reached well into the neighboring regions of Asia. Islamic invasions from Central Asia began in the early second millennium and Muslim rule rose to its height under the Mughal empire in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Gradually annexed by the British East India Company from the early 18th century and colonised by the United Kingdom from the mid-19th century, India became an independent nation in 1947 after a struggle for independence led by Mahatma Gandhi and marked by widespread non-violent resistance.

The rest of the lead is unchanged from the version at the top of this section. Kashmir is not mentioned as one final compromise. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

archive

could someone please archive about 75% of this discussion page. it has become too difficult to open. --CarTick (talk) 19:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

done. Let's just return to our regularly scheduled program. --rgpk (comment) 21:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)