Talk:India/Archive 18

Talk:India/Sandbox
In light of this discussion, I propose we create a Talk:India/Sandbox for those wanting to make major changes to the article. Since not everyone may like this proposal, those who wish to try it out may add their name below. As I said in the Boldness section, which is linked above, I hope this will spark a more egalitarian environment where accusations WP:OWN go away.

There are two ways it could be done as I far as I see. We can plonk the current India article and go from there except people who wish to make conflicting changes can't show it. I think each user having their own section, where they quote what sentences/section in their opinion needs improving and then reveal their planned changes. Other users can then copyedit the planned changes if there are issues with spelling, grammar and WP:MOS. Very major changes can also be objected of course and will be disabandoned if consensus disagrees.

If anyone sees any huge obstacles with this idea please let me know. I expect the users who agree to this to stop any major editing to the main India article until a consensus forms. Only minor changes and vandalism reverts would be allowed. This page is where essentially all the WP:BOLDness can be unleashed. GizzaDiscuss  &#169; 13:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree the first option of dumping the whole page doesn't make much sense for a long article like India. Another option would be to make it a "text review" along the lines of the Picture_peer_review (which is a lower-level version of the Feature picture review); in other words, people would leave their potential changes, say  from a sentence long to a paragraph long, and various people would leave their comments and suggestions.  That way the editor who initially put up the text for review, still does the final revising and has more of a sense of control at having created the text.  In in that way of thinking, it could be called Talk:India/Text Review, rather than sandbox.  Anyway, more anon.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk:India/Text Peer Review and Sandbox
Hi, In keeping with DaGizza's suggestions, I have created a peer-review and sandbox subpage Talk:India/Text Peer Review and Sandbox (shortcut WP:TITPRS). It is modeled on the picture peer review for Featured Pictures, but in addition includes a Work Area or Sandbox. The page describes how to request text for peer review or communal edit, with a demo example, DemoText. Please take a look at it. The page is for text that can vary in size from a sentence up to a large paragraph (approx. 250 words), but is not for entire sections of the India page. Indeed one the underlying principles of the page is that addition of new text is best done in manageable bits. I will set up a list of volunteer "reviewers" on that page as well. Please let me know what you think and please sign up if you like the idea. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  15:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * At the end of the day, if some users want to use the India page itself as a sandbox, we can't stop them, unless we get into mediation. But this way, at least among the editors who choose to use this approach, there will be more camaraderie and less headache, and hopefully this will help in producing better prose as well.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC) Last updated:  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Willing to volunteer

 * Note: Please see WP:TITPRS, especially the description and principles. The only commitment required is that to using this process over unilateral edits made directly to the India page. Minor edits (corrections of typos or grammar, reverts of vandalism etc.)   obviously do not require this process.  Volunteering doesn't mean commitment of any specific time, just a willingness to help out when you can and in whatever fashion you can.


 * User:DaGizza
 * User:Fowler&fowler
 * user:rueben lys —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * user:Blacksun (see WP:TITPRS)

So I'm kind of confused. So by signingup, one would promise not to make edits without first doing it in the sandbox, then showing everyone, making sure its okay, and then adding it to the India page? Nikkul 20:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. (Commitment to not making non-trivial edits directly to the India page without first submitting the edit to the peer-review and getting feedback from others.  This peer-review is for textual edits, not pictures.)  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * PS Please also see the "principles" in WP:TITPRS.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC) Last updated: Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh ok, thanks Nikkul 06:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

/Economy, /Demographics
I have created two sandboxes, one each for the Economy and Demographics sections. I dumped the 'stable' versions of both sections on the respective pages and then proceeded to bring over the new additons/expansions. Please check the history of the two pages to understand. After bringing over the new additions, I proceeded to cpedit the economy page and have somewhat 'normalised' it to include both rueben/Otolemur's additions and the text that already existed. Of course, there were some repetitions and I got rid of them. I request that editors take a look at it and just start editing it. The titpr idea seems lame to me in that I fear there will be more talk and less work. Sarvagnya 18:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * sheesh.. i put in some forty minutes of effort into that /Economy page and an overzealous admin deletes it! Can Sarvask or Gizza or somebody please undelete it asap.  Thanks. Sarvagnya 18:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Update - okay.. an admin has undeleted it. So can we all start cpediting those pages instead of blogging on titpr?  btw, how can i find out who undeleted the page?  is there a way? Sarvagnya 18:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You are of course welcome to your method. I am sorry I shall not be a part of it.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Yakshagana from list of classical dances in Culture section
user:Sarvagnya has continued to insert Yakshagana in the list of classical dances in the culture section. Although in section Talk:India, I have provided irrefutable evidence (including a signed Encyclopaedia Britannica article written by some of the best known experts on South Asian arts all of whose web sites I have provided) that Yakshagana is considered to be traditional theatre and not classical dance, user:Sarvagnya and user:KNM have continued to revert the page to their version with edit summaries that don't make sense. In one edit summary user:KNM claimed that it was a classical folk art form. Even if that were accurate, it would not make it classical dance but rather classical theatre (the term for which is "traditional theatre"). Consequently, it would not be listed with the other dances like Bharatanatyam and Odissi. In another edit summary user:Sarvagnya wrote (see here), "Yakshagana is Classical, the same way Kannada is classical.. politically motivated babudom doesnt get to decide classicality of humanities for a 'pedia." Again, I don't know what that means, but the signed Encyclopaedia article says clearly that Yakshagana is folk theatre. I request that Yakshagana be removed from the list of classical dances. If and when we have a section or a paragraph on "Folk and Tribal Culture of India" (which includes classical forms), we can reconsider Yakshagana's inclusion. Since the Yakshagana edit had nothing to do with the later edit wars that shut the page down, I request that this edit be made; otherwise, Wikipedia will be putting out inaccurate information with full awareness of the inaccuracies. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  23:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yakshagana is more accurately "dance drama" usually referred to simply as 'dance' by connoisseurs and lay people alike. Kathakali is much in the same mould.

Yakshagana is no more or no less theater than Kathakali is, for example. If the Enc. Britannica calls it "theater"(as in drama/skit), they dont know what they're talking about or more likely that you dont know what they're talking about. And Yakshagana is not a "folk" art in the strictest sense of the word either. Yakshagana too, like all other classical dances of India traces and attributes its technique to the encyclopediac "Natya Shastra" - the same Natya Shastra to which kathakali and manipuri and bharatanatyam and almost all dance forms of India owe alliegiance to. The theme and subject of the performances are also drawn from the Mahabharata, Ramayana or the Puranas unlike "folk" or "tribal" arts. For a more in depth view into it, get your hands on this book by Shivarama Karanth, no less, and take your ill informed nonsense elsewhere. Sarvagnya 17:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Inaccurate information in the article huh - kindav like how India has amongst the biggest scientific infrastructure and manpower in the world, yet somehow we publish less articles in peer reviewed journals (quantity) than twelve other nations (2005 data) and do not even figure in top 20 for citations (quality). But hey, if the High commissioner of India in London claims otherwise, it must be true and verifiable!  I think you do not need to worry about accuracy of the article at this moment.    --Blacksun 01:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Blacksun, maybe you should look up WP:VERIFY and WP:TRUTH and also what the article says before acting smart. It says infrastrusture, then it says "ManPower", then it says "budget". As for the HCI lying here's another article (sourced from a journal) that says something similar.Rueben lys 11:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * PS:If you still believe you have a point to make, I suggest you add it to the article.Rueben lys 11:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * How does that say something similar? Computer science = science?  When did that happen?  BTW, India's contribution to articles in peer reviewed computer science journals is dismal too.  Furthermore, 30 billion Rs = approximately 1 billion USD.  I know of many countries whose budgets dwarf this.  Stop throwing wiki dictionary at me and try to understand it yourself first.  Good infrastructure + large manpower = high number of publications.  You have not shown ANY credible data to back up that qualifies the tag for Indian science infrastructure and I have shown that we are SEVERELY LACKING in number of publications and also number of PHDs.  Furthermore, the idea represented by that sentence (at least to me) is that we are at the forefront of cutting edge science, which is unfortunately false.   --Blacksun 09:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Inclusion of Yakshanaga is against WP:UNDUE(especially in the Summary Style style of India) Knowledge  Hegemony  13:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah? Sarvagnya 17:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Reliable Sources Not YouTube on Yakshagana
I produce a signed Encyclopaedia Britannica article on "South Asian Arts" written by some of the world's best known experts: Sivaramamurti, Calambur, J. A. B. van Buitenen, Edward C. Dimock, C.M. Naim, A.K. Ramanujan, Nazir Ali Jairazbhoy, Balwant Gargi, Pramod Chandra and in addition the website of the Sangeet Natak Academi (The National Academy of Music, Dance and Drama of India); in contrast, user:Sarvagnya has produced a one-paragraph advertisement in the Hindu newspaper:, a page from a tourist travel guide, whose reference to "Yakshagana" says in its entirety, "Karnataka Janapada and Yakshagana Academy (Tel. 2215509), Canara Finance building, Nrupathunga Rd, hold folk music and dance performances, including (obviously) Yakshagana dance from the Mangalore region." and a video from YouTube:. His tourist guide, BTW, seems to suggest that Yakshagana is Folk Dance. What is this, an attempt at farce?

According to the signed Encyclopaedia Britannica article, Sivaramamurti, Calambur, J. A. B. van Buitenen, Edward C. Dimock, C.M. Naim, A.K. Ramanujan, Nazir Ali Jairazbhoy, Balwant Gargi, Pramod Chandra   "South Asian arts: Techniques and Types of Classical Dance" From: Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 12 Oct. 2007, "Four distinct schools of classical Indian dance—bharata-natya, kathakali, kathak, and manipuri—exist in the 20th century ... In 1958 the Sangeet Natak Akademi (National Academy of Music, Dance and Drama) in New Delhi bestowed classical status on two other schools of dance—kuchipudi, from Andhra Pradesh, and orissi, from Orissa." Yakshagana is not in that list. The Britannica article was written in 1979 (so it is dated) in terms of what might be the classical dance forms in 2007, as designated by the Sangeet Natak Academy; however, in the section "South Asian arts: Folk Theatre", which is a completely different section from "Dance," the Britannica article does say:

After the decline of Sanskrit drama, folk theatre developed in various regional languages from the 14th through the 19th centuries ... The most crystalized forms are the jatra of Bengal, the nautanki, ramlila, and raslila of North India, the bhavai of Gujarat, the tamasha of Maharashtra, the terukkuttu of Tamil Nadu, and the yaksagana of Kanara.

The Sangeet Natak Academi (India's National Academy of Music, Dance and Drama) website itself says, (see here): More than 25 important forms of traditional and folk theatre from different States will be featured together with traditional forms of the respective States of the North-East. These will include such well-known traditions as Tamasha of Maharashtra, Bhavai of Gujarat, Yakshagana of Karnataka, Therukoothu of Tamil Nadu, Nautanki of Uttar Pradesh, Prahlad Natak of Orissa

The Sangeet Natak Academi website lists eight classical dance forms: Bharatanatyam, Kathak, Kathakali, Kuchipudi, Manipuri, Mohiniattam, Odissi, and Sattriya, one folk dance form, Chau, and Creative Dance/Choreography as the areas it makes its major national awards in (see here).

The Yakshagana Cultural Magazine, itself considers Yakshagana to be a "theater form" and not a "dance form." See: yakshagana.com and click on "introduction." and read quote: "Being a theatre form, unlike a dance form, it is more plural(istic) and dynamic.") Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Bottom Line: Why don't we Request a Mediation, and let the Mediation Committee decide who has the more Reliable Sources backing them up? Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  18:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I added the youtube and other references you mention right next to "...lay people alike". It was meant to just show the perspective of the lay person and I thought the intention was conspicuous.  Well, perhaps not.. if one is bent only on splitting hairs and quoting things out of context.  Someone who uploads a yakshagana video on youtube surely isnt a Texan cowboy.  He or she certainly knows what they're talking about when they matter-of-factly call it a "dance".


 * And again, it doesnt surprise me that you ignored atleast three books by serious scholars which also I cited (and instead chose to harp on the youtube link). Of course, couple of them were in support of the fact that Yakshagana is a "dance-drama" much the same way Kathakali is a "dance-drama".  You obviously have no inkling about any of these arts.  How many Yakshagana performances have you been to that you're so sure of yourself to the point of being pompous with your half-knowledge?


 * Well, let me split this up for you. Yakshagana has elements of music, dance and drama in it.  It has a smattering of dialogues too.  The allusion to theater refers to the fact that the performance usually narrates a story/episode (prasanga) and multiple dancers take part in it and each one plays(dances, to be precise) a 'role'.  A 'troupe', akin to a drama troupe presents the performance as against the typical bharatanatya or kathak or kuchipudi etc., which is solo.  That is about it.  Otherwise, it is a dance drama or a kind of ballet... and "Dance drama" is "dance", not "drama".  For that matter, Kathakali is almost exactly the same genre as Yakshagana.  If Kathakali is "dance" in your book (or anybody's book, for that matter), then Yakshagana is dance too.  Yakshagana is always nominally dance or dance-drama first.  "Theater"/"Folk theater" etc., comes into play only when we get into the semantic details.. and those semantics are pointless and out of the scope of a summary article.


 * And sadly for you, none of those you name are actually the biggest names in Yakshagana research. Not even close.  They're just researchers who have researched in allied fields and who Enc. Brit. thought were good enough to write a couple hundred words about Yakshagana.  The only one among those scholars you mentioned who even comes close to being a credible Yakshagana expert is perhaps Ramanujan, who again was a linguist, quite far removed from Yakshagana research.  If there is a 'biggest' name in Yakshagana research at all, it probably has to be Dr. Shivarama Karanth.  The Ramanujans and the Shivramamurthis are in all likelihood, just recycling Karanth in their 'research'.  As for Karanth himself, he uses the word 'folk' in his book and then hastens to qualify it thus -

When I use the word 'folk' here, I dont mean in any disparaging sense. Its components like music, dance and costume are highly sophisticated and cannot be mastered without long study and practise. To me, Yakshagana is as classical as Bharata Natya or Karnataki or Hindustani music. The term 'folk' is used here in the sense that all along its patrons have been the people at large and not the royalty. Its artists belong to the very class of villagers who often throng to these all night performances


 * He offers more qualifications throughout the book. In fact, he seldom uses the word 'folk' without qualifications.  So it is not upto you to simply wave a measly Enc. Brit article by half-experts in the field and matter of factly stereotype and straitjacket Y as 'folk' art.


 * Yakshagana is 'classical' in the true sense of the word, not in the idiosyncratic and cooked up sense that the babudom comes up with when called upon to do so by their political masters. A govt., body 'bestowing' an art or a language the status of 'classical' is ludicruous and doesnt belong in this article.  If it pleases you create an article titled List of dances which have been 'bestowed'/'blessed with' the 'classical' tag by Sangeeta Nataka Academy and take your rant there.  When I say classical Yakshagana, "classical" is wikilinked to classical, not to that idiocy you're championing.  Similar discussions have taken place wrt languages and that article now rightly mentions Kannada and Telugu(not sure about telugu, should check) in the list.  The bottomline is this - something is 'classical' when researchers think it is 'classical' and not when a pseudo secular govt., decides to prostitute its soul and rigor in research at the altar of opportunistic politics.  If we were to go by govt., listings, Sanskrit wouldnt have been classical until around 2004 or 2005.  bottomline is, if it is semantic tomfoolery that you're bent on, go ahead and reword it.. cpedit it.  there's just no case to remove it. Sarvagnya 17:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * note: i'd typed this response yesterday.. but couldnt post it.. i see that fowler continues to split hairs below.. i'm not sure I'll be replying for too much longer..
 * I am not sure what to make of this "reply" since it was posted an hour after I posted my initial post below and half an hour after I posted my last post (signed with stamp) below. The post above accuses me of not reading some authors, when those authors (e.g. Shivarama Karanth) are extensively quoted in my post below.  If user:Sarvagnya had written the response yesterday as he claims and if the response was already old (in light of my post below), then there was no reason to post the response.  As for user:Sarvagnya's offer for me to "reword it ... cpedit it,"  I propose to do just that tomorrow.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Shivarama Karanth's Book on Yaksagana

 * In a post above in this section, user:Sarvagnya exhorted me to, "For a more in depth view into it, get your hands on this book by Shivarama Karanth, no less, and take your ill informed nonsense elsewhere." Well, I did get my hands on the book (in the hard copy) and I read the relevant chapters, and I am now able to quote from user:Sarvagnya's source itself:
 * From: Karanth, K. Shivarama. (1997). Yakṣagāna (Forward by H. Y. Sharada Prasad). Abhinav Publications.  252 pages. ISBN 8170173574.  "As I look at the traditional Yakṣagāna theatre of today, I feel impelled to look back towards its 'stage' ..." (p. 21)  Since the earliest known Yakṣagāna play belongs to 1564 AD, we can safely assume that Yakṣagāna plays or prasangas orginated prior to AD 1500.  A good number of Yakṣagāna plays are now available to us ...  The present theatrical form of the Yakṣagāna play consists of three different mediums of expression, language, music, and dance, besides costume and make-up.  The written songs and verses of the early plays have survived, ... Its spoken prose, never learnt by heart but always improvised on the spur of the moment, has vanished. (p. 24)  "The Yakṣagāna folk-theatre is no isolated theatrical form in India.  We have a number of such theatrical traditions all around Karnataka... In far off Assam we have similar plays going on by the name of  Ankia Nat, in neighouring Bengal we have the very popular Jatra plays.  Maharashtra has Tamasa. (p. 26)  In some Indian folk plays we find songs and speeches interwoven as in Yakṣagāna or Tamasa.  In some, elaborate gesture takes the place of speech as in Kudiyata, Kathakali or Kuchipudi.  In some, written prose is spoken by characters and in some, all speech is extempore as in Yakṣagāna and Tamasa." (p. 26)
 * From: Karanth, K. Shivarama. (1997). Yakṣagāna (Forward by H. Y. Sharada Prasad). Abhinav Publications.  252 pages. ISBN 8170173574.  "Yaksagana plays are often likened to Kathakali plays of Kerala or Kuchipudi plays of Andhra... Kathakali of Kerala has its own musical style, but it eschews the spoken word entirely.  Instead it uses a gesture language.  But Yakṣagāna employs the speech medium extensively in depicting its dramatic situations.  Here, the function of dance is not total but only partial, though all the characters who appear on stage do dance ... The essential difference between a Yakṣagāna drama and the other two systems is the role of speech.  Possibilities of using dance medium along with music for the total expression of a drama are there (in Yakṣagāna); at places it (Yakṣagāna) needs further exploitation for better articulation." (p 103).
 * From: Karanth, K. Shivarama. (1997). Yakṣagāna (Forward by H. Y. Sharada Prasad). Abhinav Publications.  252 pages. ISBN 8170173574.  "Yakṣagānas dance form consists mostly of the nṛtta aspects of footwork and rythmical body movements&mdash;including those of the neck, arms and palms.  It contains some fine postures, body flexions, as well as a few squatting, jumping and reeling movements.  What it lacks is a stylised gesture language employing symbolic mudrās to depict parts of speech.  The few gestures and symbols used are the ones that one normally uses in his day to day conversation.... This is not to assert that Yakṣagāna has the most perfect variety of dance.  Because of the importance given to the spoken word, certain rhythmic forms like harmony of body lines and gestures have not been studied and cultivated, and consequently the aesthetic aspects of grace and meaning suffer. (p 104)   Charms of the female personality are revealed through various movements, postures, eye, neck, shoulder, and palm movements.  But in certain postures that are considered basic to Yakṣagāna, I feel there is more ugliness than charm.'" (p 104).
 * The reference, Seminar on Karanth from Vihangama The Newsletter of the Indira Gandhi National Centre of Arts (IGNCA), Vol. V September - October 2002, (provided by user:Sarvagnya) itself says: "Dr. Karanth has made a singular contribution to the preservation, reformation and propagation of the great Indian theatrical art Yakshagana... In the academic session, ... Shri K. Mohan ... said the traditional Yakshagana theatre was largely untouched by his innovations."  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Removal of content from lead by Otolemur
{{{tlx|editprotect}} User Otolemur in this edit removed a large fragment of the sentence: Gradually annexed by the British East India Company from the early eighteenth century and colonised by the United Kingdom from the mid-nineteenth century, India became a modern nation-state in 1947 after a struggle for independence that was marked by widespread use of nonviolent resistance as a means of social protest. without any edit summary or explanation of his action (let alone his motivations). Furthermore, what remains now: Gradually annexed by the British East India Company from the early eighteenth century and colonised by the United Kingdom from the mid-nineteenth century, India became a modern nation-state in 1947 after struggle for independence. is not only missing an article, but is abrupt and tautological. Since this edit too, of a sentence that had been stable since last November, had no connection with the subsequent edit-wars linked to the lock-down, I request that it be reverted and the original text be reinstated. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  12:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I fail to understand why Otelmur made the change to sentence? Knowledge  Hegemony  13:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Could Otelmur be asked to explain his edits? =Nichalp   «Talk»=  13:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * An introductory paragraph should be as short as possible, as the detailed are discussed in mother articles. In a introductory paragraph contents like this is unnecessary. This line should be added in history section. The second paragraph in the introduction should be deleted as this makes the introduction unnecessarily long. Otolemur crassicaudatus 14:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * But you didn't remove the entire second paragraph, just a large fragment of one sentence (from which you removed an article, indicating you knew you were removing the fragment, and not the paragraph). Besides, Australia, Canada, Peru, Pakistan, Bangladesh (all FAs) and the United States all talk about history in their lead.  What Wikipedia rule are you implementing by your edit?  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Otolemur, can you provide us with the requisite wikipedia manual of style guideline that says that the lead has to be "as short as possible"? As far as the guideline on the lead section goes, four paragraphs seems ok to us. Please do get familiar with wikipedia guidelines before making drastic edits. And another point: Please do not unnecessarily compare the India article to other featured country articles: This article is one of the oldest featured articles, and most other country articles have been modelled on this. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  15:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Quoted from Nichalp: This article is one of the oldest featured articles, and most other country articles have been modelled on this.
 * I myself didn't know this, and I imagine many newcomers don't know this either. So, I am highlighting it once again for everyone to see.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Leads are supposed to be thorough outlines of an entire article. Social protest by means of nonviolent civil disobedience was a very important part of pre-independent India. Nishkid64 (talk) 02:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This sentence was originally created after months of debate and getting feedback from dozens of users. I believe it also satisfied  almost everyone's concern.  Yes, you should not have to ask for every edit you make but it is also worth considering the flip side. --Blacksun 09:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I left another message on Otolemur's talk page requesting him to answer further questions posed for him here; however, that message too was removed by Otolemur.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I left a "Final Message" on Otolemur's talk page a few hours ago, but that too was deleted from the talk page (see here).  Since Otolemur is consistently refusing to respond here to the questions posed for him and moreover is deleting content from his talk page, I request the attending administrator to reinstate the entire sentence in its original form.  Regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

A Straw Poll for Subsections
User Otolemur has not only added subsections to the India page, but to the United States and Pakistan pages as well. On the US page his edits have changed the Table of Contents from this to this, and given his editing pattern on that page, he is likely to add more subsections there. He did the same on the Pakistan page, but after being challenged there, decided to temporarily back off. Since some of his newly created subsections on the Pakistan page were three lines long, and those on the currently locked-down India page are only a hair's breadth longer, his approach appears to be one of selecting subtopics and creating the subsections first and then filling them up with text. I am myself of the opposite school. I prefer to add the content first, to develop it, and only then, if the text suggests it (by its theme and length), do I create subsections. I am not necessarily against subsections, but I prefer to create them towards the end of text development; besides, I feel that this early straight-jacketing of contents prevents exploration of themes that might otherwise arise.

Since the India page is currently locked down–consequently, since time is of the essence–and since one of the bones of contention antecedent to the lock-down was the creation of the many subsections, I suggest that we conduct a simple straw poll rather than pursue more protracted forms of consensus building. Please cast your vote below. Please sign.


 * 1. For subsections now:


 * 2. Against subsections at the present stage (of text development):
 * 1) Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Keynes.john.maynard 18:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) --Dwaipayan (talk) 19:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) It should the last of our concerns (Not saying that in a negative way, but it only should be considered once the expansion has taken place. The appropriate number and which subsections to be added can only be decided then) though I understand Nichalp's point and would only support if they are absolutely necessary. GizzaDiscuss  &#169; 22:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Strongly leaning towards all time though but you never know.  --Blacksun 08:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, not for now. Maybe after the text review. Knowledge  Hegemony  13:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3. Against subsections at any time:
 * 1) It looks downright ugly and makes for a poor read.  =Nichalp   «Talk»=   —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 13:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) I agree with Nichalp, too many subsections makes the text choppy and moves an encyclopedia article more towards a dictionary article.   Green Giant 18:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I think if we can put this (minor) issue behind us, we can proceed with more important issues such as what new sections are needed (if any) and how much to expand the article by (if at all), and get the show back on the road. Regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

some minor cleanup
Obviously, this doesn't need to be edited immediately, but the second paragraph has some serial comma issues. It's important for consistency above all, here. The text of my suggested change follows, to replace the second sentence of the second paragraph of the introduction. Four major world religions---Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism---originated here, while Islam, Christianity, Judaism, and Zoroastrianism arrived in the first millennium CE and shaped the region's variegated culture. --AaronRosenberg 22:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, this topic has come up before on this page. The serial comma is not as common in British and Indian English (used on this page) as it is in American English.  Consequently, on this page it is used only if it is needed to resolve potential ambiguity.  Since no ambiguity arises in the sentence under consideration, the serial comma is not used.  Regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

First suggestion on Talk:India/Text Peer Review and Sandbox
I have started making use of this page. I intially only wanted to copyedit a sentence on health in the demographics section but I then realised the references citing the sentence don't exactly say what is stated in the article. GizzaDiscuss  &#169; 23:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added some suggestions there.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent science related additions
This sentence was recently added to the article: "Science and technology in India forms a major commitemnet for both the Govt and Private sector in India. India posseses one of the world's largest scientific and technological infrastructure and manpower, which in [[2006] was worth Rs 30 billion, up from the Rs 10 million in [[1947]."

Ignoring the choppy sentence structure, I have serious issues with the verifiability of some of things it stays. My argument is based on some reasonable assumptions, as follows,
 * 1) Number of peer-reviewed journal articles and impact factor is a strong indication of status of science in a country. This criteria was used to quantify and qualify science and technology in following articles:"Time for a fresh start", "The battle for Russia's brains", "Breaking up is hard to do", Nature, 449, 2007 - Furthermore, there is a precedence for using this criteria to gauge scientific growth of a country.
 * 2) Another assumption I make, rooted in common sense, is that there is a strong correlation between availability of scientific infrastructure + manpower and number of publications + citations.

Now, the only clear evidence that has been presented so far in support of this statement is that the above statement was made by the High Commisioner of India in London (can someone actually give me that link, I have missed it). I state that the high commissioner of India in London cannot be regarded as a credible evidence for such a statement. If we were to use every public figures statement as a credible evidence, articles on countries like China and Pakistan might look very different.

The evidence that I present is as follows,
 * 1) India ranks 13th on the number of publications. It is behind much smaller countries like Netherlands and Italy, where manpower is an issue. (2005 data)
 * 2) India is outside of top 20 on the number of times the publications (above) are cited by other people. This is an indicator of poor quality of research being done, generally speaking. (2005 data)
 * 3) Post-graduate scene in India is weak as indicated by lack of PHDs. With more PHD's, India can be a superpower, M A Pai.

So, my point is that even though India has made great strides in science and technology, she is still behind the developed nations in terms of funding and infrastructure available for science. As a result, lot of Indian students go to the west for doing their PhD and also settle there due to lack of funding and exciting research being done in India. The sentence in its present form goes against assumption #2 and makes it seem like India is at the forefront of research. As such, it really needs to be rephrased heavily. --Blacksun 09:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * bah! Instead of giving us a 500 word thesis to read, simply go ahead and reword it to what you think would be an accurate description of India's standing in S&T (just leave a "cpedit" in the edit summary). This is how it works on all other articles in wikipedia -- people keep rewording it until the prose finds a nice balance and reflects the sources while also taking care of other concerns like NPOV, UNDUE, WEASEL, PEACOCK etc.,.  All this happens one step at a time and usually it doesnt take very long before a piece of prose fits snug into the rest of the article.  The predilection of some here for straw polls and rfcs and ani reports and arbcoms for every 5 words added or removed from the article is sickening, to say the least. Sarvagnya 18:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That is also how articles fall into a vicious cycle of edit wars. Case in point.--Blacksun 21:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No. That is how articles improve in a wiki.  Edit warring happens when one or more parties become wedded to a particular wording.  At the moment, there is no reason or evidence to believe that either party is wedded to its own wording.  Those who added it, did so because it was felt that a few lines about science and tech in India was needed and they just wanted to make a 'start'.  Unless you disagree(you havent said so) that it is even required in this article, you'd want to start chipping away at the wording and produce your version.  There is always a middle ground which can be reached with iterative interpolations of different 'takes' of the same issue.
 * Other things like which section this content should be a part of, etc., can be decided as we go. Also, talking of sections, a section on "Education" would make sense(it is a part of most state articles) and it would also make sense to weave this S&T bit into it. Sarvagnya 22:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Firstly, you are making an assumption that every new addition is worth keeping after some polishing. Let me make myself crystal clear: I find almost all the new additions not worth keeping.  So polishing it, in this case, would be akin to deleting it.  Furthermore, if I want to discuss an addition in the talk page, I will do so.  If you find reading clearly explained reasoning not worth your time then don't bother responding to it.  Need not worry, I will provide a copy edit that states "as per talk page." --Blacksun 14:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I hadn't been paying attention to this Science and Technology issue earlier, but I agree with Blacksun that the number of citations is a very important indicator of the strength of research (in the different fields of science and technology) and that India's absence from the top 20 is a sign of its poor performance. It might have great educational institutions, it might have large-scale software development, but, its performance in scientific research is poor.   At the very least this statement will need to be included with a statement about India having the largest pool of scientists of any country in the world (or words to that effect that have already been added).   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

A Straw Poll for Potential New Additions
Since the straw poll for sub-sections seems to be moving along, I thought it might be time to have a straw poll for new additions. I have created a set of choices below which allow the voter to choose between anything from no expansion to the addition of a full section. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  18:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Definition: A Large paragraph is approximately 250 to 300 words; a small paragraph is 125 to 150 words. Those are the approximate upper limits.


 * Religion. (Daughter article Religion in India)
 * 1) Full section
 * 2) (Large/Small (please choose one)) paragraph within (Culture, Demographics (please choose one)
 * 3) No addition/expansion in any form needed at this time
 * Votes:
 * (Example) 2, small, culture, signature.
 * 3 Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3, not needed.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3,Blanket no new sections from my end. The article is bloated enough. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  01:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3, Blanket no new sections at this time. --Blacksun 13:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3 - No need. Chanakyathegreat 03:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3 - No new sections at this time as the article is very bloated. Green Giant 17:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2 - Large Religion is big in india Nikkul 02:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3 - Blanket NO NEW SECTIONS. Article is already super-sized. --Ragib 21:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Science and Technology (Daughter article Science and Technology in India
 * 1) Full section
 * 2) (Large/Small (please choose one)) paragraph within (Culture, Economy (please choose one)
 * 3) No addition/expansion in any form needed at this time.
 * Votes:
 * Most needed 1,Chanakyathegreat 03:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * (Example) 2, small, culture, signature.
 * 3, not needed at this time.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  07:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2, small, within Economy.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3,Blanket no new sections from my end. The article is bloated enough. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  01:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3, Blanket no new sections at this time. --Blacksun 13:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3 - No new sections at this time as the article is very bloated. Green Giant 17:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2- Large. It is rather important to economy Nikkul 02:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3 - Blanket NO NEW SECTIONS. Article is already super-sized. --Ragib 21:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Folk and Tribal Culture (Daughter article Folk and Tribal Culture in India (not created yet)).
 * 1) Full section
 * 2) (Large/Small (please choose one)) paragraph within Culture
 * 3) No addition/expansion in any form needed at this time.
 * Votes:
 * (Example) 2, small, signature.
 * 2, Small, Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2, small, within culture.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3,Blanket no new sections from my end. The article is bloated enough. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  01:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3, Blanket no new sections at this time. --Blacksun 13:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3 - No new sections at this time as the article is very bloated. Green Giant 17:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3- no need Nikkul 02:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3 - Blanket NO NEW SECTIONS. Article is already super-sized. --Ragib 21:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Education and Health (Daughter article(s): )
 * 1) Full section
 * 2) (Large/Small (please choose one)) paragraph within Demographics
 * 3) No addition/expansion in any form needed at this time.
 * Votes:
 * (Example) 2, small, signature.
 * 2, Small, Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2, small, within demography.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3,Blanket no new sections from my end. The article is bloated enough. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  01:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3, Blanket no new sections at this time. --Blacksun 13:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3 - No new sections at this time as the article is very bloated. Green Giant 17:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3 Nikkul 02:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3 - Blanket NO NEW SECTIONS. Article is already super-sized. --Ragib 21:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sports (Daughter article: )
 * 1) Full section
 * 2) (Large/Small (please choose one)) paragraph within Culture
 * 3) No addition/expansion in any form needed at this time
 * Votes:
 * (Example) 2, small, signature.
 * 3 Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2, small, within culture.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3,Blanket no new sections from my end. The article is bloated enough. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  01:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3, Blanket no new sections at this time. --Blacksun 13:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3 - No new sections at this time as the article is very bloated. Green Giant 17:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2 small Nikkul 02:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3 - Blanket NO NEW SECTIONS. Article is already super-sized. --Ragib 21:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1, A new section. Chanakyathegreat 03:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Transportation (Daughter article:  )
 * 1) Full section
 * 2) (Large/Small (please choose one)) paragraph within Economy
 * 3) No addition/expansion in any form needed at this time.
 * Votes:
 * (Example) 2, small, signature.
 * 3 Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2, small, within Economy.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3,Blanket no new sections from my end. The article is bloated enough. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  01:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3, Blanket no new sections at this time. --Blacksun 13:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3 - No new sections at this time as the article is very bloated. Green Giant 17:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2 Small Nikkul 02:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3 - Blanket NO NEW SECTIONS. Article is already super-sized. --Ragib 21:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2 - A small section.Chanakyathegreat 03:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Blanket no new sections from my end. The article is bloated enough. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  01:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Blanket no new sections at this time. --Blacksun 13:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The article as it stands is bloated and needs pruning before any new sections can be considered. Green Giant 17:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Blanket NO NEW SECTIONS. Article is already super-sized. --Ragib 21:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In principle, article is not superlong (22k prose), so yes to new sections if appropriate.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 01:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

A Straw Poll for Rotation of Images
Finally, the last issue that is dogging the page–the problem of images. Rotation of images was proposed by some people and opposed by others. I had originally created a simple straw poll below, but since some votes were ambiguous, I have clarified the categories, so that there is no confusion. Since a number of people have already expressed their opinions, I am adding their names (for or against). Please correct if I have made a mistake. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  18:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC) Updated:  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * For Rotation of Images (with decision on image quality made at WP:PINSPC and with no "Featured Quality" condition on image):
 * 1) --Dwaipayan (talk) 21:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) - If pictures are picked carefully this provides greater flexibility.
 * 3) Whatever scheme is implemented, images need to fulfill at least the minimum requirements at WP:IMAGE: "a variety of material near relevant text" and "must be relevant to the article ... and of sufficient notability (relative to the article's topic)" (featured images are not mentioned as a requirement at WP:IMAGE). Greater regional variety is needed.
 * 4) Rotation concept is certainly an experiment and, if implemented successfully, would certainly address issues such as the one we just had in Culture section about Toda image. - KNM Talk 01:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Amartyabag   TALK2ME  05:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) --Dwaipayan (talk) 21:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) - If pictures are picked carefully this provides greater flexibility.
 * 3) Whatever scheme is implemented, images need to fulfill at least the minimum requirements at WP:IMAGE: "a variety of material near relevant text" and "must be relevant to the article ... and of sufficient notability (relative to the article's topic)" (featured images are not mentioned as a requirement at WP:IMAGE). Greater regional variety is needed.
 * 4) Rotation concept is certainly an experiment and, if implemented successfully, would certainly address issues such as the one we just had in Culture section about Toda image. - KNM Talk 01:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Amartyabag   TALK2ME  05:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Amartyabag   TALK2ME  05:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Conditional For/Against :
 * 1) Perhaps we should try to feature pictures from regions not represented here at the moment, add those and leave it there. Gizza</b><sup style="color:teal;">Discuss  <b style="color:teal;">&#169;</b> 22:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) I agree with DaGizza.  Get pictures from South India (and other regions not currently represented) featured (at WP:FP) and leave those pictures in the article for some time.  I am not necessarily against rotation, but would only support it if the images being rotated are Featured Pictures or near-feature quality like Sakyamuni Siddhartha Gautama.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC) Please see my post The potential emptiness about rotations below.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Against, unless all of the images in the rotation are WP:FP. And even then I am not sure it is a good idea...Rangek 03:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Only if all are WP:FP Knowledge  Hegemony  05:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) For. Provided the images are Featured quality, are regionally balanced, pertinent and so on.  =Nichalp   «Talk»=  01:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support only if there is a strict process for rotation based on prior discussion on the talk-page here, feature-quality images, relevance and stability (i.e. rotate maybe once a fortnight :P ) - I think we need to question just how many of the current images should be placed in this "rotation" bearing in mind that I can't imagine an article on India not having an image of Mahatma Gandhi or the Taj Mahal :P Green Giant 17:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Against Rotation of Images:
 * 1) Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion
Just to clarify my position, I am not totally against a rotational system (this was what I wrote before There is some benefit in a "rotation" system but the biggest problem with it is that the image debate will never go away. Half of the discussions here would be forever about images. Perhaps we should try to feature pictures from regions not represented here at the moment, add those and leave it there.) but I do other some other concerns. One of the criteria in WP:WIAFA is stability. Traditionally, it has nearly always referred edit wars and drastic content changes, not image changes. However, if one sees inactive WP:STABLE, WP:FLAGGED and WP:1.0, you will notice that stable versions of articles will be of importance for Wikipedia in the future. Regardless of its quality, the India article has high priority and a particular version may be tagged as "stable" in the future. <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b><sup style="color:teal;">Discuss  <b style="color:teal;">&#169;</b> 22:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, though I doubt anybody has thought of the range of images that will used, I would be keen to know how regional balance will be brought about. I think it would be unfair to give every state and union territory equal coverage, because would be giving WP:UNDUE weight to some of the tiny states. At the same time, using a previous example, giving 300 times the coverage to Uttar Pradesh than Sikkim is unrealistic too. These issues would be need to be discussed before any application of a rotation system. <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b><sup style="color:teal;">Discuss  <b style="color:teal;">&#169;</b> 22:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I too am not necessarily against rotation (see my posts F&f rotation1, F&f rotation2, F&f rotation3 going back to November 2006), however I prefer the pictures to be "Featured Pictures or near-feature quality like Sakyamuni Siddhartha Gautama."  ("Near-feature quality" means that they came awfully close to being selected in the FPC review, but weren't selected in the end.)  It is not enough to just have "high-res" images, it is the composition of the image that is equally important, and in my opinion the best expertise available for such quality image selection is at WP:FP.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The best case would be having FPs from different parts of India and about differents aspects of India. If we had an excess of those I wouldn't mind rotation. Having said that, I think quality (and I mean the upmost quality) should only have preference ceteris parabus. Though I wouldn't mind non-FPs, they have to decent images, not shoddy and ugly images that dull the page. <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b><sup style="color:teal;">Discuss  <b style="color:teal;">&#169;</b> 05:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * One more thing I can suggest, which I think can end this debate about the use of photos in the culture section. Lets select 1 photo from each state (if available) related to the culture of the state and we can change these photos every fortnight (15 days), much importance can be given to any picture of festival which falls during the period. This was what i proposed exactly 2 months ago. See here. Amartyabag   TALK2ME  05:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Added to problem of maintaining balance that DaGizza mentioned above is another problem I've alluded to above. Since the average user who reads the India article for information likely reads it in one sitting (or at least doesn't keep coming back day after day), the images presented to the user will be unbalanced anyway, no matter how often the images are rotated. What does rotational balance mean then?  A kind of statistical balance over a large number of readers? In other words, what any one reader will get by way of image content will be unbalanced, but the 180,000 yearly readers (of the India page) together will carry balanced image content in their collective unconscious?  Imagine if we rotated text in the same way: would any one be satisfied?   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  08:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Rotation image does not mean anything for someone who will visit India article just once. However, there is no evidence to suggest that this is indeed the case amongst the "average reader." Another benefit of a rotation image is that it makes it less likely to have giant arguments over which image to pick when there are three or four equally good candidates :P --Blacksun 14:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I notice the use of phrases like "regional balance" without specifying the context - linguistic, cultural or historic regions or the traditional north-south divide or even perhaps the unofficial regions listed here. Personally I would prefer the latter as it simplifies the task of deciding how much a particular region is being represented. Green Giant 17:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Complicating the matter further is that there is a world of difference between images selected on WP:PINSPC (as formulated by user:Saravask in his post here) and the images being collected on Talk:India/Rotation.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

We all agree that one image can never represent Indian culture in its entirety. Rotating images can get closer to doing this than having one image and saying THIS represents India in all forms. Nikkul 17:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Why are you fixated on the notion that the image "has to be" a true objective representation of "India". Nobody is contesting that. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  17:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

One small observation -- all the talk about rotation seem to be for appeasing *editors* of the article, and NOT the *readers*. One common argument I see above is regional balance. Well, that again is for appeasing editors from different regions ... who want to see an image from their region showed here. But we are forgetting that the actual readers of the page are likely to be people who want to know about India, and would come to the page for learning about it in a nutshell. Do the pro-rotation editors think that users will come to the page again and again in each rotation cycle, so that the rotation of images will give them a regionally-balanced view? I hardly think so. Thanks. --Ragib 18:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ragib, I would like to ask you; If you dont think the rotation will give a regionally balanced view, then how would you solve the problem of showing people an image of India in a nutshell? According to you, which one image sums up Indian culture in a nutshell? Which one image shows literature, architecture, food, sports, festivals, tribes folk culture, urban culture, etc? Nikkul 02:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I must say, Ragib has a valid and a strong point - Do the pro-rotation editors think that users will come to the page again and again in each rotation cycle, so that the rotation of images will give them a regionally-balanced view? Will someone care to reply? Knowledge  Hegemony  08:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * These points have been touched upon and answered before. Ultimately, readers get to read what editors write.  If they dont like what they read, the doors are open and they're free to jump in and edit (we all were readers before we became editors. Right?).  Its wikipedia, remember.  And editors follow the wiki process.. of which consensus is a major part.  And somebody's favourite pics(whoever put them there long back) squatting there for eternity is not consensus.  Give me one good reason why I shouldnt replace the Ajanta pic or the BSE pic or even the Taj, for that matter.  Just dont give me the "its a FP" crap.  If you think there's any anamoly here, you should probably put it down to wikipedia's own faults.  But then, wikipedia wouldnt exist without some of its faults. Sarvagnya 10:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "...all the talk about rotation seem to be for appeasing *editors* of the article, and NOT the *readers*...." - how did you assume that readers are pleased with the article's present state or its choice of images? And what makes you so sure that they'll be displeased with 'rotation'?  Sarvagnya 10:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The point that Ragib is making and that I have made in Why rotation doesn't make sense above, is not whether readers will be displeased with rotation, but rather that they won't know the difference between images that have been "squatting there for eternity" and those that have been squatting there since the onset of the new rotational cycle, no matter how short it might be. As for not telling you "its a (sic) FP," need I remind you that there is no consensus as of yet for rotation without the FP-condition.  The vote stands at 10 to 8 for rotation (without the FP-condition).  If the vote of 18 to 16 for the Toda dairy images was deemed not to be a consensus, then 10 to 8 for rotation (without the FP condition) is not consensus either.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Neither Tagore nor Toda... for now
In order to avoid an edit war both the images have been removed. Tagore's image has not gone under the scanner(ie.voted for) till now hence its unfair to replace the Toda pic with it. PS:Those who voted against Toda never said that their vote implied support *for* Tagore.Eg. Blacksun doest want the Tagore image. Nikkul wanted the image of Akshardham and Thoreulylazy wanted a pic of Thanjavur.

Whereas Toda had no clear consensus (against:for =17:18 or if Amargg's vote is added will be 18:18). Though "no consensus" should imply 'keep' (thats what is the rule in AfD). But still I removed it cause I am not so sure about that. Knowledge Hegemony  17:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The AfD analogy is not valid. There was no consensus for keeping such a controversial image, and there was no WP policy supporting the forced insertion of an image that is not relevant to the article. To the contrary, see WP:IMAGE: "Images must be relevant to the article they appear in and be of sufficient notability (relative to the article's topic)" and WP:IMAGE: "Articles that use more than one image should present a variety of material near relevant text." The Tagore image fulfills the only relevant WP policies that apply to placement of images in this case. &#2384; Priyanath talk 17:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "Forced insertion that is not relevant to the article" -- I'm sorry but the placement of a picture is always going to be subjective. Please do not call it "not relevant". =Nichalp   «Talk»=  17:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with K-H and Nichalp. Besides if an image is absolutely needed for now, why Tagore, why not the  "The Recognition of  Shakuntala" which is explictly mentioned in the text and which is a classic painting by Raja Ravi Verma (1848-1906).  No one can say that Tagore is more representative than Kalidasa.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You know I'm not calling the hut pic "not relevant". For the toda article it's extremely relevant. But for this article, the image is not relevant "to the article's topic", and not of "sufficient notability". These are WP policies on placement of images in articles. Nor is it placed "near relevant text". The Tagore image does fulfill all of these very clearly written WP policies on placement of images. &#2384; Priyanath talk 17:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * (To Fowler&fowler) Thank You! For suggesting an image that has some mention in the article! I think we're getting somewhere. In terms of relevance, I think Tagore is more relevant, but it seems we can now actually discuss images in terms of "relevant to the article they appear in and be of sufficient notability (relative to the article's topic)" and one that can be placed "near relevant text". The Shakuntala image certainly meets WP policy on image choice and placement, along with the Tagore image. If others feel Shakuntala is more appropriate, I wouldn't oppose it (though I still prefer Tagore).   &#2384; Priyanath talk 17:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * To Priyanath: The "Recognition of Shakuntala" image became "relevant" only because I added the sentence, "The earliest works of Indian literature were transmitted orally and only later written down. These included works of Sanskrit literature, such as the epics Mahabharata and Ramayana, and the drama The Recognition of Śakuntalā, and those of the Sangam literature in Tamil." two weeks ago.  In the previous version of the sentence which had no explicit mention of "Shakuntala," the painting above would have been just as irrelevant as the Toda dairy.  Similarly, if no mention were made of Tagore in the text, his image too will be irrelevant.   Conversely, I can easily amend the sentence, "The vernacular architecture displays notable regional variation." to the sentence "The vernacular architecture displays notable regional variation, from the unique barrel-shaped huts of the Toda people to the sloping thatched and clay-tiled roofs of rural West Bengal."  That would easily make the Toda image as relevant as Tagore.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You are correct Fowler. However, I think that culture section needs an arts or literature related image.  India related articles generally tend to be light in this area even though India has a rich history of art and literature.  Come to think of it, usually Asian literature and arts is under-weighted in the world.  Besides, we already have Taj for architecture.  I have no problem switching Tag with Toda if you wish but I am sure others might protest.  --Blacksun 08:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I love the recognition of Shakuntala image. Please replace Tagore image with this one asap.--Blacksun 08:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I would support the replacement of Tagore with Shakuntala. Tagore himself is not culture (I don't mean to offend him in any way) but what he wrote was culture. Similarly, I wouldn't like an image of Kalidasa or Raja Ravi Varma. However, this is a painting of Raja Ravi Varma about the play that Kalidasa wrote. It is highly pertinent to culture in that sense, unlike Tagore's image which is more suited for a biography or history section. <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b><sup style="color:teal;">Discuss  <b style="color:teal;">&#169;</b> 09:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If others think the Varma image is relevant, then I'm fine with it. Toda is still not relevant or notable for this article, though, compared to so many other images that definitely meet WP policies. If there's to be a third image, it should be literature or dance- now that we have architecture and painting represented. &#2384; Priyanath talk 15:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * After Sarvagnya's revert and comment, I searched for relevance of the painting fowler put in place of Tagore. A Google search for *recognition sakuntala varma* (without quotes, to give the best possible chance of results) gives less than 1,000 results, many of them Wikipedia mirrors. "Rabindranath Tagore" gives 1,230,000. Why, fowler, do you keep replacing notable and relevant images with obscure and not-relevant-for-this-article images? Is this some kind of game? Is there some kind of hidden agenda? If we are not going to have an image rotation scheme, then we must have the most relevant and notable images - like the Taj Mahal, and Tagore. The only way we can have images that represent minority and regional groups, is to use rotation. Until then, we must stick with those images that most represent India - like Gandhi, Taj, Tagore, main national government building, etc. &#2384; Priyanath talk 00:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The painting is about Kalidasa's Abhijnanashakuntalam ("The Recognition of Shakuntala"), not about Raja Ravi Varma who happens to be the painter. Don't know what your Google search means or for that matter any of Sarvagnya's incoherent edit summaries, but here is Britannica on Kalidasa: "Sanskrit poet and dramatist, probably the greatest Indian writer of any epoch. The six works identified as genuine are the dramas Abhijñanasakuntala (“The Recognition of Sakuntala”), Vikramorvasi (“Urvasi Won by Valour”), and Malavikagnimitra (“Malavika and Agnimitra”); the epic poems Raghuvamsa (“Dynasty of Raghu”) and Kumarasambhava (“Birth of the War God”); and the lyric “Meghaduta” (“Cloud Messenger”).  In drama, his Abhijñanasakuntala is the most famous and is usually judged the best Indian literary effort of any period...  The epic myth is important because of the child, for he is Bharata, eponymous ancestor of the Indian nation ... As in all of Kalidasa's works, the beauty of nature is depicted with a precise elegance of metaphor that would be difficult to match in any of the world's literatures."  The Britannica devotes more than twice as much space to Kalidasa as it does to Tagore, who for all his achievements, is not quite in Kalidasa's league.  Similarly Oxford World's Classics, one of the benchmarks of "classics" status have published The Recognition of Shakuntala, but have yet to publish anything by Tagore.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  05:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I know what the painting is about - and it's nowhere near as notable as the taj or Tagore. You know that, and I think everyone else here does also. (P.S. There is not even a single mention in the article about Kalidasa. Your WP:POINT edit is all about the painting. You know that these far-less-relevant pet images of yours are against WP image policies and standards - for what reason, I can only guess.) Rotation. &#2384; Priyanath talk 15:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear user:Priyanath, can I kindly request you to grant me the same clarity of expression that I present you in all my writings, whether here or on the main India page?
 * user:Priyanath's quote: "I know what the painting is about - and it's nowhere near as notable as the taj or Tagore."
 * What is not "nowhere near as notable?" The painting is about the greatest literary work in Sanskrit literature, The Recognition of Śakuntalā?  That, I'm afraid, is more notable than anything put out by the beloved bard of Shantiniketan.
 * user:Priyanath's quote: "You know that, and I think everyone else here does also. (P.S. There is not even a single mention in the article about Kalidasa."
 * There is mention of the The Recognition of Śakuntalā, whose author is none other than Kalidasa.
 * user:Priyanath's quote: *"Your WP:POINT edit is all about the painting."
 * What edit? My edit is not "all about the painting," it is about the dramatic work. The fact that the painter's name appears first in the caption is just a literary device; it can be easily changed.
 * user:Priyanath's quote: "You know that these far-less-relevant pet images of yours are against WP image policies and standards - for what reason, I can only guess.) Rotation."
 * Again please don't attribute motivations, especially when you do a less than stellar job of clarifying what they are. I sincerely hope this post will encourage you to express yourself more unambiguously in the future. Warm regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I think the picture of Sakuntala is a wonderful idea. In addition to what Fowler's said, it seems to me that it simultaneously represents several aspects of Indian culture - the high Sanskritic culture represented by Kalidasa's play, the folk culture of which the Sakuntala story has become part, and recent art as represented by the use of a Ravi Varma painting. I really don't know what to say in reply to the suggestion that Kalidasa's works are less notable than Tagore. If google hits are going to be the criterion, Aishwarya Rai (1.93 million) and Amitabh Bachchan (1.73 million) produce more hits than Rabindranath Tagore (1.48 million), which is a fine example of why we don't use Google to decide what's more notable. -- Arvind 22:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Need opinion on Nikkul's North Block image
This is the photoshopped image by user Nikkul: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:NorthBlock.jpg

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

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


 * Are you sure those two links you provided above are exactly the same picture? I understand the people may have been edited out but the cars in the parking area are different. Regarding which image is better, I think the Flickr is because it looks more natural as well as not as blurry and dull. <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b><sup style="color:teal;">Discuss  <b style="color:teal;">&#169;</b> 09:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Nikkul took the left half of the image and pasted it on the right half. That is why you have the soldier in the front on both sides.  --Blacksun 09:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Haha, after realising that you tend to notice how freakishly and unrealistically symmetrical Nikkul's image is. <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b><sup style="color:teal;">Discuss  <b style="color:teal;">&#169;</b> 10:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Nikkul, you should be ashamed of yourself. After all you've been through on the India page, you go back to the goofy stuff.  Why?   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC) PS.  Nikkul, I apologize for my choice of words.  I didn't mean to be demeaning.  You are someone who is clearly interested in improving the image content on India-related pages, and everyone can see that you have talent and drive, so why not use them more productively?   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * He's lucky that there wasn't a distintive cloud formation or something. Having said that, shrubs that do not exist magically appear in Nikkul's version. Such an image has no place at all on Wikipedia, let alone the India page. <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b><sup style="color:teal;">Discuss  <b style="color:teal;">&#169;</b> 10:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That was my feeling to on the matter. I have uploaded the original image over the edited one as it is used in various other articles too.  Hopefully, user Nikkul will see where we are coming from.  It is a good image he obtained from the photographer and there is no need for editing it.  --Blacksun 11:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please Nikkul, don't put that mirrored image back - or other heavily photoshopped images. The non-tweaked images are fine, and I for one appreciate the effort you put into finding good images. Just try and restrain your artistic impulses... &#2384; Priyanath talk 15:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, I just thought taking out the people would make the image look cleaner. The image hasnt been changed besides that (no clouds added or anything). And since the building is symetrical, i dont think it really matters. Seriously, I dont think people really care if there is an extra bush on one side of the Parliament building. Personally, I think the mirrored image looks very similar to the actual and is much cleaner. Still, if there is such an opposition to mirroring it, I have no problem at all leaving it the way it is now. Afterall, I am the one who uploaded it. Anyway, dont try to demean me. I have contributed a lot to wiki, much more than one realizes (see my userpage if u want proof). Nikkul 01:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I most sincerely appreciate that you've put so much effort into finding and uploading so many good images. Images are extremely important to articles, as the never-ending image disputes here prove. Thanks, &#2384; Priyanath talk 02:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I don't think anybody doubts your good intentions Nikkul. I just hope you realise that editing an image so much makes it look fake. Why do we have to change things when there is so much real beauty in India? <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b><sup style="color:teal;">Discuss  <b style="color:teal;">&#169;</b> 04:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

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


 * How about something like this, which is the most accurate?

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

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

India has many forms of traditional and folk theatre, which include music, dance, and improvised or written dialogue. Often based in Hindu mythology, but, in addition, incorporating elements from medieval romances, and news of social and political events, these forms include the bhavai of state of Gujarat, the jatra of West Bengal, the nautanki and ramlila of North India, the tamasha of Maharashtra, the terukkuttu of Tamil Nadu, and the yakshagana of Karanataka. Yakshagana, in particular, has undergone innovation in dance and theatre, which includes performances of Shakespeare. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  11:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC) Last update:   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Excellent. Now thats what you call, accurate and appropriate detailing. Please improve Indian dances & Indian folk dances with this piece of information. Knowledge  Hegemony  13:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent - can we get a comment from the people who were edit warring over Yaksagana? --Blacksun 13:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


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

Protected
Whatever you guys used to end the "new additions" dispute, you should use it for the Shakuntala-Tagore dispute. Saravask 05:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What dispute? Everyone including Priyanath is ok with using Shakuntala image.  Do you have a problem with it?--Blacksun 10:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Never mind - I see that we had another edit war.--Blacksun 10:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As long as completely subjective standards are used for images ('I like it', 'I don't like it') we will continue having an endless edit war over them. We need to use subjective standards: i.e., most notable and relevant to the article. Images like Gandhi, Taj, the main national government building, Tagore, all meet the only subjective standards on images - notability and relevance. The other option is rotation, which will allow regional and less familiar (but perhaps notable in some specific way) images to have their time in the article.
 * I move that we use this time to implement rotation, which has worked so well in the Flora and Fauna section. &#2384; Priyanath talk 15:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, the painting is an illustration of The Recognition of Śakuntalā, one of the great works of world literature. That Raja Ravi Varma is no slouch himself (please see the new footnotes I have added in the Straw poll section below) only adds to the illustration.  Regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you - I'm pleased that the community is getting to decide which of two good images is most appropriate for the article. &#2384; Priyanath talk 18:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * PS As for the Flora and Fauna images, some are too low-res, and at least one of the tigers (the one licking its paw or about to lick it) might not be a Bengal tiger. The coloring and body proportion looks Siberian to me, but I could be wrong.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

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


 * Edit summary1: "removed condescending "regional" crap. all languages are equally national or regional. also removed peacock about most recogniseable face - "show" dont "tell") for this edit.
 * No, all languages in India are not equally regional. As we found out in the long-drawn out dispute over the infobox languages (see my exhaustive secondary sources here, Hindi (spoken by 40% of the population) and English are lingua francas for different regions of the country in ways that the other "regional" languages are not.  For example, Kannada, in contrast, is spoken by only 4.3% of India's population.
 * oh.. you want to play the 'percentage' game? Fine.  Lets start with "..Hindus form 80% of India's population..".. now let's get an image of a 'fine example' of "Hindu" architecture to replace the Taj (there's plenty of them and they're even on the World Heritage list, just like the taj).  And how about qualifying every non-Hindu entity with terms like "minority", "miniscule minority", "regional" etc., every step of the way. Sarvagnya 21:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Edit summary2: "rm a contrived "recognition" of shakuntala.. it isnt recognised enough.. duh; also bringing back tagore."
 * Again, the edit summary is as infelicitous in language as it is inadequate in clarity. As I have already pointed out above, The Recognition of Shakuntala is widely considered the greatest literary work in the Indian tradition in any period.  Nothing by Tagore is in that league.  (See my Britannica and Oxford World's Classics quotes above.)
 * Edit summary3: "removed a weasel of a quote (not even a quote actually) and reworded caption)" (in reference to the quote in the Taj Mahal caption) in this edit.
 * The quote is a precise quote from the UNESCO World Heritage Site brief description: The Taj Mahal is the "jewel of Muslim art in India and one of the universally admired masterpieces of the world's heritage." See here.
 * However the most perplexing of user:Sarvagnya's perplexing edits is his first one, which didn't have the benefit of his usual edit summary, and which changed the long-standing sentence, "The most popular holidays are Diwali, Holi, Onam, Dussehra, Bihu, Durga puja, the two Eids, Christmas, Ugadi, Buddha Jayanti and Vaisakhi," to the sentence, "The most popular holidays are Ugadi, Diwali, Holi, Onam, Dasara, Bihu, Durga puja, the two Eids, Christmas, Buddha Jayanti and Vaisakhi."
 * Would user:Sarvagnya care to explain what he was attempting to accomplish by that edit.  Need I remind readers that user:Sarvagnya made his  India page debut in this exchange and that too concerned Ugadi.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Fowler - I think you have your own explaining to do in justifying the continued addition of less than notable and relevant images to this article. Your circular 'logic' in explaining the addition of the Verma painting as being more notable than all the combined works and achievements of Tagore is a bit of a stretch, to put it civilly. An need I remind readers that you have systematically reverted and attacked any 'outside' editors who attempt to edit the India article, violating WP:OWN? Does anyone here wonder why a major country article has so few editors, and so few new editors? &#2384; Priyanath talk 20:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear user:Priyanath, As I have patiently explained above once already, the painting is about The Recognition of Śakuntalā, which is not only the greatest work of Sanskrit drama, but also one of the great works of world literature. There is nothing in Tagore that compares with Kalidasa's masterpiece.  See the references in the straw poll below.  Regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

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



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

For The Recognition of Śakuntalā image

 * 1) Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC) Last updated:  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Arvind 22:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC) (see here)
 * 3) <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b><sup style="color:teal;">Discuss  <b style="color:teal;">&#169;</b> 06:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) --Blacksun 12:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Keynes.john.maynard 11:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Sundar \talk \contribs 14:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment:I dont understand why anyone would pick an image of the person that is Tagore over an example of art and literature that is Recognition of Sakuntala. Adding an image of Tagore does very little to the overall value of the article. Why? Because the image does not increase the value of the text regarding Tagore. The picture is just an image of a man. He is not famous for his picture but his great literature and deeds which are already mentioned in the article. I just dont understand why this is so hard to understand?? --Blacksun 12:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that in the Culture section of the England article, two out of the three images are of England's greatest poet/author, Shakespeare (a painting of him, no photographs available), and a statue of a composer. Images of great artists do add to the value of an article, especially when they are as notable as a Shakespeare or Tagore. The Sakuntala painting is also an attractive addition to the article&mdash;less notable than Tagore, certainly, but a big improvement over the image that, unbelievably, held that spot for the last year. &#2384; Priyanath talk 16:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Priyanath, England is not a FA article and I do not agree with putting Shakespeare picture in culture section either. Please, please, please - explain to me how does putting a mug shot of Tagore (or Shakespeare) add to the value of the article.  They are not famous for how they LOOKED but for their work.  For example, I would rather have an image of a play written by Shakespeare than his picture.  If you can explain to me this I have no problem supporting you.  --Blacksun 21:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The picture is there not to educate people about how Tagore looked! It is there to pay tribute to a person who rendered yeoman service towards enriching and propagating 'Indian culture'.  For that matter, every "mugshot" that we have on wikipedia is because those people have signal contributions in their own fields to their name.  I could use your argument to get rid of each of those mugshots. Sarvagnya 22:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I see - so we are supporting inclusion of image of Tagore not to educate people but to pay tribute to Tagore. Stupid me of thinking that this was an encyclopedia.  --Blacksun 22:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Even if we are to assume equal cultural significance of the two images, the Sakuntala painting is more pleasing aesthetically. The Tagore image stands out, and looks odd with the rest of the page. Mug shots on the page would make it look ugly, and would take something away from the page. Would we ever consider changing the Gandhi-Nehru image to Gandhi's mugshot in the History section? --Keynes.john.maynard 11:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

For Tagore image
Comment: The fact that a few people have studied something (like the todas or shak) and published something on the internet doesnt mean it has to be included on wiki india.Image is also unclear. I'd prefer a temple or diwali image, but if that cant be done, i prefer tagore over shak Nikkul 23:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Recognition of Sakuntala is not only a great illustration of Indian art history but also an example of literature in Hinduism. It is a very nice image that conveys the place of art and religion in Indian society. I am surprised you do not find value in it. --Blacksun 12:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: Nikkul didn't say that he did 'not find value' in the Sakuntala image - he's only saying, like many others, that he would 'prefer' the Tagore image since it is more relevant, notable, and appropriate for this article. &#2384; Priyanath talk 20:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have replaced the old image by a clearer one. Also, I have added more footnotes, which make the point that both the popular Hindu art and Indian cinema art of the 20th-century (and today) have been profoundly influenced by Varma's work.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The point I'm trying to make is, if we kept fishing, we can keep adding names and works to the article. And then, we can backdoor images like the "recognition" of shakuntala which ride solely on contrived and clumsily fitted sentences. Yes, I am arguing that not just the image but even the very mention of Kalidasa doesnt belong in this article. Kalidasa's works, towering as he is/was, dont compare with the the Ramayana or the Mahabharata. I would have no problem with the Kalidasa pic once we have rotation in place. If we cant have rotation, then we cant have Kalidasa. Not unless the the article is expanded. We cant have selective expansion just to suit somebody's POV. These are the same people who come up with word counts of other people's contributions and troll no end on talk pages about why it shouldnt be kept. So its time they walk the talk. We dont keep humoring nonsense forever. Sarvagnya 19:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Dear user:Sarvagnya: Wikipedia values reliable secondary sources – academic monographs, university level textbooks, signed articles by experts in tertiary sources, and internationally recognized academic journal articles – not what we believe or think. I would kindly request you to provide for your assertions the kind of sources and citations (such as monographs published by Cambridge University Press or Columbia University Press, or signed articles in Britannica) that I have provided for mine in the footnotes above.  Regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sarvagnya, Shakuntala is a character from Mahabharat. Any user who is interested in the image will click on it and then see that it is part of Mahabharat and become interested in it.  That is why I support this image - in one stroke you have a sampling of a lot of things important to Indian culture.  Image of Tagore however adds NOTHING more than what is already present in text - it is just a picture of a man.  If Tagore was considered the most handsome man of last century, it might make sense to put his image.  However, this is not the case.  This has nothing to do with Kalidas or Tagore but the fact that we are presenting a work of art that requires being seen to enhance the value of the text.  I have absolutely nothing against Tagore, having actually worked on getting that article to FA status even. --Blacksun 22:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for enlightening me with that factoid about Shakuntala. It was news to me.  huh.  And if Shakuntala can open up the reader to the Mahabharata and Hindu mythology in general, then both Rabindranath Tagore and Manipuri dance can open up the reader to various other facets of Indian culture.  For that matter, Manipuri dance is also steeped in Hindu mythology. Sarvagnya 22:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * sigh* - I would support a good image of Manipuri dance over Tagore too. Not because I think Tagore is not important but -as I have stated few times now- he is not famous for how he looks.  Looking at his image does not enhance the text in the article.  However, image of Shakuntala or Manipuri dance helps the reader picture what it actually is.  It is just that simple - I feel like this has nothing to do with the image but chronic need to oppose everything and anything that is Fowler. --Blacksun 22:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Blacksun, I understand your argument, and respect and appreciate it. I just don't agree with it. For one, I don't think Tagore's is a 'mug shot'. It's actually a striking image, imo. I also believe that an image leads the reader to learn more about the subject of the image (just like you do). I don't think images are just for visual interest. Otherwise I would support adding Featured Pictures even when they aren't relevant to an article.


 * I am not opposed to the Sakuntala image, I just think the Tagore is more appropriate. I know you aren't against Tagore the person, and haven't made the belittling comments about him that fowler has. If the community supports Sakuntala here, I will not remove it. As I said above, it's a huge improvement from the pic that's been here for the last year. When I originally 'supported' the Sakuntala image, it was only tacit support since nobody had opposed it yet. When there was opposition, then it was time to get more feedback. I've learned that it's better to trust the larger community than one editor's wordy campaigns for certain images. I think with some editors here, it's less a matter of opposing all things fowler than a matter of lack of trust, after toda and alot of uncivil comments and specious arguments on f's part. If the community supports Sakuntala, then I would happily and sincerely accept, even if it's not a strong consensus (i.e., only the slimmest majority). And I think it would end this image discussion once and for all. &#2384; Priyanath talk 22:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I fully agree that it is a striking pose. I love that image but just don't find it suitable in the culture section.  But I will accept your decision - I hope people vote for Shakuntala :P --Blacksun 23:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I do see Blacksuns point that he is not known for how he looked, hence his works would be more relevant than his photo. This is why I prefer having an image of something else like a diwali picture or a dance or something that shows india and not just indian architecture like the taj and toda image did because there is more to culture than architecture. Nikkul 06:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * [shameless promotion] Why not vote for Recognition of Shakuntala then? It is a great image that shows that art exists outside of western hemisphere and has deep roots in religious culture. [/shameless promotion]  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blacksun (talk • contribs) 09:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Bengal or Siberian?


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

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


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

Image Files
Okay so I've been seeing random images of animals and now of culture under something called an imagefile. I'd just like to know
 * when this was started,
 * why it hasnt been discussed on the talk india page,
 * who chose the images
 * what criteria is used to evaluate quality of images
 * where the image bank is
 * why paintings are now appearing in the fauna section
 * how many images there are
 * how can one insert the images

Nikkul 06:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what is going on with that. --Blacksun 11:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know either, but the template is Template:Image_file. I have left a number of messages on its talk page: Template_talk:Image_file.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll reply in ~8 hours. Saravask 16:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Answers:
 * With this
 * See this
 * Anyone can choose images. We're informally building a test pool now. Eventually all the selections/removals will be done at WP:PINSPC.
 * We're using our best judgment per WP:IMAGE. Eventually we'll judge pics at WP:PINSPC.
 * See image file
 * If you don't like it, you can remove it or debate against it.
 * As many as people decide at WP:PINSPC.
 * Like this
 * We're starting this new thing the way WP:FA began: at first, articles were hand-selected by good-faith contributors based on "refreshing, brilliant prose". Then, as more people got interested, the consensus-based WP:FAC and WP:FAR processes matured. Thanks. Saravask 01:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I have tried adding a couple images under people...If you could please tell me in detail how to add images,that would be great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikkul (talk • contribs) 02:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Do what Sarvagnya did in this edit:
 * Add the image code under the right section at the end of the list. Number it.
 * Update the modulo operation number. If you're adding two images, increase it by two. If removing three, subtract three. Saravask 02:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Saravask - I don't think there's a Barnstar big enough for you. &#2384; Priyanath talk 03:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I second that. :)  Sarvagnya 03:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we should take things slowly. I am not sure if I like the idea of having a pool of dozens of images for one placeholder.  My two cents. --Blacksun 19:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

A Straw Poll on the inclusion of Yakshagana in the list of classical dances
This follows up on earlier discussions in the sections Yakshagana, Reliable Sources Not YouTube on Yakshagana, Shivarama Karanth's Book on Yakshagana, and Yakshagana Redux. The current sentence on music and dance in the culture section, which includes Yakshagana in its list of classical dances, reads: Indian music covers a wide range of traditions and regional styles. Classical music is mainly split between the North Indian Hindustani and South Indian Carnatic traditions. Highly regionalised forms of popular music include filmi and folk music like bhangra. Many classical dance forms exist, including bharatanatyam, kathakali, kathak, kuchipudi, manipuri, odissi and yakshagana. They often have a narrative form and are usually infused with devotional and mythological elements.

The three choices for voting are:

Choice A: Expanded version with separate paragraphs on Music, Dance, and Theatre
This choice replaces the current paragraph above with the three short paragraphs (one each for music, dance and theatre) shown in Fowler&fowler's post (immediately following Blacksun's post) here

Votes:
 * 1)  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Votes:

Choice C: Keep current version with Yakshagana listed as classical dance
This choice keeps the current version of the paragraph (unaltered).

Votes:

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

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

To anyone who opposes the rotation, I'd like to ask them how they intend to solve the problem of showing India's cuisine, dress, dance, festivals, architecture, literature, sports, traditions, etc. etc. etc. in 2 pictures. Nikkul 07:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * eh, I know I supported rotation but I am not happy with the implementation so far. Also, I dont know if I am happy with using a high number of images for each place holder.  In my opinion that takes away from the more relevant images as they dont get shown as often.  When I supported rotation, I had imagined a scenario where each addition to the pool would be discussed first and we would agree as a community on a small pool of images to be shown.  Lets see how it goes.  On a more technical note, I find the method of addition bit confusing - I know user Saravask explained it above but I am still confused heh.  --Blacksun 08:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that is going to happen pretty soon...thats also what i had imagined and I think that we're going to do that very soon. I love how the rotation has virtually eliminated the debate about Tagore, something else, or Toda. It has ended edit wars, etc. Nikkul 14:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Its well programmed by Saravask. But the images ain't regulated. There should be a nom procedure. But its looking fine. Lets hope this works out well. Knowledge Hegemony  14:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's an excellent start, considering the history. People's good will has been noteworthy. Everyone here probably sees a few images they think should be removed, and I bet they are different images for each person. That must mean it's working :-). &#2384; Priyanath talk 16:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

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

This struck me only this morning, when I was looking again at some of the images in the Encarta article on India. One of them, in particular, had struck me many months before when I first saw it. The picture shows a music class in the Veena in progress in Chennai, with four girls, each holding their instrument, and listening to their teacher. Under it was this caption: "The Kalakshetras school of dance and music is located in Chennai (formerly Madras), India. These students are learning to play the vina, a traditional instrument in classical Indian music. This school is for the wealthier members of Indian society. Education for the majority of the population remains a problem due to lack of funds and the large number of different languages and cultures within the country." One of the points that the caption makes, that "classical culture" is the province increasingly of the wealthy few, is a subtle point and bears repetition when it is made visually. I, most certainly, had almost forgotten the image, even though it was one of my more vivid experiences from that Encarta article. The image's many points would most certainly have been lost, had the image been replaced by another image making some other point. Memorable images require return visits. They require stability within the text, for them to settle in, as it were, in our consciousness. This to me potentially is the ultimate emptiness about rotations; they could turn even well-crafted images into vanilla images. Either the complex points like that in the Veena caption will not be made, or, when made, will not stick, because of their profusion.

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


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

"[citation needed]" for "In larger states, districts may be grouped together to form a division."
Could this Encyclopedia Britannica article about Bihar that states "The state is divided into seven administrative divisions and 39 districts.", along with similar ones work as citations for "In larger states, districts may be grouped together to form a division." that has been tagged with a [citation needed].-- Keynes  John  Maynard  20:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * More Links - The Bihar Govt Website shows 9 divions. The UP Govt web site under the "District and Divisional Administration" section states "Each division consists of certain districts". Is this remove-[citation needed]-tag-worthy? Could somebody cite, please? -- Keynes   John  Maynard  20:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

CITATION REQUIRED - OFFICIAL MAP HAS A CUT ON TOP


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

Origin of Chicken (food)

 * user:Sarvagna's edit summary: "removed dubious "chicken" claim. what? people around the world werent eating chicken before Indiians taught them?"
 * Encyclopaedia Britannica's article on Fowl (lead sentences): "Chickens are descended from the wild red jungle fowl of India and belong to the species Gallus gallus. They have been domesticated for at least 4,000 years."  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Aren't we talking about chicken as a food product here? That apart, why did you revert all of Sarvagnya's edits which were reasonable and productive? Care to explain addition of WP:UNDUE in the article? Gnanapiti 20:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * DFTT. Its obviously a pretext to continue revert-warring. Baka man  23:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am talking about chicken as a food product. They were domesticated first in South Asia.  Haven't you guys understood by now that I don't put things down unless I've checked the sources.  Amazing!   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * LOL! Your source does not necessarily imply that Chicken (food) originated in India. It only says that Chickens descended from wild red jungle fowl of India. Now, obviously the first thing early humans thought of on seeing an animal was food! If your source said that Chickens were first domesticated in India, then your claim was valid. God.. its commonsense. --Lokantha 04:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * They were not even domesticated first in South Asia. This book says it is Thailand. And even this one says the same thing. And even this one. - I think I have said enough. So much for self-glorification and checking of sources, huh... -- ¿Amar៛ Talk to me / My edits 04:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * To user:Amarrg and user:Lokantha: There are two issues involved here: (a) which is the original domesticated breed (in poultry farming terms) that produced the breeds that are eaten around the world, and (b) which is the ancestral progenitor(s) (in phylogeographic terms) in the wild of all the breeds. They are both further treated on my subpage: User:Fowler%26fowler/Chicken.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I swear I thought this was the talk India page where people discuss things about this article. If you have a problem with Sarvagnyas edits about chikens, discuss them on the chicken page which is not this one (i think) Nikkul 07:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC) (unindent)hey KNM, why did you have to change the section heading? you just robbed the poor guy the chance to wallow in his adolescence. hmm.. never mind, I'm sure he will come up with another gem. for now, this chicken and fowl spectacle sure is enough to keep us amused for the next few days. :) Sarvagnya 16:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Is it chicken and fowl spectacle or cock and bull spectacle? -- ¿Amar៛ Talk to me / My edits 16:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we leave out the mention that chicken sugar etc originated in India. Such a fact (contentious/little known) needs to be backed by more references, and we could very well expand on it on the article of cuisine of India. =Nichalp  «Talk»=  17:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, Nichalp, no problem. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Subdivisions of India
Why is "Subdivisions of India" required as a separate section on the page? There is a navigation box for "States and territories of India". The map with all the states marked on it, along with the three column list of states and UTs, does not look good on the page and doesn't really inform a reader much about India, other than the first sentence, which could simply be integrated to another section. The list is really not required there, is it? Has there been a discussion on these lines before? I'll shut up if there has been one. The US page doesn't have a similar list, and countries like Australia with just a few states, or UK with its mention of its four parts can't be the reference. Then again, there could be many arguments in favor of sticking to the list that is in place, like somebody is going to point out. -- Keynes  John  Maynard  21:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This really requires a response from someone more experienced on this page (like user:Nichalp or user:Ragib), however, I will note that some pages like FAs Peru and Germany that do have the subdivision sections, have more sophisticated navigation options there. I made a post about it on this page here, but got no response.    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The answer lies here: WikiProject Countries =Nichalp   «Talk»=  02:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Amba Vilas palace image + Caption
1) I find Amba vilas place image not important enough to be part of the rotation system.

2) I find the image quality to be poor. Only thing you can tell is that it is a big structure with small domes on top.

3) It has very suspicious and non-qualified caption: "Most visited tourist attraction in India"

If rotation is going to be used to put images like this with captions like that in the article, I am afraid I made a mistake supporting it. --Blacksun 13:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * A monument which was estimated to have attracted more visitors than the Taj aint important? Good luck with your argument.  Sarvagnya 17:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess we pause the rotation for now and first screen all images through consensus and filter out the poor ones. Only after this procedure, should we continue the rotation. KnowledgeHegemony (talk • contribs) 13:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with both Blacksun and KH. To user:Sarvagnya, According to this article, over a hundred "paintings by Raja Ravi Varma are the prized possessions" of the Mysore Palace.  Since user:Sarvagnya has just seen fit to remove the painting of Sakuntala by Raja Ravi Varma, might he also consider removing a fake Maharaja's 1912 monument to poor taste that houses over a hundred such paintings?  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sakuntala image was removed from rotation? I dont really understand how the rotation code works.  However, Sakuntata image better be in rotation or I am going to be upset.  --Blacksun 15:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Someone wanted to remove it and did it. The reason - one photo per state. Smart isn't it. Wow! Now I am really starting to like Wikipedia. Knowledge  Hegemony  15:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Very smart indeed. Just the way somebody removed a significant effort like rotation from the article today without having the courtesy to inform the relevant people that it is going to be removed. Wow! Amazing! We all better start liking Wikipedia for the way it is, we dont have an option -- ¿Amar៛ Talk to me / My edits 16:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * sigh*. I dont need a tribune article to tell me that the Mysore palace houses RV's paintings.  I've been visiting the Amba Vilas and other palaces in Mysore for as long as I can remember.  And each time, a good part of my visit is spent staring in awe at the paintings.  Anyway, which part of "one pic per state - rm shakuntala image. the trissur pooram is more typically picture postcard Kerala." do you have trouble understanding?  As for your pathetic "..monument to ugliness/poor taste", you might want to impress that upon the millions who throng to even just get a glimpse of the palace each year.  huh.  dont know why I bother dignifying your BS with responses.  you troll me into it.  dont you? Sarvagnya 20:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you get a RS for your claim that it is the most visited in India and only then put a caption like that or else its an empty statement.
 * And dude, I have been to Amba Vilas and Taj Mahal both. Obviously, theres no comparison between the two. So plz don't compare the WONDER with Ambas.

Knowledge Hegemony  11:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well KH, for one, I am not comparing the two. I leave such inanities to the likes of you and fowler.  More importanly though, I have a sense of history which you clearly dont seem to share.  The Mysore palace was where the likes of Nalvadi Krishnaraja Wodeyar, Sir MV, JC Wodeyar, Sir Mirza Ismail and such other visionaries held court.  The Mysore palace is where the seeds of Indian democracy were sown through their pioneering attempts at creating institutions which today have morphed into our legislative assemblies and councils.  The deeds of these gentlemen serve India richly to this day.  They changed the history of Karnataka and India in ways the begum who rests in your WONDER wouldnt even have dreamt of.  In short, its surely a far cry from the hapless begum of yours who died trying in vain to add to her litter.   Like I said, it calls for a bit of objectivity and knowledge of history to appreciate things like this.  Come back when you've done some reading.  Or better still, go back(to the palace) after you've done some reading.  Places of historical interest arent zoological gardens where you go, gape at the monkeys and come back.  Sarvagnya 19:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * user:Sarvagnya said: "In short, its surely a far cry from the hapless begum of yours who died trying in vain to add to her litter."
 * "add to her litter?" That doesn't display a "sense of history;"  it does, however, constitute misogyny, since Mumtaz Mahal likely had no choice in the matter when she became pregnant for the 14th time and later died in childbirth. I implore you to retract those words.  They are ugly and uncalled for.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  09:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Your prejudice is showing. You can chose to live your life with hate.  Just dont bother to use wikipedia to spread it because you will be stopped. And I still do not see any evidence for "most visited tourist site" in India claim of yours.  Maybe I missed it? --Blacksun 10:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What venom dude! By the way whats this- "your Begum" and "your Taj Mahal"?? Why do make (and take) things so "personal(ly)"?
 * Also stick to the debate. I never talked on historical aspect about the Amba Vilas and clearly was talking in terms of architecture (since photos put up in Culture section are concerned with architecture). So please don't bother to flaunt your historical knowledge on a debate which concerns with architecture. Cause that amounts to BS (as you call it). Knowledge  Hegemony  10:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Also where is source for "the most visited monument in India" ? Knowledge  Hegemony  10:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

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


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