Talk:India/Archive 18

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. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 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 Wikipedia: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&fowler«Talk» 13:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

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&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&fowler«Talk» 15:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC) Last updated: Fowler&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&fowler«Talk» 20:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

PS Please also see the "principles" in WP:TITPRS. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC) Last updated:Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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&fowler«Talk» 18:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

user:Sarvagnya has continued to insert Yakshagana in the list of classical dances in the culture section. Although in section Talk:India#Yakshagana , 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&fowler«Talk» 23:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Yakshagana is more accurately "dance drama"[1] usually referred to simply as 'dance' by connoisseurs and lay people alike.[2][3][4][5] Kathakali is much in the same mould.[6]

[7] 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[8], 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 Wikipedia:Summary Style style of India#Culture) KnowledgeHegemony 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 produceda one-paragraph advertisement in the Hindu newspaper: [9], 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 [10]a video from YouTube: [11][12]. 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:

The Sangeet Natak Academi (India's National Academy of Music, Dance and Drama) website itself says, (see here):

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&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&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 -

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&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[13], 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—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&fowler«Talk» 16:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

{{{editprotect}}User Otolemur in this edit removed a large fragment of the sentence:

without any edit summary or explanation of his action (let alone his motivations). Furthermore, what remains now:

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&fowler«Talk» 12:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I fail to understand why Otelmur made the change to sentence? KnowledgeHegemony 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&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&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&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&fowler«Talk» 13:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

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&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. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 22:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
5. Strongly leaning towards all time though but you never know. --Blacksun 08:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
6. Yes, not for now. Maybe after the text review. KnowledgeHegemony 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&fowler«Talk» 13:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}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&fowler«Talk» 03:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

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. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 23:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added some suggestions there. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

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&fowler«Talk» 11:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

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&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&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&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&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&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&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&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)

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&fowler«Talk» 18:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC) Updated: Fowler&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. Sarvagnya (talk · contribs)
2. Saravask (talk · contribs)
3. Amarrg (talk · contribs)
4. Blnguyen (talk · contribs)
5. Nikkul (talk · contribs)
6. --Dwaipayan (talk) 21:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
7. Chanakyathegreat (talk · contribs)
8. Blacksun (talk · contribs) - If pictures are picked carefully this provides greater flexibility.
9. Priyanath (talk · contribs) 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.
10. KNM (talk · contribs) 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)
11. Amartyabag (talk · contribs)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^{Discuss ©} 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&fowler«Talk» 18:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC) Please see my post The potential emptiness about rotations below. Fowler&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 KnowledgeHegemony 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. Ragib (talk · contribs)
2. Dbachmann (talk · contribs)
3. Fowler&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. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 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. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 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&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. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 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&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&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? KnowledgeHegemony 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&fowler«Talk» 11:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

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. KnowledgeHegemony 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#Pertinence_and_encyclopedicity: "Images must be relevant to the article they appear in and be of sufficient notability (relative to the article's topic)" and WP:IMAGE#Image_choice_and_placement: "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. ॐ 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&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. ॐ 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). ॐ 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.^[1] These included works of Sanskrit literature, such as the epics Mahabharata and Ramayana, and the drama The Recognition of Śakuntalā,^[1] 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&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. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 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. ॐ 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. ॐ 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&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. ॐ 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&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)

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. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 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. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 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&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&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. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 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... ॐ 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, ॐ 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? Gizza^{Discuss ©} 04:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

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?