Talk:India/Archive 31

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

→

Archive 35

Language tweak

Proposed to improve the wording :

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

Old wording :

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

New wording :

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

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

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

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

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

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

archive

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

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

Edit request from Duranvskp, 8 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

want to add international ratings for india in transperancy, corruption, freedom of press. Duranvskp (talk) 10:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. —GƒoleyFour— 13:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Rollback of History Section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are not assuming good faith in King Zebu.

A few observations:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

King Zebu's response

Wow, I never expected someone to devote so much time and effort going through my edits (especially those made months ago). Fortunately for Fowler, very few people have the luxury to spend so much time on Wikipedia and therefore, Fowler can claim whatever he wants while expecting little opposition.

Firstly, I'm not here to defend my edits. I don't need to. My contributions to this article's Military, Foreign affairs, Economy, and Culture sections and also to the image captions speaks volumes about the quality of my edits. I felt for a long time that the History section was in poor shape and therefore, I merely attempted to change it. If someone had an objection to it and wanted to rollback my edits, he/she is more than welcome to do so. But spreading venom against me (even accusing me of "editwarring") is simply deplorable.

Here is a point-by-point reply to Fowler's nonsense --

• Fowler wrote:

The order of sentences in the lead was changed by King Zebu in: this edit of 25 July 2010 with edit summary, “The lead paras should contain only that information which is highly relevant and necessary. UN peacekeeping operations are not that important and the topic is already covered” Gives no clue to what he has done.

What do you mean by "gives no clue"? The only major part of that edit was me removing the sentence mentioning India's UN participation and I gave a justification for that in the edit summary. It's not my fault if you can't understand simple English.

And yes I did change order of sentences in the lead because in my opinion, society and culture deserves to be mentioned before economy. And I would have justified that part of my edit too had there been enough space in the edit summary. And frankly, I did not think the issue was too big of deal to start a conversation about it on the talkpage.

• Fowler wrote:

"This, however, was reverted again by King Zebu in: this edit of July 26, 2010 with a mysterious edit summary, “Undid revision by Kkm010 A) Various changes were made to the lead paras in the past few days which are more detrimental to this article. B) Read edit summaries.” which makes it sound that Kkm010 was the one who made the changes."

That made me giggle. Which part of that edit summary gives the impression that Kkm010 "was the one who made the changes"?

• Fowler wrote:

"King Zebu added content on famines in this edit of Feb 3, 15:43 with edit summary, “note on British economic policy and 19th century famines”. He obviously already knew from the numerous discussions of earlier months that there was no consensus on including famines. So, this was a deliberate act of flouting Wikipedia practice."

"The famine edit was again restored by King Zebu in: this edit of 18:27 Feb 3 with edit summary, “Restored content on British economic policy. Delinked British economic policy and famine. Added famine statistics from CUP; seems like feminists have no respect here. :P” As if to say the objection was only to linking famine with British economic policy. Is this what Wikipedia is about? Getting your edit in one way or another? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC) Obviously, King Zebu knew at the time (February 2011) that there was no consensus and that the famine edit had been edit-warred over earlier, for example, in this back and forth in September, 2010"

Firstly, I was unaware of any prior discussion regarding famine. As a matter of fact, I added famine text way back in November 2010 along with information on India's participation during WW2. Since the Bengal famine was linked to WW2, adding information regarding the famine seemed logical to me. RegeantsPark raised his objection, we discussed and I changed the text accordingly. The fact that RegentsPark didn't oppose the edit (neither on the talkpage nor in his next edit), made me believe that a consensus was reached.

Now, I was aware of Zuggernaut's this and this edit. And it was at that time that I felt that there was a need to put forward an assessment of the legacy of the Raj. And this led to my British economic policy edit.

Lastly, regarding my this edit, you claim "as if to say the objection was only to linking famine with British economic policy". My edit and the concerned edit summary was in response to the comment raised by SpacemanSpiff.

1 - if it merits inclusion then there is the aspect of due weight that needs to be given to the effects on government policy subsequent to it -- the famine codes were largely a result and laying the blame without actually presenting the effect doesn't seem natural. 2. The sources, how does a feminist perspective book or another based on the memoirs and correspondence of Florence Nightingale serve as a quality source for this content. I don't believe we should add any content on death toll and nature of the famines without discussing the effects on creation of a famine code.

Spaceman raised two points -- First, we cannot assess the impact of British policy on famines in India without analyzing the role of the famine codes. I agreed with that viewpoint and therefore, I delinked British economic policy from famines. Second, the two sources given earlier weren't credible enough and I changed the sources. I believe that I very well addressed the concerns raised by Spaceman and this is backed by that fact that he neither objected my this edit nor did he raise the issue again on the talkpage.

Fortunately for you Fowler, I do not carry any baggage of bias and preconceived notions. Therefore, one would rarely find me jumping around launching rants on others so as to gain a high moral ground (and, consequently, gain support for any hidden agenda). I can also provide a point-by-point reply to all the nonsensical concerns raised by you here. But, there is no point for me to push forward any changes here, because as I mentioned before, I don't have the luxury of spare time to engage in all of this nonsense. Harold Wilson once said, "He who rejects change is the architect of decay". Cherish your new title Fowler and continue with your "rollbacks". --King Zebu (talk) 16:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

You are right, no point wasting time. Given that it was only Fowler who objected to your edits, you need to keep in mind that your edits and participation in discussions are being missed by numerous other editors. Please come back, however little time you can dedicate here! Zuggernaut (talk) 14:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Second paragraph

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How about this? :

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

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

I have a few points followed by a proposition.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Per WP:LEAD pointed out by ChipmunkDavis, I cannot ask for inclusion of the Ashok Chakra and the Lion capital in the lead. I have added it to the "to do" list at the top of the talk page.
• It looks like the threads that were archived had support for first adding those to the article body and then possibly to the lead. I find the archiving by RegentsPark very preferential and selective in support of Fowler and ChipmunkDavis.

• Zuggernaut, CarTick archived three sections that were a distraction from the discussion on content and I moved them to the archive. It was a WP:BOLD move and, if you feel that the archiving was improper, please feel free to restore the archived sections. There was no intention to favor any particular editor (though, I believe that the editor who was actually helped by the archiving is not one of the two mentioned in your list). Regards. --rgpk (comment) 14:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)--rgpk (comment) 14:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Another editor editing that section was AshLin who had provided support for my position. The portions you archived included his support for my position. I don't think that's fair. Zuggernaut (talk) 14:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• I am OK with the first 4 sentences out of the 5 in this latest version. In the last sentence, there is absolutely no need to give the details of British rule. We should say that British rule arrived in the early 18th (or was it late 18th after Plassey) century and it was ended by Indians under the leadership of Gandhi. Without this change I will not support the last sentence.

Zuggernaut (talk) 04:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

To all editors: The phrasing of the British years is entirely in keeping with the syllabus of CBSE, the largest school board in India with 12 million students, the syllabus of ISC, the second largest board with almost 2 million students, and the state boards of many smaller states, which also follow the NCERT/CBSE syllabus; the leads of other tertiary sources such as Britannica and Columbia encyclopedias; and the Indian history syllabuses of many colleges and universities, for example, that of the Netaji Subhas Open University, Kolkata. At some point a history summary has to be beholden to what is being taught in schools, colleges, and graduate schools all over the world. It is true that Wikipedia is edited by amateurs, but we can't make a virtue out of this necessity, and let individual editors run riot with their Randy from Boise-like obsessions. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The last sentence is unlikely to have consensus per WP:LEAD:

It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first few sentences.

The British East India Company is not that important in the lead, it is just another mundane, non-controversial topic; it is well covered in the body of the article and also has a link its own article from there.

Zuggernaut (talk) 05:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The Company is mentioned prominently in the History of India template which is included in all history of India pages. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

This is an article on the Republic of India and we have several important topics to cover. British rule of India and particularly the EIC is not all there is in the history of the Republic of India. Moreover the EIC governed areas of Bangladesh, Pakistan and India so it might make sense to have it in the lead of an article on British History of South Asia or something similar, not here.

Zuggernaut (talk) 06:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

As did the Mauryas, Guptas. The Cholas even reached Indonesia. So it might make sense to have them in them in the lead of an article on Dharmic History of South and Southeast Asia page or something similar, not here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

We already have consensus on the inclusion of that content in this article. Zuggernaut (talk) 07:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

That content was added to attempt to fix the perceived slant you thought the Lead gave to the British. We agreed to that, and now you're asking for more? You can't just say we have consensus for whatever you want in the article and continue to make your own demands. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Kashmir

Okay, it is time for my spoke in the wheel. Kashmir should be included in the lead. As a soldier whose friends and colleagues have died over that piece of land to make it safe for our fellow countrymen, there is a need to understand and state that there India is having a problem in Kashmir thanks to terrorism. It is controversial, hence per WP:LEAD merits mention. AshLin (talk) 06:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I have supported the inclusion of Kashmir in the past as long as we mention Pakistani state terrorism which takes the lives of many civilians and global citizens traveling to India. However, Pakistani state terrorism is not mentioned in the article as of now so we might have to take an approach similar to the Ashok Chakra/Lion Capital per WP:LEAD. If people think the article and the lead can both be updated right now, I'm good with that. Zuggernaut (talk) 07:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm delinking this request from the present lead editing endeavour. Obviously it needs a detailed review with consenus for main text before it can be considered in the lede. Will take up later on. AshLin (talk) 09:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Going by the same logic, why not mention the Indo-China dispute, Naxalism (causalities)? -59.182.74.149 (talk) 11:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

(od) Kashmir is an important issue but terrorism is not the focus of that issue. Perhaps a sentence that says "An unresolved dispute with Pakistan over the region of Kashmir remains one of the biggest political challenges facing India". This just after the independence sentence. I suggest we all bear in mind that the lead does not have to reproduce everything in the article but needs to be brief and to the point!--rgpk (comment) 14:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm supportive of RegentsPark's version, but I don't foresee a quick consensus for this. Perhaps we should postpone this for later talk page discussion. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

International organizations

Is this paragraph necessary? Many countries are founding members of the UN and most are members of this regional organization or that. The lead is already way too long. --rgpk (comment) 14:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of "listy" sentences, and this surely is one. Some FAs such as Australia and Canada have them (in mind-numbing detail); others such as Cameroon, Belgium, and Japan don't bother. My suggestion is to either do away with the entire sentence or keep the current long version. Having only two or three organizations will make the lead prone to drive-by additions of the remaining ones. This too I would prefer to postpone until later and get a first-cut consensus version first. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Vote on the lead?

The latest version of the lead is on this subpage. I have incorporated most recent suggestions. We have completed 12 days of discussion. Should we go ahead and vote on it and postpone other issues until later? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose due to the one WP:UNDUE sentence about the British East India Company. I will support it if the following sentence is truncated.

Gradually annexed by the British East India Company from the early 18th century and colonised by the United Kingdom from the mid-19th century, India became an independent nation in 1947 after a struggle for independence led by Mahatma Gandhi and marked by widespread non-violent resistance.

It needs to become something on the lines suggested by CarTick earlier. The other minor change that needs to happen is that India and Indians need to be portrayed accurately, i.e., Indians were the actors in the achieving of Indian independence and the British were forced out of India. Zuggernaut (talk) 14:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

It already does that. "India became an independent nation in 1947 after a struggle for independence led by Mahatma Gandhi and marked by widespread non-violent resistance" is right there, saying exactly this. The Gandhi is even there at your want. Of course, if you want to truncate it... Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Support

1. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
2. This is acceptable and very lead like. I think we should go ahead with this version while discussions on other specifics continue on the talk page. --rgpk (comment) 16:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
3. AshLin (talk) 19:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC) (Copied from below for ease of observation.)

Comments

I am leaning toward support, but have 3 issues.

1. This style of wiki-linking (Four religions) is not acceptable. Spell out the 4 religions. Why do you want to make the reader click on the link just to know the names of the 4 religions that originated in India?
2. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was no doubt the leader of India's independence struggle. However, do we have to mention it in the lead. Tomorrow we'll have people inserting Subhash Chandra Bose, Jawaharlal Nehru or for that matter Indian National Congress. I feel that line should be moved to History section
3. Minor issue: A pluralistic, multilingual, and multiethnic society, India is also home to a diversity of wildlife in a variety of protected habitats. This particular sentence has problem with flow. (Society-> wildlife-> habitats..Eh!)

59.182.8.100 (talk) 16:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Disagree to anon ip's #1 & #2. #3 is valid. It does sound clunky. We need a seperate sentances for the society & wildlife parts. Lets sort #3 out and I'll pledge my support. AshLin (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Disagree with anon's point 1. The reader doesn't have to search through the entire page four religions to find the four religions. They are mentioned in the very first sentence.

Agree with anon's second point. As I've stated before, the lead is about a country, not individuals. None of the FAs Australia, Germany, Japan, Indonesia, Peru, Belgium, ... mention any individuals, neither do the non-FAs, United States, Russia, People's Republic of China, France, Italy, Mexico, ... However, editors (now) on the India page seem to want Gandhi and I'm compromising to get this finished.

Don't agree with anon or Ashlin on the third point. The sentence was meant to equalize all of India's creatures, great and small, human and non-human. But I'm happy to split the sentences if there is demand. One simple solution would be, "India is a pluralistic, multilingual, and multiethnic society. It is also home to a diversity of wildlife in a variety of protected habitats." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

PS IPs, unfortunately, can't vote (according to Wikipedia rules), much as I'd like their support. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Fowler, IPs are free to comment and indicate 'support' or 'oppose' on this page. This is not a vote and while IPs cannot !vote on certain pages (like WP:RFA) their views and !votes on content issues are as acceptable and welcome as the !votes of established editors are. FYI. --rgpk (comment) 17:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Your explanation re #3 understood but it seems a bit contrived - in the sense from seeing the sentence your sentiment is not apparent to the reader. Your split suggestion is okay. Support yet again. AshLin (talk) 19:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

That's a fair point. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment what is the purpose of having company in the lead. Is it to diminish India by indirectly implying that a private company could gradually annexe a country as big as India or to show Britain in a better light by implying that Britain had nothing to do with colonising India and it was all the company's fault and Britain had to take over at one point. both these implications are simplistic and without much explanation (which we can not do in the lead) is terribly misleading to the readers. --CarTick (talk) 20:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

  CarTick, one can suggest that a statement is inaccurate or undue. However, imputing motives such as you are doing is not the way wikipedia works (and, frankly, I'm surprised to see you doing this). Could you please rephrase your objections? Personally, I believe it is historically accurate to say that the EIC gradually annexed large chunks of India, any reading of history will show the accuracy of that statement. --rgpk (comment) 21:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

  CarTick, please examine the chapter titles of four textbooks, written by distinguished historians, and widely used around the world. They all devote considerable space to Company rule in India. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

  let us say i am a historian and i decide to write a book about India. I am very interested and an expert in the topic of Guptas. but i still want to write the entire history. what do i do. i write in large detail about Gupta, write several chapters on it while superficially covering the rest of the history. now, am i wrong? no. am i obliged to cover all of Indian history in proportion to its significance, impact and amount of time it lasted. no. it is just my choice. the only choice i dont have is to be factually incorrect. For these reasons, it is entirely inappropriate to compare the chapters of a text book and argue that wikipedia lead should somehow give equal weightage to these chapters.

In addition, It is also selective and deceptive to choose and highlight the chapters from a few books ignoring other history books. for example, John Keay's book (User:CarTick/John Keay India) while covering the company in the book, does not mention the word "company" in its chapters. instead, it just calls it "British conquest". In my opinion, John Keay's book covers Indian history in detail and in due proportion as opposed to the books highlighted by you.

the bottom line is, text book chapters can not be a guiding factor as to what should go in the lead of an encyclopedia article. but, if at all, we deicde to write the lead based on chapters of a history book, i would recommend we choose John Keay's book and in that case, that would mean, including Lords of the Universe (that covers Harshas, Chalukyas, Pallavas and so on), "Natraj, the rule of the dance" (that covers Cholas), "The triumph of the Sultans" and so on. --CarTick (talk) 16:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

CarTick, You seem to be thinking that if the words "East India Company" are not present in the chapter titles, then the book does not emphasize the Company in India's history. I didn't include Keay's book because it is a popular history, not an academic one. Keay is a journalist, the other authors are well known historians. But I should have, because Keay gives the Company even more space than the others. Keay begins his account of the Company on page 370 of the chapter "From Taj to Raj" with William Hawkins' journey from Surat to Agra. The word "Company" occurs several times on every page. The next chapter, "British Conquest" is entirely about the Company, again with the word "Company" everywhere. The following chapter, "Pax Britannica" is mostly about the Company (from pages 414 to 440). In all 70 pages are devoted to the East India Company or its rule. And another 70 to the British Raj and the Indian nationalist movement. That is a total of 140 pages. In contrast, the Mauryas get barely 20 pages, the Guptas, 26, and the Cholas, 29. If we go by, Keay, then it is the sentence about the Mauryas and Guptas that needs to be pruned to (20+26+29)/140 = approximately 50% of the size of the EIC/British Raj/Indian National movement sentence. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

besides, anyone who has the time to read John Keay's book or just the chapters and compare it with the lead (even the most recent one proposed by you) will find out how much undue weight is given to some topics while some arent even mentioned. --CarTick (talk) 16:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec)CarTick, since we are here to write an encyclopedia, it is incumbent on us to present, in the lead, the parts of India's history that help understand the modern entity of India. Just as the lead of Europe skips large swathes of European history but focuses on the two world wars, we will find it essential to over-represent recent history rather than focusing on Natarajas etc. The problem with your dislike for the inclusion of EIC, based on your objection above, is that it is based on a personal view that it 'diminishes' India (imo nothing can diminish a nation more than a move to hide its history, but that's not the point here) and is not based on the relative importance or unimportance of that period in Indian history. I cannot see how we can even begin to understand modern India without reference to the period between the battle of Plassey and the Indian rebellion, but would be delighted to see you present an argument that indicates why that period is unimportant. Arguments based on personal likes and dislikes, or that they diminish this or that, have no place on wikipedia. --rgpk (comment) 16:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

And I'm sure John Keay's history is comprehensive and detailed. However, the lead of this article, or even this particular article, is not the place for a comprehensive history of India. May I suggest History of India as the appropriate article to ensure that India's history is presented comprehensively? --rgpk (comment) 16:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I am glad you admit you want to over-represent British period. i dont agree with the rationale for that. --CarTick (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Noone want to over-represent the British period CarTick. Actually represent it maybe. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Cartick your point cannot be dismissed and your concerns are valid, IMO. But addressing your concern will be difficult, especially, in the lead. Can you suggest an alternative? --59.182.7.2 (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of support. my gut feeling is that we dont have much flexibility considering we can write only so much in the lead especially the focus of the article being broad. if i sincerely reflect on what i would like to have acheived from this conversation, the answer is none. I am one of those who has passively observed anti-India POV (like many other POV fights) play out in this article's talk page for a long time and for a change, i just decided to take some time to highlight it. after the observation of various talk pages related to the subject, i do belive that there are British East India Company "enthusiasts" in wikipedia who, IMO, have great opinion and respect for the company for understandable reasons. the mention of the company in the lead is, IMO, the result of this enthusiasm.

for one, RegentsPark who took the time to highlight my pro-India feelings failed to observe fowler's pro-british anti-india POV when he explicitly stated his belief on how India owes everything to Britain. That Indians didnt have a sense of History until the british came and therefore their history section doesnt deserve much mention of anything happened before.

I will reflect on this and try to write an alternative lead which i believe is appropriate and post it by this Sunday. i dont want to be dragged into this again, i have some work to do till then. --CarTick (talk) 20:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

CarTick, You are apparently allergic to the words "East India Company." You cite John Keay's book in your defense only because it doesn't have "EIC" in its chapter titles, even though it devotes three chapters to the East India Company!! I point out to you that Encyclopaedia Britannica mentions East India Company in its lead and devotes substantial space of its detailed history (written collectively by historians Frank Raymond Allchin, Romila Thapar, Muzaffar Alam, Sanjay Subrahmanyam, Percival Spear, and Stanley Wolpert) to the British years and you produce some cockamamie theory about how Britannica is biased and the decisions these historians make are similar to the decisions Wikipedians make. Are you going to next accuse the the CBSE syllabus and the ISC syllabus of bias because their students spend so much time studying the British years in High School in India. Finally, since there are a many more secondary sources devoted to the British period of Indian history, are you going to be accusing all secondary sources of systemic bias as well? What's going on? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Comparing with China article then here then here

On China's article it states how China is one of the oldest civilizations, and how China was a leader in arts and other areas. But in the past when I tried putting things like this on India's article, it was taken off. May I ask why China's article is allowed to have things like this but not India's, when India is older then China and has religoins that are older then China? And even if you think China is older, it can be said India has one of the oldest civilizations, and is a leader in arts and other areas to then. . 71.106.83.19 (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

sounds familiar. please take it to China article. --CarTick (talk) 23:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I have. And they tell me to take it to this article. I mean dont you think this is unfair? THey can have an aritlce saying things like that about China and India can't? And anyway why do I have to take it to them? Why cant the India article say similar things like that? 71.106.83.19 (talk) 00:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

India is a FA class article while China is not even a GA Rahul^{Text me} 15:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Religion

I was surprised to see how little coverage India's religious landscape gets in this article. Take the article on United States, for example: there is a whole subsection on religion. Religion in India is arguably more relevant than it is in America, considering history, diversity, social conflicts and even different civil codes for citizens of different religions. I leave this note here as a suggestion for improvement. Natha 20:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satyanatha (talk • contribs)

Your wasting your time. I have been trying to add things like Indias history of Aryans, things with Hinduism, historical connections with Afhganistan and Pakistan, and some people here wont let you edit anything. And sometimes they even take off your discussion, and call you a troll. 71.106.83.19 (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point, and I think that based on some information that has been discussed recently should be enough to develop a small section. It could cover Bene Israel etc. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

It may be an issue of process rather than POV. List out the desired facts to be added. Some discussion will take place. Some pts will get added, others won't. From the above discussions, one can say that both sides of an argument do get their points in as a matter of compromise. But be prepared for long and a lot of debate. AshLin (talk) 03:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Consensus for paragraphs 1, 3, and 4 in the lead

Since we have consensus for paragraphs 1, 3, and 4 in the lead, I will be loading those up. I am noting that we do not have consensus yet for paragraph 2 (which begins, "Home to the Indus Valley Civilization ..."), not just not for the last sentence in this paragraph, but for no sentence. The changes or additions to the early sentences were agreed to based on the complete last sentence, "Gradually annexed by the British East India Company from the early eighteenth century and colonised by the United Kingdom from the mid nineteenth ...." Any reduction or change to the last sentence will require new consensus for all sentences in the paragraph. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Allusive accusations of sock puppetery

here is an 71.106.83.19 IP, who made certain comments like China's article looks like it has been written by the Chinese propoganda ministry, and that India's article too looks like it has been written by the same team,[[1]] all he got for the trouble was the accusation that he was a sock, again he has written about Afghan/ Pak.[2]Chip agreed, and then he brought up Bene Israel (my idea) sotto voce, I did a background check on the IP, he is from Virginia/ Ashburn, I am from Khopoli, Maharashtra and I do not even have a passport so there was no way I could have gone there and come back, I see no need to indulge in duplicity, unlike most editors I edit by my real name, and do not hide behind pseudonyms, I have no desire to indulge in such deceit, and I pity those who accuse some one who does not toe their line. Such conceit is very unhealthy for the project. Please concentrate on the content and not individualsYogesh Khandke (talk) 15:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Cartick said "it sounds familiar". And you read everything else from it. Who accused you of sock puppetry? The "china looks good, india looks bad" line has been put forward by a lot of people before by a lot of people and no doubt will be mentioned again and again in the future. Quit drama mongering and get a grip--Sodabottle (talk) 16:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Does Cartic need an attorney, even though he can read his mind?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

YK, i was not alluding to you. i do believe you wouldnt indulge in sock puppetry. --CarTick (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

If there is mind reading going on here you are the one doing it. --Sodabottle (talk) 16:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

It was first what Cartic wrote and then Chip, circumstantial at the best, thanks Cartic for the clarification, now why is the treatment different?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Fowler's question no 1.

Fowler's question Why are such points of view taken seriously? Since when did we start calling the Indian rebellion of 1857 "India's first war of independence?" (There was no nationalism in India until late in the 19th century.) Amazingly, the new NCERT high-school textbooks used widely all over India call it the "Indian rebellion of 1857." So, why is Wikipedia using this somewhat anachronistic Indian nationalist term? Reply Savarkar wrote The Indian War of Independence (book) in 1909, the colonial administration found it so incendiary that it was banned before publication, later even Joe Nehru was moved to write In the following three weeks British were thrown out of many cities and Bahadur Shah Jafer the Mougal Baadshah was crowned as the ruler of India... It was much more than a military mutiny, as it spread rapidly and assumed the charter of a popular rebellion and a war for Indian Independence.” (Nehru 235-39.)[3], what carries more weight - British sensitivity, Joe Nehru's words or our friendly neighbourhood editor's? The editor in question is strongly requested to insert content that is supported by reliable sources and refrain from indulging in flights of fancy.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I also request other editors to take their blinkers off which would increase their FOV.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

alternative lead by CarTick

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

--CarTick (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Support

• Support --CarTick (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support 1. Colonialism is linked via 'Colonised' 2. British East India Company is removed, hence a truncated statement on the British period 3. Indian independence movement is stated in a matter-of-fact way, i.e, "India became and independent nation..." Zuggernaut (talk) 01:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support I don't agree with the way CarTick has gone about this process but this version is fine. I think Fowler's last sentence reads better but that's a nit. --rgpk (comment) 17:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Withdrawing support. I don't see the discussion as having ended yet and, since I'm going to be off-wikipedia for a bit, you guys figure this out. --rgpk (comment) 16:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Has CarTick violated a policy or a process? I am not aware that he has. There are about 2300 watchers of this page and yet we allow one or two people to dominate the discussion. If anything, CarTick's version balances the lop-sided participation in fixing the lead. I do want to say a genuine thank you for supporting CarTick's version. Zuggernaut (talk) 23:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Generally, commenting on the motivations of editors is a violation of WP:AGF. Also, as I said above about your lead, I think that it is disruptive to generate multiple leads when it makes more sense to focus on specific statements. However, I think there are reasons for his pique and all this is perhaps understandable. Perhaps we can all just focus on the contentious sentences and see where that takes us rather than going back and forth about motivations. (I'm striking out my earlier comment as a start.)--rgpk (comment) 00:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment but I would like to point out that of the 8 leads, 5 have come from Fowler, 2 from me and 1 from CarTick. Let's hope this one is the last one and we can keep the focus on the last sentence. A minor grammar fix and we are ready to wrap this up. Zuggernaut (talk) 01:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• Add (1)The British won Delhi from the Maratha's in 1803 after the Mughal emperor made Mahadaji Shinde his protectorate in 1788, for 15 years the Maratha Zari patka flew on the Red Fort[4][[5]], so it is Mughal's - Maratha's and then British. (2)Brezhnev reacting to Goa's liberation in 1961 urged Indians to ignore western indignation as it came "from those who are accustomed to strangle the peoples striving for independence... and from those who enrich themselves from colonialist plunder". Where is reference to British colonial plunder in this article?[6]Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, most authors agree that the British became prominent in India after the Third Anglo-Maratha War. But the reign of the Marathas was very brief. I would ask that you support CarTick's version of the 2nd paragraph of the lead. I will support the changes you are requesting regarding Marathas, British colonial plunder in appropriate articles where it is likely to be due. (I've been told that this article is a summary-style article and going in to details should be done in daughter articles). Zuggernaut (talk) 01:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support (1)Actually there is too much emphasis on Gandhi, wasn't it the Naval Mutiny that precipitated the British exit? Even Portuguese fought their way out despite been badly outnumbered but the British as they had won India through deciet and did not have the stomach to fight battle hardened WWII veterans?[7] (2) Though the Maratha standard flew on the Red Fort only for 15 years between 1788-1803, Panipat 1961 happened because the Maratha's were protectors of the Mughal emperor who was threatened by Abdali, though they did not win, it was a phyrric victory for Abdali who never again crossed the Khyber (I am quoting Ninad Bedekar, heard him yesterday (2011-03-11/ @ Khopoli), if it is included in the article evidence compliant to RS norms will be furnished], (3)The British connection should be there only to suggest that the Union of India and the Dominion of Pakistan inherited their boundaries and satellite states from the Colony of India, anything more would be wp:UNDUE Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support Pdheeru (talk) 06:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC) A lead should not contain name of any individual. In this case Gandhi's name if not mentioned will be more apt. Also the mention of Marathas as reasoned by Yogesh and supported by Zuggernaut. Pdheeru (talk) 06:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC) I'm opposing this version for the following reasons.
   1. First, after long sentences about the Mauryas, Guptas, and the Mughals, CarTick's sentence about the British rule, which is the period of Indian history secondary and tertiary sources write about by an astoundingly lop-sided ratio (See here for books on British India and here for books on Maurya India), is the shortest and most anonymous. The Maurya sentence talks about "uniting large swathes of India," and of cultural legacies extending into "neighboring regions of Asia." The Islamic/Mughals sentence talks about the onset of Islamic invasions from Central Asia and Muslim rule rising to its height of glory under the Mughals. The British period, which united swathes of India and Burma undreamt of by the Mauryas or the Mughals, is summed up in "four words", "Colonised by the United Kingdom"
      1. CarTick's version is a violation both of WP:LEAD ("The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources")
      2. and of Feature Article Criterion 1 (c), "well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature."
   2. Second, the short mention of British rule in CarTick's lead's history paragraph is starkly different from:
      1. The history section of the India page on which it is based.
      2. The History of India page and,
      3. the History of India template (shown on the right) which appears in all Indian history related pages and
      4. the "History of South Asia template (also shown on the right),
   3. Third, CarTick's rationale that he feels that mentioning the East India Company, a private company, is both an insult to India and absolves Great Britain of responsibility for its misdeeds, introduces a dangerous personal and patriotic element into Wikipedia decision making and takes it away from the principles that Wikipedia has always stood for. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

(od)Fowler, except for the last two items, CarTick's lead is identical to yours. Could you tell us whether you're ok with the last sentence (about India and Gandhi)? and are you willing to propose an alternative to the sentence on the British period that doesn't directly mention the EIC? I understand your frustration and I personally am disappointed that CarTick has chosen to disrupt process and generate yet another lead. However, if this process has to come to a reasonable end, something has to give. My hope is that we can work by accepting that we're all agreed on the text upto the mughal empire and constructively work together on modifying the last two sentences. If you're willing to accept the Independence sentence or CarTick is willing to accept your version of it, we're down to one last bone of contention. I suspect that a formulation without mention of the EIC will be generally acceptable. --rgpk (comment) 21:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

RegentsPark, I'm afraid I can't and I don't agree with your formulation. The rest of the lead is identical only because we (including you) met the demands of CarTick and Zuggernaut which at the time didn't include anything about the East India Company. Like Chipmunk said upstairs to Zuggernaut, "That content was added to attempt to fix the perceived slant you thought the Lead gave to the British. We agreed to that, and now you're asking for more? You can't just say we have consensus for whatever you want in the article and continue to make your own demands." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Besides, CarTick's version is a violation of the five pillars of Wikipedia, one of which clearly says, "Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here. That means citing verifiable, authoritative sources, ..." There are 1 million 210 thousand books and 1 million 170 thousand scholarly articles that refer to the East India Company. In contrast, there are 72 thousand books and 9 thousand scholarly articles that refer to Maurya India, and most of the latter are not about the Mauryas. How then are we mentiong the Mauryas in the lead and not the Company? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Given that CarTick doesn't even have a userbox about where he is or what he does, I don't think his version has anything to do with patriotism. It's just WP:UNDUE for the lead. No FA criterion has been violated because clearly the corpus of literature talks about Indian history before the British. Moreover, given that English is the language of the British, you will find more coverage about British rule. I think this is what we call systemic bias. Third, Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources. Zuggernaut (talk) 23:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:Systemic bias is an essay; it is not Wikipedia policy. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you figured that out. Despite the Google statistics, EIC is WP:UNDUE. The Mauryas gave India and Indian culture many things, some symbolic ones like the Ashok Chakra and the Lion Capital have already been discussed. Further in the reign of Ashok, Buddhism reached Himalayan heights and the tradition of non-violence makes a significant jump here. That tradition would later make an influence on Gandhi and other world leaders. By comparison, what is the legacy of the EIC? The Bengal famine of 1770 in which 1/3rd of the population of Bengal perished while the EIC was busy raising and collecting taxes from the dying? But that's not the point. EIC just does not feature prominently in literature as do the earlier empires. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

EIC doesn't figure as prominently as the Mauryas? There are 2,080 scholarly articles that have "East India Company" in their title; there are 161 scholarly articles which have "Maurya" in their title. Having a topic in the title of s scholarly article is a sign of prominence. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

EIC means many things including:

• A music band
• A living company after the original EIC was recently acquired.
• East India Company a computer video game
• East India Trading Co. (Pirates of the Caribbean), a fictional company in the Pirates of the Caribbean movie (and so aptly chosen)
• The East India Company Fine Food Limited, a London tea and coffee retailer
• Dutch East India Company, founded in 1602
• Danish East India Company, founded in 1616
• Portuguese East India Company, founded in 1628
• French East India Company, founded in 1664
• Swedish East India Company, founded in 1731

Zuggernaut (talk) 06:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't make any difference! Clearly, the scholarly articles are not about the music band or the video game. As for the other Companies, you can easily do a binary search in which "Danish," "French," etc are excluded and English OR British are included. The Google Scholar search yields, 528,000 articles referring to the English or British East India Company and only 4,780 articles referring to either the "Mauryas," "Mauryan Empire," "Ashoka," or "Asoka." There is a good reason why the Wikipedia page East India Company is about the English East India Company, not the Dutch East India Company, which was the oldest and second largest. I know about the other companies, Your argument does not hold water. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

An accurate search with quotes around the term yields only 22,700 results. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Zuggernaut has attempted to cheat by tampering with evidence during a consensus building process. He as tried to make this edit, which "equalizes" the big topics, such as the "Company Rule," with the small topics, such as "Mangal Pande," in the "History of India" template (shown on the right), by increasing the size of the small text in a template that has remained stable for a long time and that is used widely in all History of India pages. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, take it to ANI if you really think so. Otherwise you need to withdraw words like 'cheat'. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the word "cheat," but what you did is disruptive in the worst possible way. You have tampered with evidence in a consensus building process. It is hard to assume good faith with you after this. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

No. What I did is not disruptive by any measure. Cut the legal lingo. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

(od) Fowler, i agree with you that the process of gradual annexation of various parts of India by the East India Company during the 18th and 19th centuries is far more important in understanding modern India than were the Mauryas. However, I'm not so sure that we have to specifically name the EIC in the lead. Can't we just say something like: "Following the decline of the Mughal Empire, India was colonized by the British through a process of gradual annexation and consolidation. India became an independent nation in 1947 after a struggle for independence led by Mahatma Gandhi and marked by widespread non-violent resistance."--rgpk (comment) 13:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

RP, I highly value your opinions (as you well know), but it isn't just a question of not having EIC in the lead, it is a question of slant and undue weight. Saying, "Following the decline of the Mughal Empire, India was colonized by the British through a process of gradual annexation and consolidation." is too general; it pretty much doesn't tell us anything about the years 1765 to 1947. Contrast that with the corresponding portion of the lead of the History of India Page:

"The Mughal Empire suffered a gradual decline in the early 18th century, which provided opportunities for the Afghans, Balochis, Sikhs, and Marathas to exercise control over large areas in the northwest of the subcontinent until the British East India Company gained ascendancy over South Asia. Beginning in the mid-18th century and over the next century, India was gradually annexed by the British East India Company. Dissatisfaction with Company rule led to the Indian Rebellion of 1857, after which India was directly administered by the British Crown and witnessed a period of both rapid development of infrastructure and economic decline. During the first half of the 20th century, a nationwide struggle for independence was launched by the Indian National Congress and later joined by the Muslim League. The subcontinent gained independence from the United Kingdom in 1947, after being partitioned into the dominions of India and Pakistan."

Given that we are describing the ancient empires in great detail ("Uniting large swathes of ancient India," "cultural impact reaching well into the neighboring regions of Asia") and they receive far less attention in the secondary sources, we can surely say something meaningful about the Company and about direct administration by the British. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:Other Stuff Exists, i wonder who wrote all that. it only means History of India hasnt received the kind of editorial scrutiny this article is going through right now. --CarTick (talk) 15:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

it is misleading to use google scholar to define relevance to an article lead. see these results -[British eic]-140 results, [English eic]-203 hits. compare this with [Ramayana]-1200, [Jawaharlal Nehru]-711. Google scholar results merely indicate an academic interest of people who can communicate in English. google scholar results and coverage in popular media are often skewed towards recent events. the more recent, the higher. See [Cell phone]-3090 hits, [Kerala]-10,400

i do not agree with RegentsPark that East India Company shaped modern India more than Mauryas. my feeling is one cant tell. (let us not forget the decision by post-independent Indian politicians to acquire nuclear weapons. see the fate of some countries that dont have them) it took thousands of years to figure out how to make fire and compare it with what happened in the last 10 years. for the sake of compromise, i will agree with RP's suggestion with the removal of the word "struggle". --CarTick (talk) 13:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

CarTick, No one uses the term "English East India Company" or "British East India Company," they simply use the term "East India Company" to mean the English East India Company; if they are talking about the Dutch or French or Danish East India Company they use those prefixes. I know because I (along with RegentsPark) were involved in the page move to East India Company for the English or British East India Company. The proper way to search on Google Scholar is to do a binary search for "East India Company" and exclude "Danish," "French," "Dutch" etc. That way you get 1,780 articles with the East India Company in their titles, in contrast, as you correctly say is, 1200 for "Ramayana" and 711 for Nehru. I am confident about this. You are welcome to challenge me on any forum on Wikipedia. The East India Company had received more attention in secondary sources that any ancient empire in India. Not just more attention, but a great deal more. Wikipedia is ultimately beholden to secondary sources. That is Wikipedia policy. You can complain all you want that there is systemic bias towards English language sources etc. etc. But this is the English Wikipedia. It is beholden to English language secondary sources. That is policy. If the policy changes, I will abide by it. It hasn't yet. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

it is misleading to use google scholar to define relevance to an article lead. Google scholar results merely indicate an academic interest of people who can communicate in English. In general, information obtained from Google scholar results is considered to be more reliable than random web search. let us not strecth it beyond that. --CarTick (talk) 15:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

CarTick, could you comment on the reshaped sentence. --rgpk (comment) 15:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

it is a good suggestion. like i mentioned, i will support it. would like the word "struggle" removed. --CarTick (talk) 15:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem with leaving out the EIC is that a huge part of the shaping of modern India is being skipped over. It was the company that began the process of uniting the divided kingdoms and weakening the power of the muslim rulers. Without it theres a jump from fractured kingdoms to british dominion. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

wrong. mughal power was already declining. the company merely used the power vaccuum and devided Indians (who couldnt understand each other because of thousands of languages :)) to consolidate its power. In John Keay's words, The company was "sucked into" the power vacuum left behind by the declining Mughal empire. there was nothing benevolent about the company's motives. --CarTick (talk) 14:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Who said anything about benevolence? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

you said "It was the company that began the process of uniting the divided kingdoms and weakening the power of the muslim rulers". i thought the sentence implied benevolence. --CarTick (talk) 14:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

No, it didn't. I was simply noting its historical role. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

comments

• Just what we needed. Another lead. I should add one of my own below. :) --rgpk (comment) 21:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
• Exactly what we needed. More genuine participation, more constructive edits, no hypocritical positions and less sarcasm. Zuggernaut (talk) 01:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
• CarTick and Zuggernaut, Thanks for that last sentence. Please read the verb tense section in the English Grammar page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
• How about this version? "The India is the Land of the Aryans. Earlier, India extended up to the North Pole where Aryans originated. Over the millenniums, the Aryan religion was sullied by Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism, and a few tribal religions, such as Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Islam, and Christianity, from farther South. The first civilizations arose in India. The wheel was invented in India, as was its direct descendant, the number zero. Sugar were cultivated first in India; consequently, the dental drill was invented first in India. The horse was domesticated first in India; consequently, iron was invented first in India, as was the horseshoe. The Mauryas invented world's first hotel in India, the Maurya Sheraton in New Delhi. Gold was invented during the Golden Age of the Guptas. Cardiology was invented in India after the discovery of cholesterol by the Cholas. India became an independent nation in 1947 under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi after it non-violently ejected some unknown intruders." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The Aryan migration theories have become more about politics than about history and they have no place in the lead. Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism actually made Hinduism better (which btw was not the same as the Aryan religion). The wheel was probably a Mesopotamian invention and the horse was likely domesticated in central Asia. Although about 30% of the world's gold is in India, it has nothing to do with the Golden Age of the Guptas. And the British did setup a colonial economy in India (as they did everywhere else) and they did plunder India but going in to the details of that in the lead is WP:UNDUE, perhaps we can do that in the body of the article. Claims about cholesterol and the Maurya Sheraton are bogus. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• I'd like to perhaps humorously note that this new version gives less credit to the independence movement than the other one. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

love the insults and implosion. --CarTick (talk) 06:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

That, at least, is obvious. --rgpk (comment) 12:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

If you take the hyperbole and irony away, (and anyways the AIT isn't on the same pedestal that it was, it has almost been flushed out like excrement is[[8]]), F&F's latest version looks the most sensible, (1)The horse manual was written in Sanskrit on the lands on the banks of the Tigris and the Euphrates[[9]], and so was the Laguna Copperplate Inscription the earliest historical record found in Philippines, half way round the world. (2)The Indian perception of the British remains as robbers[10], (3)Dr. Dean Ornish's, Clinically proven and FDA approved programme for combatting diseases has Yoga and dhyana as its mainstay.[[11]]. (4)Some have a great collection of information and a way with words but that does not make one wise.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Fixed the last sentence.

@Zuggernaut: Seriously?? *slaps face* @YG: Wow! Read WP:Reliable source (Get a grip!) @Cartick: Support. (It doesn't count though) - 59.182.49.32 (talk) 15:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

IP One source is a website, two are links to wikipedia articles, and another is a scientist who has been quoted in the TOI. Reliable enough, moreover this is not an article page, better ones can be found, the point is that F&f we have here a classic case of Fowler's definition Irony is a form of utterance that postulates a double audience, consisting of one party that hearing shall hear &, shall not understand, & another party that, when more is meant than meets the ear, is aware both of that more & of the outsiders' incomprehension wonder what do you call irony that boomerangs?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I have read Dr. Dean Ornish's book, don't have it at the moment or we would have had it from the horse's mouth.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

IP I haven't lost my balance rather one shouldn't be a kupamanduka.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

This “kupamanduka”—the well-frog—has a world view, but it is a world view that is entirely confined to that well. The scientific, cultural, and economic history of the world would have been very limited had we lived like such well-frogs. This is an important issue, since there are plenty of well-frogs around—and also, of course, many attorneys of well-frogs.(Ibid) I loved the attorney part the most.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

End of the road

I'm sorry this is the end of the road for me as far as trying to find consensus for a new history paragraph in the lead. No consensus has been reached. The previous version of the history paragraph in the lead will remain in place. I believe Zuggernaut and CarTick have acted disruptively. If they try to edit war their sentences into place, and make the page unstable, I will take the India page to FAR and their edits and edit histories will get the editorial attention they deserve from the larger Wikipedia community. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

you can take it to FAR as you want. we can work out a compromise without your presence. i believe we have a strong case and therefore not worried about the larger wikipedia community. --CarTick (talk) 16:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are dreaming. You have 3 votes in support and one against. The same as my version. Even if you get one more support or I get one more oppose, it is not consensus. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Take it to FAR anyway. FAR is meant to improve articles, and as this article hasn't been through any community overview since 2006 it's probably about time. No harm can come from FAR. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

the fact you are backing out is an indication you have no argument to make. that would count towards consensus too. --CarTick (talk) 16:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

No it isn't, no it doesn't. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) I think I will take it to FAR to improve it, Chipmunk. I will take about a week or thereabouts to prepare a critique. The history section, in particular, needs a lot of work, even with the rollback. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

No one has acted disruptively so you really need to quit making allegations like that. Please stop threatening taking the article to FAR because you cannot get consensus on your edits. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Editors are adviced to desist from getting personal, use of the word cheat is the latest example, please be civil, please understand that for many editors English is a second language, and seeming innocuous words or phrases are taken at face value as the local dialectical idiomatic meaning is unknown, kindly to be safe, editors are requested to be a little conservative with words so as not to trigger a slanging match or formal proceedings which would result in a waste of time and would divert attention from the subject. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

YK, I've retracted "cheat," but what Zuggernaut did was a poor example of deceptive disruption. It will be difficult to assume good faith with him after this. Does not his action raise your ire? Only my response? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we should just go for Fowler&Fowler's verison from 02:15, 8 March 2011 at least for right now. I mean, the E>BEIC has been in the article the whole time we've had this discussion. So it's not as if Fowler&Fowler's latest suggestion is adding this in. Removing or otherwise changing the inclusion of the E>BEIC would be a new topic. On the the rhand, the claim above that "No one uses the term "English East India Company" or "British East India Company," they simply use the term "East India Company" to mean the English East India Company" is patently either false or a gross exaggeration as can be seen from any google searches e.g. [12], [13]. Munci (talk) 20:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

That is a reasonable point and it has my support. --rgpk (comment) 20:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

i understand your point and agree with you but if it is going to FAR, i would like the current version unchanged. i guess it is better to start from how the article has been for so long. --CarTick (talk) 21:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Munci. You are right I exaggerated, to make a point, but I don't think you understood the point. I was not suggesting that "British" should be removed from "British East India Company" in the lead. I'm aware that people use both "English East India Company" and "British East India Company," but, most often in the literature, they simply use "East India Company" to mean the English/British East India Company (i.e. the one that governed India from Calcutta) and not the Dutch East India Company (the first such company), nor the Danish, French, Swedish or Portuguese. That is the reason why its Wikipedia page is simply East India Company. I made the point upstairs to CarTick because I was trying to show him the proper way to do a binary search for the Company that ruled from Calcutta. I (along with RegentsPark) and others were involved in the page move from the Honourable East India Company to East India Company. At that time, there were suggestions that the Company page should be called the British East India Company or the English East India Company, but I compiled the statistics of usage, and, most often it was simply "East India Company." Please see the talk page of East India Company (or its archives). The proper way to do the search for the English/British East India Company is to do a binary search for East India Company and exclude "Dutch," "Swedish," "Danish," "French," and "Portuguese." That way you get all the references including the ones that explicitly use "English," "Honourable," or "British." Thus in your Google Scholar search, that way, you will get 223,000 articles in contrast to the 4,310 articles that you have. I'm not averse, as I've already said, to keeping the "British" in "British East India Company" in the lead. In fact, these days, as new generations of readers appear, unaware of the history of the Company, it is a common way of providing some context. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

"East India Company" gets puny coverage. Just 22,700 results from an accurate search? Zuggernaut (talk) 03:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, my mistake, and thanks for pointing it out, but your's is not accurate either, and there was a mistake in my original formulation. If you do a search for "East India Company" (within quotes) you get 80,600 articles. If you do a binary search for "East India Company" -Dutch, (ie. exclude the word, "Dutch") you get: 46,700 articles. That would suggest that approximately 40,000 articles are about the Dutch East India Company. But when you do a search for the "Dutch East India Company," you get only 14,500 articles. That means that the vast majority of articles excluded in the search for "East India Company" -dutch are articles about the English East India Company that happen to have the word "Dutch" on a page somewhere along with "East India Company." The proper way to do this search, I realized after reading your post is to do a binary search for "East India Company" and exclude "Dutch East India Company, and so forth. That way one gets 65,300 articles for the English/British/Honourable East India Company. That is not "Puny coverage;" even 22,000 articles is not puny. This method is not completely accurate either (as it excludes articles that mention both the English and Dutch Companies, but it is accurate enough for our purposes. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

(unindent)CarTick, I haven't made the final decision to take the article to FAR. It will depend on the critique I prepare. I am still traveling and my time is erratic. If you are agreeable to the version of 8 March 02:15 (referred to by Munci) then we should go ahead with that version. A better lead in an article cannot be a disadvantage when people are trying to improve it during an FAR. It will, at least, keep the same issues from coming up again and discussed yet again. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Your pattern of edits seem to indicate that you are taking a "my way or the highway" kind of position. If you don't get consensus on your proposed edits, you threaten FAR. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

FAR is a standard procedure and is not a threat. A review of the relentless POV pushing is needed, and whether it's FAR or ANI, something will eventually happen. Johnuniq (talk) 04:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Johnuniq, I will ask for a review of POV-pushing in the FAR. Thanks for the suggestion. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

:) Zuggernaut, Whose highway?

• I have agreed to not mention "Judaism, Zoraostrianism, Christanity, and Islam" in the lead.
• I have added "India's ancient and majority religion" after "Hinduism" per Chipmunk and "other religions" due to you.
• I have added the sentence about Mauryas, Guptas, and the Middle kingdoms of India (due to you and CarTick) including "uniting large swathes of India" due to Chipmunk and "impact reaching well into neighboring regions of Asia" (due in some version, with regards, the Cholas, to CarTick)
• I've added "led by Mahatma Gandhi" per RegentsPark's and your suggestions.
• I have added the sentence about the Mughals (due, I believe, in some version about Northern India to you.)
• I've agreed to not mention of "Kashmir."
• I have added the bit about "land borders" due to AshLin.

What have you and CarTick given in on?? Please don't make me laugh. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The three paragraphs that are already uploaded in the lead. Zuggernaut (talk) 14:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The Golden Mean?

All this discussion over the last few weeks has been deeply disturbing to me. The Golden Mean, a term I'm using rather loosely for a balanced view between Fowler & Zuggernaut's position, eludes us. There is some merit to both sides. Zuggernaut's, Khandke et al want to be able to provide some kind of Indian perspective, but they go about it in a rigid, unyielding sort of manner, some of their actions clearly do not fit in with "gentlemanly" conduct as I have been brought up to understand the meaning of the term. Fowler follows the correct procedures, provides meticulous details and referencing, is often "NPOV" as WP understands it, has made concessions on his part to his credit - but I cant help feeling that the NPOV view which he scrupulously defends suffers from a certain systemic bias as the British viewpoint is dominant in historical scholarship. My own viewpoint about the historical legacy of the British in India is ambivalent - they did make very fine contributions in India, but what they did, they did in their own self-interest, not in "noblesse oblige", in particular as a colonial power they steadfastly enriched themselves reducing India from one of the richest economies to the impoverished giant in 1947. But all this is history - so theres is no need for "whitewashed" view a la Fowler or a jingoistic view a la Zuggernaut et al. Both sides need to be represented without embellishment, rancour and minimally, but accurately. Now how is all this relevant to WP? Because an editors actions reflect his beliefs, perhaps there is really no such thing as an NPOV (muse). In that context, I feel I have not played any constructive role in getting towards this so called Golden Mean. I do hope the FAR process helps us reach towards this Golden Mean rather than a scrupulous defence of the "Western viewpoint", while rejecting utterly some of the extreme edits favoured by Zuggernaut et al. AshLin (talk) 05:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I sympathize with your viewpoint, but to get into "systemic bias" is tricky. (I'm writing off the top of my head, in a sleepy state, so this might be long.) There was a phase in Indian historiography, between the early 1960s and the mid-1990s, where every British contribution was taken to task and many historians from India (and even from Great Britain) has a left-leaning or even Marxist perspective on the British period of Indian history. That has changed in the last fifteen years, as Indian historians themselves, have begun to question the earlier assumptions of Indian historiography. If you read historians such as Seema Alavi at Jamia Milia writing about Company rule, you get a more nuanced perspective. That is evident in the new NCERT history series as well, though not so much in the ISC syllabus, which perhaps because of its British antecedents, is still steadfastly maintaining a 70s perspective. It is true that many British civil servants were reimbursed generously, but if you examine the records of many of them such as James Prinsep or Lewis Rice, their contributions are staggering. There were many Indian courtiers in princely states who were making a great deal more money than British civil servants, but no contributions came from them. If you examine the record of Proby Cautley, who as a mere Major in the Bengal Presidency army (and not in the Army Engineers) took on the task of planning and directing the Ganges Canal, which was completed in six years, you realize that there was a lot more to the British contributions than the infamous ones such as Jallianwalla Bagh. It is also not at all clear that all these actions were driven by British self-interest. Actually, you don't get a true picture, until you've actually seen the Solani Aqueduct in Roorkee (in which the Ganges Canal flies over the tiny Solani River). This marvel of mid-nineteenth century engineering, constructed in the age before the invention of cement, is still standing, while the more modern bridges built by trained civil engineers in the Republic of India are collapsing around it. The Ganges Canal was built by the Company to bring relief to the famine belt in the middle Doab in UP, which had been especially hard hit in the Agra famine of 1837–38; it had been proposed much earlier, but approved by the Company only after the famine. In spite of Cautley's grand projections for the budget conscious Court of Directors before construction began, the Company never made a penny from the canal. While Cautley was honored by both Dalhousie and the British government, he never became a particularly rich man. His later years were marked by a dispute with Sir Arthur Cotton about the wisdom of some of the Ganges Canal works, in which the British government ultimately sided with a Cautley, a mere Major (actually, he retired as a Colonel), than with the more celebrated General Sir Arthur. The truth is complicated. Sure, India did have the Taj Mahal, but the Indian economy had been largely stagnant since the 1400s, and had extreme disparity (much like today). If India had had more equitable wealth, you would have seen more surviving examples of ordinary life and living in India (such as Anne Hathaway's Cottage in Stratford-on-Avon, or Issac Newton's rooms in Trinity College, Cambridge), not just Taj Mahal, Fatehpur Sikri, and Agra Fort, to take one set of examples. I've indicated before on this page, India never saw the kind of mercantile and scientific revolution that took place in Britain before Britain became involved in India. The "why" of it is complicated. Sure, Britain was no saint in governing India, but it wasn't the devil either. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

PS What I've written seems a little disconnected now, but I think it gets the idea across. Of course, if this page goes to FAR, I'll try to be sensitive to your concerns, which you've expressed very cogently. I mean, we all will, I hope, since an FAR is a collective enterprise. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I doubt Anne Hathaway's Cottage and Issac Newton's rooms in Trinity College, Cambridge are particularly representative of daily life in England seeing as most people were neither wife to a famous playwright nor studied at a college having (quoting the article here) "traditionally been considered the most aristocratic of the Cambridge colleges". The birthplace of Thunchaththu Ramanujan Ezhuthachan might be comparable [14] "The Thunjan Parambu where the great poet and saint was bom is now protected as an archaeological monument.". Munci (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

PPS I should make clear that I'm not British (as some people seem to suppose). There was plenty wrong with the British in India. For one, the ordinary British civil servant very likely thought British culture superior to that of India, and his attitude came out in his dealings with Indians. But not all of it was simple racism; some of it was impatience, much like that displayed, as the New York Times once reported, by the road engineers from Andhra Pradesh state who were building a national highway in rural Bihar state. The point I am trying to make is that Britain was the world's sole super-power during the nineteenth century and the very early 20th, up to the first world war. In all the colonies of the British Empire, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Kenya, Tanzania, India, Malaya, Jamaica, ..., it was main news. But it itself was a small country, only slightly bigger than undivided Punjab, and its own main news was usually domestic, not the Empire. It was a nation in an exalted state of achievement. Nations in exalted states of achievement (such as Greece in the Athenian age, Rome a few centuries later, India a few centuries after that, ... or the US for much of the 20th century) generate synergies and leave lasting impact. They often display impatience with people and cultures which they perceive to not measure up. The Indian impact is evident not just in temples in Angkor Wat or Borobudur, but even in street names in Thailand and surnames in Indonesia. It is evident in the arithmetic, such as multiplication and long division, that children all over the world learn today. If only simple-minded national self-interest was driving the British enterprise in India, you would not have had the phenomenon of a William Jones, so early (1783) in the enterprise (notwithstanding Edward Said). The British empire in India (and elsewhere) was complex. Complexity should also be displayed in its assessment as well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Belonging to a Corps that even today considers itself in continuity since 1780 and myself in continuity with the British who officered it since then till Independence, and which is responsible for constructing/developing so many facets of India ranging from India's dams, highways, canals, engineering colleges to postage stamps, telegraphy, the Mint, railways etc, etc, I am acutely aware of the net contributions of the British, the contributions by the rank and file of sappers and miners as well as individual contributions by well meaning Britishers. However, as I mentioned before, the negative parts were also there. I agree that India's history is complex but that complexity should show both sides, albeit briefly and accurately. I think that Fowler&fowler may on occasion be overly protective or generous to British motives. Let the issues represented be balanced and in perspective, neither adulating British rule nor making them out to be devils as Fowler&fowler put it. AshLin (talk) 16:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the easiest way to avoid this is to not take into account British motives when developing the article. If we all manage to simply stick to showing the basic facts of what happened (of course making sure that they are both relevant and important), there shouldn't be any POV issues. An encyclopaedia shouldn't really be bothered with "positives" and "negatives" (whatever they are), but just stick to a description of what happened. There's no need to try and balance something if we make sure there is nothing to balance. If Fowler has been occasionally overly protective to British motives, I think that's understandable considering what else has taken place on this page. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

AshLin - The net 'contributions' of the British were negative. What you are suggesting and what editors have gotten away with on Wikipedia is to balance and unbalanced history. Take a look as some of the following sources and decide for yourself every time you use the word 'balance' in the context of Indo-British history (Gandhi has called the British rule in India satanic, a robbery, a curse and an evil in the sources below):

BRITISH RULE—AN EVIL The Interpreter is however more to the point in asking, “Does Mr. Gandhi hold without hesitation or reserve that British rule in India is altogether an evil and that the people of India are to be taught so to regard it? He must hold it to be so evil that the wrongs it does outweigh the benefit it confers, for only so is non−co−operation to be justified at the bar of conscience or of Christ.” My answer is emphatically in the affirmative. So long as I believed that the sum total of the energy of the British Empire was good, I clung to it despite what I used to regard as temporary aberrations. I am not sorry for having done so. But having my eyes opened, it would be sin for me to associate myself with the Empire unless it purges itself of its evil character. I write this with sorrow and I should be pleased if I discovered that I was in error and that my present attitude was a reaction. The continuous financial drain, the emasculation of the Punjab and the betrayal of the Muslim sentiment constitute, in my humble opinion, a threefold robbery of India. 'The blessings of pax Britanica' I reckon, therefore, to be a curse. We would have at least remained like the other nations brave men and women, instead of feeling as we do so utterly helpless, if we had no British Rule imposing on us an armed peace. 'The blessing' of roads and railways is a return no self−respecting nation would accept for its degradation. 'The blessing' of education is proving one of the greatest obstacles in our progress towards freedom.

Source: Gandhi, Mohandas (2004), Freedom's Battle Being a Comprehensive Collection of Writings and Speeches on the Present Situation, Kessinger Publishing, ISBN 9781419120879

Whilst, therefore, I hold the British rule to be a curse, I do not intend harm to a single Englishman or to any legitimate interest he may have in India. I must not be misunderstood. Though I hold the British rule in India to be a curse, I do not, therefore, consider Englishmen in general to be worse than any other people on earth. I have the privilege of claiming many Englishmen as dearest friends. Indeed much that I have learnt of the evil of British rule is due to the writings of frank and courageous Englishmen who have not hesitated to tell the unpalatable truth about that rule. And why do I regard the British rule as a curse? It has impoverished the dumb millions by a system of progressive exploitation and by a ruinously expensive military and civil administration which the country can never afford. It has reduced us politically to serfdom. It has sapped the foundations of our culture. And, by the policy of cruel disarmament, it has degraded us spiritually. Lacking the inward strength, we have been reduced, by all but universal disarmament, to a state bordering on cowardly helplessness...

The terrific pressure of land revenue, which furnishes a large part of the total, must undergo considerable modification in an independent India. Even the much vaunted permanent settlement benefits the few rich zamindars [landlords], not the ryots [landless peasants]. The ryot has remained as helpless as ever. He is a mere tenant at will. Not only, then, has the land revenue to...

Source: Gandhi, Mahatma (1996), Dalton, Dennis (ed.), Mahatma Gandhi: selected political writings, Hackett Pub. Co., ISBN 9780872203303

By 1920 he had come to feel that British rule was, as he put it, "satanic." But its evil lay not primarily, if at all, in the rule of one national group over another. He believed that it was wrong because it was morally destructive of India's ancient, traditional, and spiritual civilization that had enabled its people to journey after Truth in the context of a small-scale and rural society whose socioeconomic arrangements for their common life were compatible with Truth-seeking.

Source: Johnson, Richard L. (2006), Gandhi's experiments with truth: essential writings by and about Mahatma Gandhi, Lexington Books, ISBN 9780739111437

Zuggernaut (talk) 15:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

According to WP:RS, "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." Gandhi writings were neither academic, nor peer-reviewed; neither scholarly monographs, nor textbooks. If he had been alive, he'd be the first one to own up to that. He was a political genius, but not a reliable source as Wikipedia understands it. Why are you wasting everyone's time Mr. Zuggernaut?? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Nobody cares if you are British, Pakistani, Parsi or whatever. It is the POV that you are propagating, not just here, but throughout Wikipedia that is a problem. Sure, Britain was the sole super power but you cannot compare the US or India with Britain at the 'height' of their power. It's good to see you finally say that Britain was no saint in governing India. But you soon follow that up by saying "it wasn't the devil either". Given that Gandhi was known to call British rule of India 'evil' on multiple occasions, I am sure people like the Mahatama (whom you admire enormously) would say that someone with this sort of a POV is a bigot. The Hindutva people like Savarkar would have much worse to say.

(Reply to AshLin) My view is not jingoistic at all. Your motives in finding a golden mean are welcome but your generalizations and analyses are inaccurate and hence irritating.

Zuggernaut (talk) 03:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, some people do care. The first sentence was a response to CarTick's post which was retracted later. As for your musings, save those for the FAR, when I'll be asking for a review of POV-pushing, and you might need to muse frenetically in defense of your own. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Wait, so Fowler not considering the British the devil means he has a bigoted POV? Wow. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

throwing procedures to the wind...

Reply to Ashnil and Fowler(1)I strongly disagree with Ashlin's allegations that I and Zuggernaut have thrown procedures to the wind, The previous phrase isn't a quotation from Ashlin but a summary of my intpretation of his edit I strongly suggest that he justifies his allegations with diffs. (2)On the other hand his summary My own viewpoint about the historical legacy of the British in India is ambivalent - they did make very fine contributions in India, but what they did, they did in their own self-interest, not in "noblesse oblige", in particular as a colonial power they steadfastly enriched themselves reducing India from one of the richest economies to the impoverished giant in 1947. is what the lead should convey. It is perfect. (3)Fowler please go through my edits, even though I share concerns with Zuggernaut, I have disagreed with his methods and he with mine when we have fallen foul with procedures. British infrastructure was established precisely to drain India, Henry Mayers Hyndman has written it with greater precision than anyone else not even Indians, (perhaps he didn't have to look over his shoulder). Like always Fowler your observations are brilliant, we apparently have none of these small things the 700 year old universities, and many other traditions, it was the British rule and Christianity that wiped them out or discredited them, but don't worry, there is revisionism most of the times too viril for someone like me, which is bursting out, we too will have a profusion of blue plaques and the like, we are an ancient civilisation but a young republic, fresh from evicting a trespasser, who has indulged in great vandalism, not just physical but to our minds too (If you wish I will supply wp:rs for each word in letter and spirit), by the way it is not just any street name, the reigning Thai king’s name is Bhumibal Atulyatej (my romanisation), which is lord of the earth of incomparable glory, the Malaysian capital is Putrajaya or the victorious son in Sanskrit, Singapur is the land of the lion (all Sanskrit words).Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

"thrown procedures to the wind"? Your words, not mine in the page or edit summary. AshLin (talk) 08:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

AshlinYou have written Fowler follows the correct procedures, provides meticulous details and referencing,..., isn't it implicit that Yogesh and Zuggernaut don't? If you read carefully Zuggernaut has most of the time carefully referenced his statements.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

You are putting your own words in my mouth. AshLin (talk) 08:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not implicit, and italicising as you did other quotes is grossly misleading. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Would you kindly explain what you mean by that Chip?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

You placed a quote by AshLin in italics later, and also placed "thrown procedures to the wind" in italics, implying AshLin had said those exact words. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I gave another look to your statement and my edit and I got what you meant, but you beat me to the post (edit conflict) does it look better now?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• nods* Better. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Sticking to policies and procedure is pretty much the norm amongst the contributors here so I don't know what to make of AshLin's comments. Have we been 'unyielding'? We agreed to three out of four paragraphs suggested unilaterally by Fowler without any discussions. I did so because I thought it was fair to support those three paragraphs. Why should we yield to the inclusion of EIC when it is clearly WP:UNDUE. I haven't seen any rational arguments to convince any of us otherwise. What I have seen is only a threat to take it to FAR when the consensus is clearly leaning against Fowler's position on EIC. Fowler calls me a 'cheat', drives constructive contributors with long histories like King Zebu away by launching attacks on them, shows a lack of good faith in the IPs, has a very strong and unrelenting POV. Anyone capable of taking a step back and look at the big picture should be able to see this. Zuggernaut (talk) 14:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry Fowler, please understand that this is not about you but about what you have written. (1)Ashlin One example of Fowler's non-compliance to wikirules is illustrated in the sub-section above Fowler's question No 1, So it is a little ironic that you find him a stickler for the rules (2) Zuggernaut aptly summarises the attitude as "my way or highway". (3)Ashlin do you consider such un-sourced allegations made by Fowler in this section[15] as examples of good procedure and Zuggernaut's well researched replies as rigid? For lack of time and energy I cannot bring up the numerous other examples. (4)It is a pity Ashlin you talk about perspectives, do articles about Auschwitz have a German perspective and a Jew perspective?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to clarify this once and for all. WP:FAR is not a threat. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

In addition, I think it's wrong to say the three paragraphs currently added were added without discussion. They were initiated on the talkpage, and were changed before insertion. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

An off the track point, User:Yogesh Khandke needs to be more careful when posting, he mentions me above as User:Ashnil, and User:Ashlin but not correctly as User:AshLin, (note the capitalisation). A honest mistake, I'm sure. AshLin (talk) 16:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Nobody is saying that FAR itself is a threat since it only improves the article. They way Fowler says he will take it to FAR each time his POV is shot down is troublesome. The important point regarding there was or wasn't discussion for the other paragraphs is that Fowler has had his way with 3 out of 4 paragraphs with minimal discussion as compared to the 2nd paragraph. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Had his way? Really? They underwent discussion and came out in agreement by all parties. He did not simply have his way. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)