Talk:India

Template:WP1.0

Guidelines for editing the India page

• The article is written in summary style in Indian English.
• All sections are a summary of more detailed articles. If you find any points missing, please add it in the section's main article rather than on this page to keep this page size within reasonable limits.
• Only external links pertaining to India as a whole are solicited here. Please add other links in the most appropriate article.
• India-related matters should be discussed at Wikipedia:Notice board for India-related topics.
• See the FAQ section before posting a topic on the page.

Fowler's Short history of IIM page

First, thanks Fowler&Fowler for the excellent effort. This page you have created would help immensely to build up the independence movement section in History of India, and also will help organizing the Indian independence movement article. Properly structuring History of India and IIM articles will help summarizing in India article. This approach is really praiseworthy.

Now, regarding the content of the page. We have to remember the content of the page is primarily intended for those two articles (History of India, and IIM), so coverage should include non-mainstream staffs as well. IMO, the "sporadic killing of British official" during Swadeshi movement is sufficient to cover revolutionary movements of early twentieth century. However, this non-mainstream movements need some more sentences later on also (1920s and 1930s).

In addition, movements for Indian independence from outside of India needs a mention. This include, probably among other things, Ghadar party and Indian National Army. Regarding the leaders named, I feel two more may be named, Patel and Bose. Some staffs may be deleted, such as Gokhale's view on Hindu marriage. Otherwise, the page is a nice read, and gives a quite readable gist of the independence movement.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I've added a section on Bose; Patel, however, really belongs to post-Independent India, and I'll let someone else work on it. Still mulling over the Ghadar party. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Fowler's efforts are commendable. But I will say that Dwaipayan makes a valid point about noting the extremist movement around 1912-1915, especially Ghadar. The second point is that I dont think Quit India was crushed in six weeks (I may be wrong here, I will check), and the last point is the INA trials and Bombay mutiny.Rueben lys 20:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I will be adding footnotes soon. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The Bose section you added needs some shortening. For example, I doubt if women's Rani of Jhansi regiment really needs to mentioned in "History of India" article or even the IIM article. And the larger than life sentence, obviously, needs to be deleted. Otherwise, the section reads ok. However, durig integration into "History of India" article, it will need further reduction.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I have now integrated the comments of Dwaipayan and Rueben lys into the text. The reduction of the text for use in different articles can be accomplished later. I'd like to know first if we have an agreement on the content. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow! it's great. Some queries:

• "The overwhelming nationalistic response against the partition of Bengal also led the Muslim elite in India, in 1906, to ask for separate electorates for Muslims..." So the nationalist response led for the demand of separate electorate? I don't know this, that's why it seemed a bit odd.
• "...in Bengal, where Gandhi's presence assuaged communal tempers, the violence was comparatively slight. " - Comparatively "less"...would not it be better? (I have no idea about the casualty data though)

Anyway, it's brilliant. I hope others will agree.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I have incorporated your queries by either clarifying or changing the previous version. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I will agree that it is a very good piece of work. But afew points very briefly:

• with regards to the INA trial, it says the decision for public trial was taken in 1946, I am quite certain the decision for INA trial was taken in 1945, before the end of the war, while the decision was announced in September (I believe, leading to the formation of the INA defence committee)*
• The trials began in November (Not being a nitpicker, but thought I should point this out).
• The last thing,with regards to the mutinies, can it be somehow be summaries that the effects of nationalism (INA trials), racism, and rapid growth during the war played a key role in the mutinies by the Indian troops?
• Also,the first and major trial preceded the mutnies in chronology and context.

sincere apologies if this seems like nitpicking, but thought I should point these out. But I think Fowler has done a wonderful job here.Rueben lys 00:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice job F&f! Although it may require a few tweaks here and there for clarity, I think the content and references provide a solid foundation for improvements in the Indian independence movement -> History of India -> India articles. I agree with Dwaipayan below that the logical next steps would be to (1) expand the IIM section in the History of India article and (2) add the references that F&F and Rueben have dug up to current content in the IIM article. How does that sound ? Abecedare 02:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Please let me know what is not clear (either here or on my talk page). Please also see my reply to Dwaipayan below. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

PS. Actually please leave more detailed comments at the sub-page's talk page here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Next action plan

I propose to start organizing the Independence movement section in History of India. With Fowler's creation acting as a backbone, this shall not pose a big challenge. i would request Fowler to go ahead and do it. And a request, Fowler, please do not tag the page as Under construction for such a long time as in the case of Partition of India!! Just kidding :)--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa. I am not done yet! :) I'm busy these days, and typically only able to do drive-by edits; so, it will take another day or two before the text reads smoothly and the references are all in place. (I will do that on my sub-page.) Also, I've written the history as a sequence of topics, which I (or others) feel should be touched on. Eventually, transitional sentences etc. will be needed. So, for now, if you have content or clarity issues, i.e. you feel something is needed or not needed, please let me know; likewise, if something is not clear, please let me know. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I know you are not done yet :) And it is a mammoth task. Still, I showed some urgency. IMO, a whole lot of energy and time are misdirected during the talk page discussions and disagreements. Now that such a constructive effort has come into being, I cannot wait to see the result! Well, many more disagreements may come in our way in future. However, starting the job in itself is effective and rewarding. Also, History of India is due for an FAC in not-so-near future :) Regards. And thanks a lot.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

No Mention of The Partition of India

I am shocked to see that there is not one single mention of India's partition which was by all accounts one of the biggest mass movements of people on earth, it was also a very significant historical event that deserves special mention on the India page.

There can be no denying that the republic of India's borders were largely shaped by British colonialists and Muslim nationalists. I do not have to provide sources on the partition of India as this is a well known historical event and many sources are available in many different forms, newspapers, clips, documents, commissions, declarations etc etc.

S Seagal 18:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The fact clearly deserves a mention. I read the country briefings on the website of The Economist, where a one-page history of India is given. The relevant bits about the independence struggle and partition have been mentioned as follows:

“ British rule in India ended in 1947 after a sustained campaign for independence, led by the Indian National Congress (Congress). British India was partitioned, amid great bloodshed, to create Muslim-majority Pakistan and the secular state of India. ”

Also, to add to the discussion that Fowler and Rueben (and others :) had about what all to include in a very concise description of the independence movement, this could come as another example where only the INC is mentioned. I was impressed by the number of sources that you guys managed to bring up in the discussion. --Keynes.john.maynard 14:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't know where you got the idea that no one is talking about the partition. Per above discussion (see two sections up), please see the sub page: Short history of IIM. It is still in the works. Do not edit it, but feel free to leave messages on that page's talk page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Prof F&f, don't get annoyed. That is a great page you are coming up with. Very impressive, indeed. What I meant was no mention of the partition exists on the India page as it stands today. But, I guess the plan is to keep the paragraph about IIM in frozen state till the IIM history page comes up, and a paragraph summary is written for the same. So, the controversial tag doesn't get removed till that is done, right? Keynes.john.maynard 16:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, if I sounded brusque. I wasn't annoyed, just in a hurry. Yes, I suppose that controversial tag will remain, at least as long as Rueben lys wants it. But, hopefully, it won't be long. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Using the word "terrorists"

This is regarding the sub-page that is being created. I understand that it is not final yet but I have to strongly advise against using such terms. Their is a very popular saying, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." News organizations throughout the world take extreme care at using this word. For instance, Reuters has a policy of not using the word but simply reporting the facts and letting the readers judge. It is strongly pushing your PoV to use such sensitive terms. One can argue almost all revolutions had a terrorist aspect to it. That does not mean we go and label French revolution as French terrorism. The word terrorism is highly ambiguous and has a very uneven history of usage. I hope people stay away from this can of worms and we do not have to waste another five thousand lines of debate. --Blacksun 12:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I have replied to your post on the talk page of the sub-page here Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Please also see a more detailed quote here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Taj Mahal

I think the Taj Mahal photo belongs better in the History section than in the Culture section. The main article "History of India" shows the Taj Mahal photo, but the main article "Culture of India" doesn't display it. By 'main article', I mean the articles listed as such in the respective sections of the India page. Comments? -- Thoreaulylazy 22:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The Toda Dairy

The Toda hut is a sacred Toda dairy, which is surrounded on three sides by a low wall and whose door is usually smaller than that of a regular Toda hut. I have provided references (including pictures and quotes) and removed the dubious tag. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason why you reverted my change. I explained in my change that this page about India has british, mughal, and now "toda" architecture and yet has not a single picture of a traditional Indian building? I'm touched at your devotion to the toda people, really, I'm touched, but your efforts are better spent on the page for Todas, and not on a page of India when, apparently, there isn't enough real-estate for a photo of a classical-era Indian building and yet there appears to be ample space for todas who represent 0.0001% of the Indian population? From the Todas page, "The Todas numbered 807 in 1901 and their current population stands at around 1,100" You cannot confer greater attention to this demographic with a population of 1,100 than many, many groups that are much larger than it yet have been omitted from the India page. As previously mentioned in the Talk page, the India article was once over 52KB and people have spent a great deal of effort to bring it down in size. There simply is no meritorious rationale for the todas disproportionate representation on this page -- Thoreaulylazy 01:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Everything you have said is tired, hackneyed, and repetitive. Please read the talk archives for many near-identical copies of your arguments. What is "traditional Indian" anyway? And what is Ajanta? The work of aliens from outer space? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I read the archives and not once have you been able to justify the gross over-representation of this demographic. There are demographics numbering in the hundreds of millions which are absent from the India page for sake of brevity, and you prefer to occupy space to the exclusion of any photos about Sikhs, Jains, Parsis, and other minorities whose numbers vastly outweigh Todas? There's no comparison - I've attended weddings with more people than all the Todas on Earth! Perhaps I should put up my wedding photos? As to what traditional Indian architecture is, pick up a book! Next you'll tell me you have no idea what neo-classical or post-modernist is. Any architecture book will clearly outline what you're asking. Toda architecture is not important - no other version of the India page has anything of the sort, be it German, French, or any other language. The English edition of this page is being turning into a shrine for your own biases. You cannot enshrine 1,100 people who are absent from most notable books about India when much, much, much larger demographics are missing for sake of brevity. You yourself once argued in the Talk page against others' posting scholastic idiosyncrasies that lengthened the article to no real benefit to the reader. As I already stated, the Todas have a page, and you can contribute as much as you want, but when there are no photos from Gujarat, Tamil Nadu, Punjab, Kerala, and countless regions with populations numbering in hundreds of millions, I call your position for what it is: biased. -- Thoreaulylazy 17:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what do you have against the Todas? This page is not a "who's in, who's out" of India... This is an encyclopedia... And if you consider it biased, well it will be, cause we can't have a picture of everything possibly Indian. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

That we can't have a picture of everything possibly Indian is precisely my point. As to the "who's in, who's out" comparison, while I would agree if we were talking about a group of 1 million versus a group of 10 million, which are at least close in magnitude to each other, a non-noteworthy architecture used by 1,100 people cannot by any stretch of the imagination demand not just side-by-side treatment but greater treatment than other South Indian architectural form, especially the traditional form as taught in schools and universities in India. I have nothing against the Todas, and I tried to make that clear when I thanked fowler for this devotion to the Toda people, but I feel his efforts regarding them are better spent on the specific Toda page.

Nichalp, people have spoken highly of you in the past so I know I don't stand any chance unless I persuade you. Please, reconsider. I am not deleting the image and replacing it with nothing, I put in its stead a famous Thanjavur temple in South India, erected in the Chola dynasty, which is not a museum or relic but a functional temple to which people pilgrimage even today. I felt assured in my actions since I was replacing a less notable representation of South India with a vastly more notable one. In fact, Nilgiris where the Todas reside is in Tamil Nadu, so I find it startling that there is objection when I put a Thanjavur photo, also from Tamil Nadu, as a much, much more notable representation. I felt I acted in good faith, and it troubled me greatly when fowler not only put the Toda photo back, but explicitly removed the Thanjavur photo, contrary to all textbook notions of notability, and despite the fact that they both try to represent Tamil Nadu. For this reason, I feel he lacks objectivity in this specific case. -- Thoreaulylazy 17:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

First I need to know why you are defending the Image:Thanjavur temple.jpg so much? Remember, it's not an emotional appeal that will work on wikipedia, but rather the objectiveness of the plea, backed by quality and value of the image. The Toda image has not been placed there only to balance the South Indian region, but also as it is a Featured picture, one of the best wikipedia has to offer. And, don't you think that the images to represent India should be a mixture of different subjects, rather than competing architectural styles? Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The Chola Dynasty temples and Toda Huts are both native to Tamil Nadu. However, the architectural form developed in the Chola Dynasty is famous and that form has become iconic with South India. The Thanjavur temple isn't just "a temple", it's the famous Brihadeeswarar Temple (see Great Living Chola Temples) and a UNESCO heritage site. Google results for "toda hut" sans wikipedia is 189, 24 of which are images [1]. Results for "chola temples" sans wikipedia are 150,000 -- 6,090 of which are images [2]. The Wiki page for Tamil Nadu is rife with mention of the Brihadisvara temple and contains a photo. There is no mention of Todas, Toda hut, nor a photo of them, on the Tamil Nadu page. Isn't it odd that something is not noteworthy at the state level but seems to be at the national India page? Also, that particular Brihadisvara photo I placed on the India page is also the Wikipedia icon for History of Tamil Nadu. The photo was also a candidate for Featured Wiki picture [3] but lost on the technicality that it falls below the 1000 pixel requirement. On the India page, however, the pictures are anyways being scaled down to fit in the article, so 1000 pixels versus 600 pixels cannot overshadow noteworthiness. The World Heritage site gave the following reasons for its inscription[4]:

• Criterion (i): The three Chola temples of Southern India represent an outstanding creative achievement in the architectural conception of the pure form of the dravida type of temple.
• Criterion (ii): The Brihadisvara Temple at Thanjavur became the first great example of the Chola temples, followed by a development of which the other two properties also bear witness.
• Criterion (iii): The three Great Chola Temples are an exceptional and the most outstanding testimony to the development of the architecture of the Chola Empire and the Tamil civilisation in Southern India.
• Criterion (iv): The Great Chola temples at Thanjavur, at Gangaikondacholapuram and Darasuram are outstanding examples of the architecture and the representation of the Chola ideology.

-- Thoreaulylazy 19:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[reindenting] Please stick to the point. I have not said anything against the Chola temples. I acknowledge that they are architectural marvels, but we do not work on sentiment (your post above). Your picture is far from featured quality; it is too tightly cropped, has JPEG artefacts, and a bad colour balance. We have to be very choosy here and maintain only the best quality of images. So please show us a higher quality image first. Thanks =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

How is the fact that Toda is never mentioned in the Tamil Nadu page anything to do with sentiment? Neither the name Toda nor a picture of the Toda hut is mentioned in the Tamil Nadu page, yet it is being promoted in the main India page. If something isn't noteworthy at the state-level, I don't see how it can become noteworthy at the national level. Also, there are 2 photos of Ajanta-style on the India page and not a single photo of South Indian style. Is it fair to say that if I find a high-res image of South Indian culture, you will acquiesce? -- Thoreaulylazy 04:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily. If you've read the page archives, one of the proposed guidelines is that the picture must be of featured quality (not necessarily hi-res) for consideration. This is to strive for a top quality article replete with appropriate and balanced images. The Toda hut, may I repeat again, is integrally Indian, and endemically South Indian, and simply cannot be wished away as "not being a part of mainstream Indian culture", and thus has every right to be on the page much the same way as a picture of mundane person in New Delhi. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

That's somewhat reasonable. Not that I fully agree because while I admit you're right on the featured vs. non-featured issue, on a short-term perspective, I feel I'm right on several others, including:

• (1) pseudo-proportional representation (I don't quibble about 2x or 0.5x representation, but over-representation by 1e6x seems silly and is unprecendented across any national page - I've checked Greece, United States, China, Italy, Turkey, and many others, as well as the non-English versions of the India page). This is violation of the WP:WEIGHT policy of NPOV.
• (2) that it's original research to consider Toda huts folk art and not vernacular architecture (I spent 2 hours reading literature about Toda huts and found nothing so much as hinting that it's art and not vernacular architecture)
• (3) The Toda hut does not provide "balance" to the Taj Mahal in any sense. That's like saying we need to balance notability with non-notability. Whatever "balances" the Taj Mahal should be notable, it can't be simply given admission to the main India article because it's a snazzy picture. Moreover, it's a bit moot since I think the Taj Mahal belongs in the History section (see Parthenon in the Greece page)
• (4) lack of notability since the state Tamil Nadu page omits even mentioning, in text or graphic, anything related to Todas
• (5) the main India page isn't meant to turn readers into PhD holders, and information about Toda hut reads like trivia - I mean, honestly, the construction material of Toda huts is being listed out while there's no mention of the Taj Mahal's material being marble. Not that I want the factoid about marble listed - I consider it trivia, just as I consider factoids about Toda huts trivia suitable to only niche researchers or people who are willing to drill-down further levels.
• (6) the leading (english-language) expert in Todas, Anthony R. Walker, notes that while there are approx. 1,000 Todas today, roughly the same size as a hundred years ago, there are only three or four Toda dairies left as most Todas have modernized (1998), and the remaining are expected to do so in 10-20 years (since 1998). It's moot to debate on Toda huts when its style belongs in the History section, if anything. I hope we can all agree that the Culture section shouldn't be about museums and relics but about living culture practiced by a notable number (not necessarily majority). Per this same issue, I would claim the Taj Mahal photo should move to the History section, since the Parthenon in the Greece page is in the History section.
• (7) I believe the featured vs. non-featured issue introduces systematic bias over the long-term. The stringent requirements about 1000 pixel resolution as a minimum requirement mean featured photos about India most likely come from tourists with megapixel cameras, and not locals who often only have a cellphone camera. A tourist, paying good money to travel half way around the world, is not likely to take photos of McDonald's in Chennai but rather whatever excites him/her, and this excitement usually comes from the exotic, and I fear a long-term trend toward exotification so long as 5 mega pixel cameras carry higher status over cellphone cameras.

I'm not too worried about #7 because I'm short-sighted like everyone else here, so I'll cede #7. That leaves us with #1, #4, #5 all explaining why the Toda photo doesn't belong on the India page at all, #6 explaining why the Toda photo doesn't belong in the Culture section, and #2 and #3 refuting claims that the Toda hut and the Taj Mahal are somehow offsetting POVs. The Brihadisvara is endemically South Indian, as you would put it, freely-accessible, no fees are charged, no vetting done, anyone is allowed, it is well studied, even gradeschool children are required to know it so it's not deemed trivia, and no one doubts that it'll stay culturally relevant through the next century. You wrote "and endemically South Indian, and simply cannot be wished away as not being a part of mainstream Indian culture, and thus has every right to be on the page much the same way as a picture of mundane person in New Delhi." Which definition of endemic are you using, meaning "prevalent", or meaning "native to a particular place". You surely can't mean prevalent since I gave a reference to an expert who predicts the Toda hut style to be abandoned (not Toda people, just the style). If you mean "native to a particular place", what does being native have to do with inclusion on the main India page? There are 1.2e9 natives, and if you let a Toda photo or the photo of a "mundane person from Delhi", of whom I would equally object, onto the page, what's to stop everyone else and their granny from putting up their photos? I'm perfectly happy having a picture of an Indian slum on there if that's what it'll take to convince anyone that I'm not attempting to saffronize India. But evidence doesn't supports your claim about Toda huts "being a part of mainstream Indian culture". Perhaps, was a part of mainstream Indian culture, if even that. But we are talking about a curiously fringe style near abandonment and that, at its peak, was still much smaller than other equally endemically South Indian styles. Perhaps you're confusing Toda huts with widespread popularity of village huts in India? I would prefer over any photo of dwellings a table from a reputable source that lists the % of Indians that are: homeowners (subtable of assessed value), renters (subtable of payment), and homeless; and perhaps a breakdown of urban v rural as well. Also, I'm not questioning how Indian the Toda style is -- the question never was about "how Indian is X", since the article isn't about Being Indian, it's about India, and hence should be "the most valuable information about India that fits in 52KB for diverse readers with only a baseline general education", and the debate should stick to informational value and not Indianness. -- Thoreaulylazy 19:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Quotes from others:

• "The tiger image was inserted because someone had said its better to show people what you mean rather than discussing it. (And that statement got a lot of support(its in the section where universe=atom got mad cuz fowler kept reverting his edits or something). The Toda image has no significane to the section, there should not even be a discussion about it (which there is). Its very ridiculous that the image is still there, its in clear violation of relevancy. Same with the Apatani image. If the Apatani people get their image put on Wiki, what about Kashmiri people? Marathi people? UP people? Tamil nadu people? They deserve to have their image on the site as well. Why are the apatanis favored? it really is ridiculious. Nikkul 01:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Abecedare/Archive_3)
• "Images must be relevant to the article they appear in and be of sufficient notability (relative to the article's topic)." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Images#Image_choice_and_placement) coupled with "The reason why the Toda image is there is because no other picture represents South India." (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:India/Archive_25) bolsters my claim because I replaced the image with a Thanjavur Chola dynasty temple that is FAMOUS. And, if you're unfamiliar, Thanjavur is in Tamil Nadu, the Southern portion of India, and the Chola dynasty governed a South Indian Empire.

-- Thoreaulylazy 17:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you are addressing, but its a waste replying to the same nature of comments over again. Please read the rationale behind the image inclusion and then debate on those grounds. Thanks =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It was more so background for passerby who also question the noteworthiness of the Toda photo. I couldn't expect passerby to dredge up archives, so I thought it would be convenient to quote from others whose names and comments are archived. I'm still puzzled by the rationale behind the image inclusion; the only thing I could find from the archived Talk pages was that the India page lacked photos from the South, yet this seems to no longer be the rationale if the Chola dynasty temple in Tamil Nadu is being reverted to the Toda hut. -- Thoreaulylazy 17:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about architecture. It is the Culture section we are talking about. The Toda Hut is an example of Folk Art (like Mithila painting) and serves as a counter-point to the High Art of the Taj. You still haven't answered my question. Why are the Taj or Ajanta, or the Toda Hut not examples of traditional Indian Art? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fowler&fowler (talk • contribs)

Because traditional Indian architecture is formally studied at universities, just as classical Indian music is. If you can explain why Blues isn't classical music, I can explain why the Toda hut doesn't follow the style. If you're truly interested, then as I earlier suggested, you can buy a book, there are plenty of resources on traditional Indian architecture.[5] None of them mention Toda hut form. I hope you understand that architecture, like music, is a formally studied discipline and everything gets classified. You're most likely misinterpreting what I said to mean Toda style is not Indian or isn't architecture, which I surely would never say. I'm not implying that Toda huts carry no architectural value or form, quite to the contrary, they're remarkable, and they are indeed Indian. I'm merely stating the fact that it employs a fringe style that you're grossly over-representing to the detriment of styles that are hundreds of degrees in magnitude more notable yet are presently lacking representation, namely the traditional Indian architectural style which is presently the grossest omission. It's not just about architecture, but the Thanjuvur temple invokes many aspects of the Chola dynasty itself, including piety and Hinduism, which were crucial to India's past and play a very large role even today. This shouldn't be misinterpreted as saying the Chola Temples are icons of Hinduism, just the same way the Taj Mahal isn't an icon of Islam, irrespective of the religions that inspired them, they are both considered integral Indian emblems. -- Thoreaulylazy 20:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Amazing. Let me repeat again. I never said anything about architecture; it is you who keeps expounding on it. It is the Culture section we are talking about. Architecture is one of many Arts, which in turn are some of many products of Culture. The Arts alone include literature, music, dance, theatre, architecture, sculpture, painting and the decorative arts. The Toda Hut image is included in the Culture section as an example of Folk Art (like a Mithila painting), not as an example of Indian architecture, although, to be sure, the Todas must bring to bear some knowledge of architecture in its construction. (It is you who is setting up that straw man, just as others before you had set the hut up as an example of "housing" in India, and then objected on the grounds that 99.999% of Indians don't live in Toda-like huts.) The Toda hut therefore serves as both a counterpoint and a counterpoise to the High Art of the Taj. Culture is about both traditions, the folk and the haute.

As for my asking you to clarify what you meant by traditional, I wasn't looking for a disquisition, but rather trying to get you to cough up the word "Hindu," which you seem to have done (amid much qualification) in your last post. The Ajanta, BTW, is an example of traditional Indian art, although its murals, being illustrations of the Jatakas, are nominally Buddhist. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I have never called the Toda hut a housing or said 99.999% do not live in it. I would say 100% do not live in it because it's a dairy and apart from the holy milkman, no one resides there. I only said it is a fringe style which 99.9999% of Indians do not employ (note the extra 9). What does Ajanta have to do with native Tamilian art or culture? I wonder how much about South India you really know because when I go over your edit history, you haven't made a single contribution to anything related to South India except this Toda hut insert to the India article. I don't want to turn this into an ad hominem, but what are your reasons for including Toda hut in the India article while not mentioning them at all in the Tamil Nadu page? I fear you're turning the India article into a trivia game by bombarding readers with information which almost no Tamilian is familiar with. It's a pretty picture, yes, but it is still trivia. There are far better examples of South Indian culture like Carnatic music, or the reams of culture produced by the Chola dynasty. Also, I don't see how you can reason the Toda hut has nothing to do with architecture. Even the Indian vernacular architecture page considers it vernacular architecture. Neither the Indian art page nor the Arts and entertainment in India page make any mention of Todas, so you cannot earnestly say the Toda hut is example of folk art and not architecture. If you're looking for a photo of folk art, I suggest you use one from Indian art or Arts and entertainment in India -- Thoreaulylazy 05:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't decide if you are feigning utter lack of comprehension or simply trolling (by continuously changing the terms of this exchange). Remember, you were last talking about "piety and Hinduism?". Now, unburdened of pieties yourself when it comes to poking fun at other religions, you are quick to find lame humor in the Todas' sacral life.

As for our last discussion, please read my post above again. Carefully. Where did I mention "Tamil?" Where did I say "the Toda hut has nothing to do with architecture?" The decorative art displayed on a Toda hut is a legitimate example of Folk Art, the hut's vernacular architecture notwithstanding. The latter only adds to the cultural counterpoint the Toda Hut provides to the Taj. I am sure the Toda Hut's example can be added to the Folk and Tribal Art section of the Indian art page as well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The "terms" of this exchange? You mean where I have to listen to you berate me and accuse me without any evidence whatsoever of ridiculing other religions or where you're accusing me of being a Hindu zealot, when I'm not even Hindu? Show me one sentence I've written which ridiculed any religion. Where are your sources that the Toda hut is a legitimate example of folk art? Not a single piece of literature associates Toda hut with folk art or Ajanta. All literature on the topic considers it vernacular architecture which is being abandoned. If you're referring to only the decorative art on the Toda hut, why is noteworthy? Is there a name for it? References? Also, you can't simply skip past state-level notability and claim it has national notability. As much as you may want to close you ears, Nilgiris is in Tamil Nadu. If Toda huts are not notable in their own home state, why the sudden promotion to the national page? -- Thoreaulylazy 21:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Whats wrong with Putting a Picture of a Hindu temple... more than 800 MILLION people in India are hindu. It would be nonsensicle to put a picture representing .0001 % of a population when u can put a picture representing 80% of the population. There is no way u can argue that a toda hut is more representative of india that a hindu temple. And by the way, most of the Toda people live in Modern homes as someone had said earlier. Nikkul 18:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Rubbish. As usual your lugubrious posts defy rational thought and logic. Making this out to be a religious issue is very shallow. I thought you would learn something being here for so many months, but alas. The Toda hut does not have to representative of 100% India's culture. There is nothing that can be termed as culturally "Indian" in the holistic sense. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Nichalp, I think Nikkul was trying to suggest WP:WEIGHT is not being adhered to. It's not about religion, it's about prevalence and familiarity. I don't need to participate in Christmas to be aware of it. I'm familiar that such a celebration exists, and I'm familiar with various aspects of it, and familiarity or awareness about a topic has nothing to do with religion. I'm sure not just most, but nearly 99.99% of Indians are not even aware of Todas or their style. That's where WP:WEIGHT comes into play. -- Thoreaulylazy 04:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT applies to text, not images. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Not just a Hindu temple, but Brihadisvara, the first of the three Great Chola temples, and an architectural style that has been emulated and studied throughout the world. For a degree in Indian studies from UCLA, Indian Architecture is a requirement, here's the Indian Architecture page from UCLA: [6]. Also note the choice of image the University selected.[7] I sincerely believe we can look to ucla.edu as an upholder of NPOV and use its pages as a means to resolve this dispute. -- Thoreaulylazy 22:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

You start out by being condescending: "I'm touched at your devotion to the toda people, really, I'm touched, but ..." You next attempt lame humor, poking fun at the Toda people's sacred rites, in, "I have never called the Toda hut a housing or said 99.999% do not live in it. I would say 100% do not live in it because it's a dairy and apart from the holy milkman, no one resides there." There is of course a small chance that you were not attempting humor there—given the many aberrations of grammar and diction in those two sentences ("a housing," "live in it," "100% do not live in it,"); in that case, please accept my apologies. However, frankly, you cannot call a priest (or a dairyman-priest) a "holy milkman" (without attribution to Frazer's Golden Bough, or without providing a link (e.g. Todas#Religion)) and then expect comprehension whose empathy stretches beyond the limits of idiomatic speech. Frazer's book, moreover, is dated. Here is an example from that same paragraph on the Todas: "Further, the holy milkman never cuts his hair or pares his nails so long as he holds office; he never crosses a river by a bridge, but wades through a ford and only certain fords; if a death occurs in his clan, he may not attend any of the funeral ceremonies, unless he first resigns his office and descends from the exalted rank of milkman to that of a mere common mortal. Indeed it appears that in old days he had to resign the seals, or rather the pails, of office whenever any member of his clan departed this life." (Italics mine.) That is certainly not the neutral language of modern anthropology or language that would be allowed on Wikipedia (other than in a quote). Frazer is clearly making a lame joke at the expense of the Todas, how do we know that you are not? Assuming you are using "holy milkman" as another neutral synonym for a priest, it still doesn't explain why you would add, "I would say 100% (of Indians) do not live in it because it's a dairy and apart from the holy milkman, no one resides there." (parenthetical explanation mine). What useful information are you supplying there? I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume good faith, but your poor diction, careless use of language, and lack of attribution doesn't give me much confidence. If you think I am being needlessly harsh, please post those two sentences on the talk page of WP:MOS and ask them to weigh in.

Anyway, this is as far as I go. The bottom line for me is that I see this becoming an endless non-exchange, and I will not pursue this beyond this point on this page. However, if you ask for formal mediation, I will respond. Be aware though that the logic of why and how images are added to country pages is not one of percentages alone: of the 15 country Featured Articles other than India, only three or four focus on "high culture" in their pictures, the rest (11) are more like India:

• Canada: Culture (First image is of a Kwakwaka'wakw totem pole and traditional "big house" in Victoria, BC. Note that the Kwakwaka'wakw have a total population of 5,500 and a total of 250 speakers of their language. The other image is of a Mountie ...)
• South Africa: Culture (1) Robbin Island (now a UNESCO WHS) and 2)Decorated houses, Drakensberg Mountains)
• Pakistan: Society and culture (Kite flying in Lahore)
• Nepal:Culture
• Bangladesh: Culture
• Belgium:Culture (One picture each for "Fine arts" and "Folklore")
• Cambodia: Culture and Society (In spite of the many available images of Angkor Wat, they chose a picture of the "exterior of the Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum, Phnom Penh."
• Cameroon: Culture
• Chad: Culture
• Indonesia: Culture
• Libya: Culture

One more, Japan, is sort of in the middle:

• Japan: Culture and recreation (one illustration of the well-known wood-block print accompanied by text: "Japanese arts include crafts (ikebana, origami, ukiyo-e, dolls, lacquerware, pottery), ..."

Two, others, (not FAs), demonstrate other approaches:

• Myanmar: Culture
• New Zealand: Culture

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

PS After looking at a number of Wikipedia country and geography pages, I feel even more strongly that the Todas picture belongs to the Culture section. The Todas—whose society and culture were studied by William H. R. Rivers (The Todas, 1906), one of the founders of Social Anthropology, just as the society and culture of the Andaman Islanders were studied by another founder, A. R. Radcliffe-Brown—clearly cannot be judged by numbers alone. I think it would be more meaningful to say that the image of the Today dairy, represents the "Culture of the Todas," which is a part of the "Culture of India," rather than to say that the image represents an aspect of some tangible aspect of culture like Art, Science, Engineering, etc. There is obviously an increasing awareness of these issues around the world, given UNESCO's list of Masterpieces of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity. See also the Wikipedia page, Intangible culture, as well as something I myself wrote not too long ago: Oral Mathematical Tradition. Clearly, culture, whether it is a Toda dairy and its intangible meanings, or the oral transmission of a Vedic text, is a "many splendored thing," not reducible in the end to a calculus of percentages. If you would still like to push the percentages though, I am happy to request a formal mediation. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm perfectly happy with folk culture being a part of the culture section and have never argued against the inclusion of folk culture. I'm not debating for high culture and against low culture; rather, I'm debating for healthy culture and against abandoned culture. "Healthy culture" means that if one is asked "will this be around in 10 years?" the answer should invariably be "yes" otherwise it's an abandoned culture, not to be confused with a fad because a fad implies it both began recently and will end soon. I'm not claiming the Toda hut style is a fad, because it has clearly lasted since times immemorial, and I'm not claiming the Toda people are dwindling in numbers - their population is steady. I'm citing Anthony R. Walker who is the leading expert on living Todas, as opposed to Rivers' early 1900s study. The style of the Toda hut is being abandoned, by Todas themselves. There are only 3 munds (hamlets) left that even have one, out of 56 munds. The Lahore kite festival is an example of healthy culture, since there are few who doubt it will survive ten years. It also is a familiar event appearing in local news and I would wager at least 1% are aware of it (they needn't participate). I'm not one to trifle, so if 1% of a large population is at least aware of something, and it's an example of healthy culture, then I'm fine with its inclusion in the Culture section. All the examples you gave justify folk culture inclusion in the culture section, which I was never against, and none of the examples you gave justify fringe styles (fewer than 0.5% of locals are familiar with it) and abandoned styles being included in the culture section. I'm perfectly fine with photos displaying folk cultural style as long as it meets regional familiarity (by some significant minority of locals, e.g. 0.5%) and contemporary relevance (i.e. isn't abandoned, because it belongs in the History section if it is). -- Thoreaulylazy 15:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I dont think the face that some guy studied the todas should influence their representation under demographics of India. Millions of individuals have studied Indians of all sorts. Who is going to decide which studied group will get their image on Wikipedia?

Images should represent the topic. The Toda Hut represents a very very very very very small part of India (.0001%). Hence, the Toda Hut image does not represent the 99.9999% of India and is directly a violation of relevance & WP:WEIGHT. Nikkul 19:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

To Thoreaulylazy. Unfortunately, the information you have (for Walker's book) is already dated. There have been many new developments both in the Nilgiris (in general) and in the Toda areas (in particular). During the last decade more than 40 new "traditional houses" have been built and scores of Toda temples as well. I have created a sub-page, User:Fowler&fowler/The Toda, detailing some of these, and I will be on the look out for more. The bottom line: I don't see that the Todas are on their way to becoming an "abandoned culture." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Aside: Perhaps some effort expended here can be directed at improving the Brihadeeswarar Temple page, which is currently in a sorry state. It would also be worthwhile to {{globalize}} articles on High Art High culture and Folk Art. Abecedare 23:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the temple article is in dire need of text. By the way, your "High Art" links to a movie. I should add that I used "high" or "haute" mainly for emphasis to distinguish it from "folk art." The usual term for "High Art" is just "Art" or the "Fine Arts." I agree that the distinction between "Folk Art" and the "Fine Arts" is tricky; for example, some traditions of art can belong to both categories Despite the lack of a complete formal definition, both Britannica and Encarta, have long articles on Folk Art. Here are two excerpts from them. The Wikipedia article on "Folk Art" is poorly written, and still incomplete, so I agree that it wouldn't be the best thing to refer a reader to.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The Todas are just one of thousands of tribes in India with populations under 5000. Who is going to decide which tribe gets their image on Wikipedia? Is it going to be Fowler or Nichalp? Are there not Kashmiri people and Marathi People, and Tamils and Kerlaites and Assamese ppl and many more whose populations are in the millions? What about them? One of the only things Indian demographics has in common is Hinduism. A temple or a Diwali photo will def. make sense and fit well because it is acutally mentioned in the culture section. Housing is not mentioned in the culture section!

One example is this: Muslims make up 3% of France. Does that mean you will see a Muslim building in France as part of the French Demographics section? No Way. Because 97% of French people are not muslim. The stats are much more severe in India. Only .0001% of India is Todas. The rest are not. Stop dragging this discussion out. You can not favor one tribe who is soooo small and put their image on Wiki when theyre not even worth mentioning in the section Nikkul 00:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I think a photo of a toda hut in the Culture section of the article on India (where there is no mention of huts, todas, dairies, or buildings) is pretty bizarre. Look at the variety of photos in the Culture sections of the France and England articles for comparison. The four photos in the England article's Culture section are: St. Paul's Cathedral, Shakespeare, a painting of Salisbury Cathedral, and a statue of a well-known composer. One comes across the strangest dissonances on Wikipedia, don't they.... Comparable photos here would be the Taj Mahal (which is in the article), Rabindranath Tagore, any of the amazing ancient Indian temples, and a beautiful Chola bronze or a colorful silk painting. But a toda hut? In the Culture section? LOL...... Methinks someone is playing a joke. ॐ Priyanath talk 01:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I hate to interrupt your mirth, but have a look at the 15 country Featured Articles I listed above. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I thank you for my mirth (this isn't the first time I've laughed over the incongruity of a toda hut there). The four photos I mention would be a much better representation of Indian Culture than a toda hut, thanks, but then I'd have to go elsewhere for my daily chuckle. ॐ Priyanath talk 01:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Still discussing the "Toda Hut"? Hasn't this been going on since March? Why not replace it with a non-building that involves Indian culture? Or maybe a temple, since temples are centers of culture? Maybe a picture of a festival? Surely we have good pictures of these things. The Behnam 02:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've replaced the toda hut with an image of Rabindranath Tagore, arguably India's most beloved poet, 1913 Nobel Prize for Literature, and actually mentioned in the Culture section. I also pointed out in my edit summary that the only other image in this section is already another building. How about a person instead? A poet? Culture? Please, toda hut fans, look at it before reverting and see if it doesn't make more sense. ॐ Priyanath talk 03:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations to everyone on another milestone achieved! We are improving every day... er.. every six months. Way to go!! Keep it up. The sight of yet another of those collapsable boxes had me shuddering.. thanks Priyanath, your action was timely. Oh.. and just for the record, I also think that the Toda hut on this page was a joke. Good riddance. Sarvagnya 05:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Priyanath, We are all aware of the injunction to be bold; however, please be aware too that there is a discussion going on here. Many editors, like Thoreaulylazy, have even spent many hours in the library trying to add to the discussion. Why would they be doing that, you think? In order that you can make one of your facile drive-by edits? When was the last time you made a contribution to this page? And, please don't throw the book at me, I know the stuff about "anyone can contribute." The bottom line is that if you choose to ignore the discussion, and edit-war over this, I will take this to WP:ANI. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Copy editing and sourcing

If you recall, we had talked about both copy-editing and sourcing some sections of the India page. Quickly skimming through the page, it seems, that the following sections need some work:

• Government (copy-edit)
• Politics (copy-edit, sourcing)
• Foreign relations and the military (copy-edit, sourcing)
• Culture (copy-edit+sourcing)
• Geography (sourcing)

Would someone like to take a stab at one of these tasks? (I am unfortunately swamped right now with the history stuff.) In my opinion, the copy-editing is more important than the sourcing. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I think 'fortunately'....hehe 59.182.72.209 10:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC) (Restoring IP's comment. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC))

Labeled Area Templates

Both the newly-minted FA Peru and an older one Germany have "labeled area maps" in their "States" or "Regions" sections: See Peru#Regions and Germany#States. These maps allow the user to click on a state, region, or even a city and go directly to its page. The Germany page Germany#States has the Wiki-code for this (I believe). Could someone look into doing this for India#Subdivisions. I think it would be very helpful. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

article is flat

Article has sections, but no subsections at all. Try restructure. Readability will be better if article is in tree structure, theoritically. Thanks. Lara_bran 14:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Negative. This is a summary of main articles. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed horribly Photoshopped images

I have removed two of Nikkul's horribly photoshopped images. They are far from naturally looking and to my best option they look disgusting. =Nichalp «Talk»= 01:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

One who tries to improve an article is better that one who complains about other' attempts. If you think they look disgusting, why dont u use your 'professional' skills rather than compain about it. Nikkul 18:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Trying to bait me? Wikipedia is not the place to try extraordanary skills. Adding clouds to the BSE image etc... This is not the appropriate forum for such creative work. Please use flickr or deviant art as a test bed instead. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize that the images had been so heavily photoshopped. See

• Image:NorthBlockNewDelhi.JPG versus [8], and
• Image:Bombay_Stock_Exchange.JPG versus Image:Bombay_Stock_Exchange_18_August,_2006.jpg

While cropping or minor histogram equalization is understandable, photoshopping images to introduce fictional elements in the scene (horizontal symmetry in the first image and clouds in the second) is certainly not kosher for an encyclopedia (except to illustrate articles on photo editing). The fact that the editing was "horrible" is irrelevant - the visual deception perpetrated by these images makes them unencyclopedic and they should IMO be deleted from wikipedia. I trust that Nikkul meant well in editing these images and adding them to this (and other ?) article(s); but I hope that this is not repeated and any other similarly "enhanced" images will be voluntarily flagged for deletion by him. Abecedare 19:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Nikkul, I just read your dialogue with the owner of the NorthBlockNewDelhi image, and I was really impressed with how you worked out the licensing with him! I do think the non-photoshopped versions are better for encyclopedic content though. Brightness/contrast adjustments are fine, but beyond that might give people a different impression than if they were physically there. -- Thoreaulylazy 23:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand that adding clouds and stuff is not right. I was only trying to make it more appealing to the eye. I will not do that again. But I do not like my goodwilled efforts to be labeled and called "horrible" by someone who is not willing to improve them, just criticize them. I will add the original image soon and have these deleted. Nikkul 19:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Nikkul. I think you efforts were misdirected rather than malicious. Abecedare 19:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)