Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:22, 12 September 2010

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the India article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60Auto-archiving period: 21 days

Template:VA Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

	India is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 3, 2004.
Article milestones Date Process Result September 16, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted April 11, 2005 Featured article review Kept May 6, 2006 Featured article review Kept
Current status: Featured article

Template:CollapsedShell

This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

view · edit Frequently asked questions Q1: Why is Bhārat Gaṇarājya not rendered in Devanagari script? A1: See this discussion (from 2012) and this discussion (from 2017), which are codified in WP:INDICSCRIPT. Q2: It's "Bengaluru", not "Bangalore"! A2: This article uses the name that is most commonly used by English-language reliable sources. See WP:COMMONNAME. Q3: Why was my content removed? A3: The India page adheres to summary style, sticking to core topics and skipping excess details. To update economy figures or other content, cite credible sources. See WP:V. Q4: Why aren't there sections on science and technology, education, media, tourism etc? A4: New sections require talk-page consensus. In archived discussions, it was decided to keep them out. Consider expanding their respective daughter articles, such as History of India, instead. See WP:WPC. Q5: Why was my image or external link removed? A5: To add or remove images and links, start a thread on this page first. See WP:FP?, WP:IMAGE, and WP:EL. Q6: The map is wrong! A6: The map shows the official (de jure) borders in undisputed territory and the de facto borders and all related claims where there's a dispute; it cannot exclusively present the official views of India, Pakistan, or China. See WP:NPOV. Q7: India is a superpower! A7: Consult the archives of this talk page for discussions of India's status as a superpower before adding any content that makes the suggestion. See WP:DUE. Q8: Delhi is a state! A8: To create an Indian state, the Parliament of India must pass a law to that effect—see Articles 2 through 4 of the Constitution of India, full text here. The Sixty-ninth Amendment, which was enacted in 1991, added Article 239AA to the constitution. It proclaimed the National Capital Territory of Delhi, gave it a legislative assembly, and accorded it special powers that most union territories lack. But Delhi was not made a state. Several crucial powers were retained by the central government, such as responsibility for law and order. Delhi also does not have a governor; instead, a lieutenant governor presides. Unlike Himachal Pradesh, which gained statehood in 1970, and Goa, which gained it in 1987, Delhi continues to be listed as a union territory by the First Schedule. Q9: Add Hindi as the national language/hockey as the national sport! A9: Hindi is the official language, not national language. There is no national language, but there are constitutionally recognized languages, commonly known as Schedule 8 languages. English also serves as a subsidiary official language until the universal use of Hindi is approved by the states and parliament. Field hockey is not the national sport as per this article "In RTI reply, Centre says India has no national game", Deccan Herald, August 2012.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on August 15, 2004 and August 15, 2005.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: "The 50 most-viewed Misplaced Pages articles in 2009 and 2008". The Daily Telegraph. August 17, 2009.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

2010 data

Why do people use 2010 data for GDP instead of 2009? We are not even half way through 2010, and every country's using 2009 data, stop this childish and ridiculous behaviour. This information is not about "look better'

reflist

Edit request from 71.201.248.6, 22 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Castew discrimination in india is not anymore. it stopped decades back. please edit the "culture" section. in fact,, something new is in discussion of lately ie reverse discrimination because the upper castes (on paper) do not have rights and privileges the one with lower caste certificate has. India has 50 percent reservation in its education and government jobs. this has led to many people not having a lower caste certificate not getting proper educational and job opportunities despite being high in merit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/2006_Indian_anti-reservation_protests

http://en.wikipedia.org/Caste_system_in_India#Modern_status_of_the_caste_system

71.201.248.6 (talk) 02:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Misplaced Pages cannot be used to source itself for statements such as this (and it is not considered a reliable source in any case). Dabomb87 (talk) 04:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Names in other Indian languages

I have added the names of India in other official languages of India listed in the 8th Schedule as collapsable list. I think it is necessary. It has not been rejected in the talk page. Previously the attempts which were made to include the official languages were not added as a collapsable list, so the article looked very awkward. But if I include them as a collapsabla list, only those want to see it can see it by clicking on the show option. So I think it is unnecessary to remove my edition. -Trinanjon Basu (talk) 16:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Nope, you've got to get consensus before you add this. And also, a civics lesson. None of these are official languages. The official language is Hindi, with English being a subsidiary official language. Adding another twenty simply doesn't make sense and is entirely undue. Do not add again unless there's consensus for adding them. —SpacemanSpiff 16:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

All the twenty-four languages are the official languages of India. Hindi and English are the official languages of the Union, means they are to be used for official purposes at the Central level. The languages listed in the 8th Schedule are the recognised official languages of India. These can be used as the official languages of any of the states and Union territories. -Trinanjon Basu (talk) 16:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

THat's the whole point, they are official languages of the States and Union Territories, where those language scripts are included. —SpacemanSpiff 16:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Spiff. 8th schedule is the official languages of the union. They are only for States and UTs. The same issue has been discussed before and rejected.--Sodabottle (talk) 17:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Spiff here. Its unnecessary to add the 20 odd languages in the article. Shovon (talk) 04:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I request all of you to have look at the articles South Africa and Singapore. -Trinanjon Basu (talk) 05:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

None of the two articles are Featured, whereas, India is. I could not find the *name* of the countries written in the scripts of the official languages anywhere. Shovon (talk) 08:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with Spiff there is no need to add this. and you cannot add something to a Featured Article before getting the consensus RahulChoudhary 10:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Why does it matter whether Singapore and South Africa are featured articles or not? If both these articles are selected as featured articles in near future will the names mentioned in different languages be removed. And Shovon has not found "*name* of the countries written in the scripts of the official languages anywhere." Then what has he found on the top of the Infobox written in different scripts. I think these are all false but clever argument with intention to outwit. I do not want to do anything by force but I think it is illojical not to include these languages. Please look at my Sandbox page and see how the Infobox looks after adding the languages. It makes no difference except the show option appearing at one corner. So please consider my opinion. -Trinanjon Basu (talk) 14:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

There's no "false and clever" arguments out here. Each article talk page defines what goes in and out of the article. In this article, long standing consensus is that only two scripts - Hindi and English, signifying the two official languages of the Republic of India belong. In the case of Singapore and South Africa, they have more official languages and have decided to add them all. And it's not just a case of whether it's directly visible or not, there's also the article size, and this one is already too huge for it to load on slow connections, and adding a twenty four course alphabet soup is a disservice to our readers, especially when most of them have no interest in it. Besides, the first line already includes a link to the list of names that any interested reader can click and get to. Simple as that. —SpacemanSpiff 14:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Famines in India

Zuggernaut has added the following line to the history section: India suffered a series of serious crop failures in the late 19th century, leading to widespread famines in which 15.3 million people died

I think this line is somewhat vague and should be reworded. my concerns: a)Famines during british rule weren't limited to late 19th century though they become more numerous. the last one lasted a couple of years into the 20th century b) the death count of 15.3 million is treated as an absolute, but it is a composite figure arrived at tallying the lower end of various estimates. c) "crop failures" alone didn't cause the famines. it was a bit more complex. monsoon failure - > drought -> crop failure -> free market grain policies -> inadequate relief measure -> great famine. (Timeline of major famines in India during British rule)

I know it is a bit too much to expect to capture the complexity of the issue in a single line, But still feel this line could be reworded.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if I could add significant content to a FA without a consensus, hence the hesitance and the resulting vagueness. I'm always glad to draw on multiple sources, reword and expand. I will do so shortly. Here's a potential source that shows how famines increased under British rule and how British propaganda citing population density, "famines cannot be "caused", etc has been trashed: . Zuggernaut (talk) 05:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Careful about that source. He draws on William Digby, who isn't exactly a neutral scholar - he had lots of axes to grind. I wish Fowler & Fowler (the editor who wrote the majority of the famine articles) was around to help us with redrafting the section. I am fine with the "millions of deaths", but the lengthier explanation is now written from a Indian nationalist perspective (IMO). Lets see what other editors think.--Sodabottle (talk) 06:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello there folks,

Guess you are discussing about this "India suffered a series of serious crop failures in the late 19th century, leading to widespread famines in which millions of Indians perished." Well, India did see a lot of famines, even after independence, right until the green revolution. In my opinion, there is no hiding from that fact. Surely, no one can easily put a number to the death toll. But I do know that starvation deaths were a commonplace during those days... Some may debate over the exact reasons behind those deaths though... If you want me to comment as an Indian I would say that we can't change what happened before but accept it... our future is what we can mend! :)

Thanks a ton for putting so much time and energy on this article...

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 08:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

This edit lacks neutrality and is clearly POV pushing. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I did have that deja vu feeling (all over again)! See Talk:India/Archive_25#Indian_Famines. At that time, the rough consensus was not to include this material in the article because of WP:UNDUE. The causes of the famines, the reasons behind the number of deaths, etc. can not reasonably be discussed in a summary article and leaving the impression that the Raj was to blame for both the famines as well as the deaths is where the WP:UNDUE comes in. There are plenty of scholars who believe that at least some responsibility lies with the fact that India was colonized, but their arguments are nuanced (Amartya Sen, for example, blames it on lack of political participation, Gilmour on ineptitude, etc.). The point being that there were complex causes for the famines, complex reasons behind the number of people who died, and discussing all this in a summary article is just not possible. --RegentsPark (talk) 11:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I got interested in this topic after making changes per WP:Bold to British Empire and the resulting discussion Talk:British_Empire#.22More_than_10_million_Indians_perished....22_-_WP:SYN_violation. Clearly this is an important series of events in Indian history and needs mention in this article, the important thing being to keep it brief and avoid WP:UNDUE. That's the reason I limited my very first addition to just one short sentence.. However User:Sodabottle does have a point and we may need to allocate a couple of lines to cite precise reasons for the disproportionate deaths during British rule. At the very least we should provide number of deaths and the causes behind those deaths in the article. Do we have consensus on this? Zuggernaut (talk) 15:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I was not involved in any previous discussion and dont have the time to read it as well (not because i disrespect previous consensus). My view is I dont see any problem adding a couple of neutral sentences about the famines. --CarTick 22:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand there is a debate going on BritishWatcher! Though I did not write the article, that section stated facts! It also had citations! It deserves to be there till the debate is conclusively completed! How can you initiate a debate and remove a stanza without any reason? You may not have liked the stanza, that is your PoV!

That apart, like i mentioned earlier, the stanza had enough credible citations to be there... Please do not revert it till it is concluded that is deserves to be removed...

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 11:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a featured article. Someone inserted material which a couple of editors have big problems with in its current form and think it lacks neutrality among other things too. He was bold, it got reverted and now we must discuss it. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know this is a featured article... The author, whoever he or she may be, has stated as credible citations as anywhere in the wikipedia domain! I can see that a couple of editors have issues while a couple of others do not, with the write! That does not mean that line deserves to be removed because a couple does not like it. Do not revert the article. Let the debate be over and then lines can be added or removed! I can see a couple of statements in the stanza may not be appropriate... we may comment then and give reasons to do so.

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 12:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• The content that's been added is definitely undue here. I'll wait for work on RegentsPark's suggestion to comment any further. —SpacemanSpiff 12:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Even I agree the content is undue. However, it contained truth and has to find a place somewhere within or outside the article. The point here is, we need to follow rules like {{Misplaced Pages:Consensus}}. My interpretation of the rule is as follows (from the flow chart) -

Case 1 - The content is not credible -> In that case anyone can remove the content and then start a debate

Case 2 - The content is credible -> Reach a consensus (remove the lines which fall under case 1) to remove the content.

We need to understand that what one or more of us like/s or dislike/s does/do not change facts. Those lines represented facts. Neutral Point of View is also a matter of interpretation. I may find something neutral, for example, while others may not! In such a scenario we need to figure out of citations are from acceptable sources. It has been quoted earlier in the discussion that a certain scholar is not particularly neutral! Is that a PoV or can that statement be backed up with quotations from people considered neutral widely? I don't like MANY statements in wikipedia as well, including the lines under debate. That does not mean I'll raise objections and simply remove line/s without any reason! I've removed lines before and from articles where my participation may have been viewed as biased! and I found that as long one is just and impartial in even raising objections, a broad consensus follows automatically. It should be our unflattering endeavor to ensure that wikipedia reflects "facts" and not just what a group of individuals (country, community etc) thinks. Let us ensure that in creating consensus we are not ignoring (or compromising on) the truth! That's the last thing we need, in my opinion!

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 12:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Several editors (User:Jezhotwells, User:CarTick, User:Amartya ray2001, User:Sodabottle and I) have already agreed famines merit inclusion (a brief 2-3 lines). I would request interested editors to focus and comment on the content proposed here Talk:India#Step_3_-_Concise_compiling. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 16:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. We need to have the famines during the British rule as well included in the article. After reading the other comments may be we need to work on the language but it should reflect unequivocally that people died during bad policies during the Raj. That is what I understood from Zuggernaut's citation sources. If someone thinks otherwise please provide citations to prove otherwise. I'll see if the draft provided by Zuggernaut can be modified and paste it here. Let us ensure that this is not an attempt to hide facts!

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 17:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

History section

I have added a POV tag to the disproportionately large paragraph that has been added to the history section about famines in India. It's not even close to being written with a neutral POV and might I also say even if it was, this amount of attention to this subject in what is a potted history of India is way too much detail. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 10:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Oops just saw the discussion above. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 10:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted to the pre-famine version. We can work out the exact text to be added here in the talk page. Famines were major events in 18 and 19th centuries and merit a couple of lines in the history section.--Sodabottle (talk) 10:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Famine, starvation deaths during British era

I'm proposing a simple four step process to come up with fair content that's not prone to POV labeling as was done by User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick who Wikihounded me for my changes to British Empire on the same topic.

Step 1: Reliability of sources - establish validity of sources provided below.
Step 2: Focus - agree on what content to focus on
Step 3: Concise compiling - put the content together in concise 2-3 sentences.
Step 4: Policies - ensure Misplaced Pages policies such as WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:SYN, etc are met.

I have provided several sources with links to Google Books below. Most of the content has been typed out verbatim with the only exception that not everything is contiguous. Typos and other errors, if any, are mine. URLs are provided for quick verification.

Potential sources

Consensus

Please provide your comments in the relevant sections below for form a consensus. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 21:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Step 1 - Reliability of sources

• I find all sources reliable for the following reasons: they are third-party (independent), published sources, fact-checked, accurate, there are no unverifiable claims, they perform an in-depth study relevant to the context. All of them are either university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines or journals. None of them are self-published. All sources are secondary or tertiary sources building on previous work. Zuggernaut (talk) 21:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Step 2 - Focus

I propose that we foucs on:

1. Definition of famine in this context, i.e, it is something that is easily avoidable and made possible by the suppression of freedoms of movement/transportation, expression, by the lack of infrastructure and due to taxation without representation)
2. Provide the number of famines that occurred in the 700 years preceding British rule. Compare this with the number of famines and deaths in the British era.
3. Show that the poor Indian peasant was taxed while no investments were made in Indian irrigation works. (I have not looked for sources that show the collected revenue being sent to Britain to fund it's fledgling industrialization. I do remember reading in the past at as much as 30% of capital for the British industrial revolution came from India)
4. Show that suppression of freedom of movement/transportation, freedom of expression, etc caused deaths.
5. Show that famines disappeared with the British

Zuggernaut (talk) 21:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Step 3 - Concise compiling

Originally proposed content: Famines in India before the arrival of the British were few and local and they affected comparatively a small number of people, for example, from the 11th century to the 18the century, there were only 18 famines in India. Under British rule, a total of 31 famines were recorded for the 100 years between 1800-1900 with a death toll of about 37 million, primarily due to starvation. India continued to suffer from famines under the British Crown, right up to independence in 1947 after which they vanished with the establishment of representative democracy and a free press.

Based on the feedback received from User:Redtigerxyz and other editors, I am revising the originally proposed content:

Revision: Between the 11th century and the 18the century, famines in India were few and local and they affected comparatively a small number of people. Eighteen famines were recorded during this period in India. Under British rule, a total of 31 famines were recorded for the 100 years between 1800-1900 with a death toll of about 37 million, primarily due to starvation. India continued to suffer from famines under the British Crown, right up to independence in 1947 after which they vanished with the establishment of representative democracy and a free press. Zuggernaut (talk)

Step 4 - Policies

Zuggernaut (talk) 21:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you're mistaken about what the purpose of a summary article is. It is not a simple matter of reporting what reliable source say. It is fairly easy, for example, to find reliable sources that lay the entire responsibility of the famines on the British rule but that doesn't mean that we include it in the article. Everything included here must be put in perspective. So, what you need to do is to look at all histories of the famines that took place in the 19th century; sort through all the differing views on why these famines occurred or why the x number of people died; and then present a 3-4 sentence summary that includes all the major viewpoints. Simply presenting what the few sources that support one view say is insufficient for a summary article. --RegentsPark (talk) 01:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Well put, RegentsPark. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 02:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. BritishWatcher (talk) 02:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been around Misplaced Pages only a few months so I apologize if I am unaware of all policies (I know of WP:SYN, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and a few other guidelines). I've mostly worked to GA level so I'm having difficulty understanding the term "summary article". Is it a synonym for FA? Also, please provide a link to the policy applicable to:

...look at all histories of the famines that took place in the 19th century; sort through all the differing views on why these famines occurred or why the x number of people died; and then present a 3-4 sentence summary that includes all the major viewpoints. Simply presenting what the few sources that support one view say is insufficient for a summary article.

Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

IMO, we should have two lines about Famines of the 19th century in the history sections indicating a) they were many in the late 19th century b)they caused millions of deaths. The cause of famines and how the british govt handled/mishandled it are contentious issues and can be explained in detail in the Famines in India article.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Since this appears in the history section, I am OK including all recorded famines (data goes back to 11th century). I also feel it's necessary to mention that famines on the scales seen in the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries were never seen again after independence. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know whether it's true that there has been no famine in India since 1947. Even if it is true, who's to say whether it's coincidence or causation? In your mind you've clearly linked the two causally, but that's just your own original research. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 05:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Everything related to this work-in-progress is sourced from the sources listed above Talk:India#Potential_sources. I would request you to browse through that section to find the relevant text/source. I've provided all available URLs and even typed out text. Please feel free to ask for an explanation regarding OR and the like after you have carefully reviewed the sources. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 06:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

As has been pointed out, there is a wide range of views on this subject - and you have cherry-picked a few sources which agree with your own personal views. I agree with the editors above that the history section here should not be pointing fingers, and instead all relevant views (including ones you wont like) should be covered in the indian famines article. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 06:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

These sources meet all Misplaced Pages policies such as WP:NOR, WP:Sources, WP:SYN, etc. I don't see this as finger pointing - it's just a recounting what secondary and in some cases tertiary sources state. The community should be glad to include other views on the subject. I request that your provide your sources to balance the alleged cherry-picking. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 06:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with User:Zuggernaut... If other arguments are to be considered then I can raise objection on almost every line written in wikipedia! As long as statements are backed up with credible citations we must and have to accept it. If you have an objection raise with backed up with better citations. Considering the fact that the objections and the subsequent actions are not as per wiki - consensus and other policies and that the section was properly sited, I'm escalating the issue to dispute resolution. Amartya ray2001 (talk) 13:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Following a request at WP:EAR and taking a look at this, it would seem that adding a large amount of material which could be better covered in Famine in India is unnecessary. One or two short sentences about famines (not just those during British rule) may merit a place in the History section, with a link to the Famine in India article. I would suggest that editors focus on improving that article, which is in a rather sorry state, rather than destabilising this article in a matter which might lead to its being delisted as a featured article, which would not be a good outcome I suggest that Amartya ray2001 re-reads WP:CONSENSUS, which is the policy that applies here. Suggest that you invite comment from WP:WikiProject India. If you really disagree with other editors and cannot or will not work to achieve consensus then you may open a request for comment. Instructions at that page. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Jezhotwells - I appreciate your critique. Can you explain your comment that the article is "in a rather sorry state" and specify the areas where the article is weak? That'll be a lot of help improving the article. Also, if you closely review the debate, you will find that your comment about what the content about famines should look like is redundant. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Famine in India is in a sorry state because the majority of content is about famines under British rule, not before or since. The first reference is to a Misplaced Pages article which is NOT a reliable source. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out, I will put that on my to-do list. Since we are discussing other relevant articles, I would like to point out that I find a related article British Empire very biased. It completely ignores the view that the British Empire was despised, not just in India, but universally. Gandhi called it an evil Empire and a curse for India. The plethora of the secondary and tertiary sources describing the British Empire in that manner have been left out of that featured article. Perhaps the legacy section of that article should be labeled as a {{POV}} section. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I checked the disputed content about the famine. The content seems WP:UNDUE in this WP:SUMMARY article, however it merits mention in Famine in India and British Raj, although both POVs - those blaming the Raj and those not doing so - need to be covered.--Redtigerxyz 15:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Several editors disagree with this viewpoint - User:Jezhotwells, User:CarTick, User:Amartya ray2001, User:Sodabottle and I support the inclusion of a brief 2-3 lines relating to the famines which from a series of major events in Indian history. I invite your comment on the proposed content in this section Talk:India#Step_3_-_Concise_compiling. Zuggernaut (talk) 16:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) with Jezhotwells: The current draft has a strong, leading POV and blaming tone, which needs to be neutralized. Also a 3-sentence para about Famines is still too much detail (UNDUE) for me in the summary section. At most, there is a strong consensus to include the sentence, 1 line stating just the facts about the deaths and famines in the 19-20th century is enough. --Redtigerxyz 17:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Famines are a significant part of Indian history. All available data (going back to 11th century) should be summarized. I find the exclusion of certain specific data as a tactic to promote a pro British Empire view point. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 17:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a minor point further up the page it saids that the British did not invest in irrigation etc., whilst not wishing to get into a debate that blames the Empire for everything, the British (actually the Indian administration) spent a considerable amount of money on flood defences to help alleviate famines caused by lack of rain. See Sukkur Barrage for one example (only about Rs 200 million spent). MilborneOne (talk) 16:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Several prominent historians and Indians have analzed the situation in-depth. IMO, Gandhi's terse statement something to the effect - On the balance, the British rule of India was evil - is apt. I would extend that to the famine discussion. The British build a barrage here and a railway track there, only when it suited moving capital from India to Britain to fund it's fledgling industrial revolution, while India starved Zuggernaut (talk) 16:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

That would appear to be a rather POV statement, and not particularly useful for this discussion. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Which is why these discussions dont really achieve anything with such strong POVs, 200 million rupess in the 1930s on one project is not a small amount but as it associated with the evil empire it has to be dismissed. As a non-neutral view is unlikely in this discussion not much point with continuing. MilborneOne (talk) 19:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I was just paraphrasing Gandhi and it's a mainstream view in a country of 1.2 billion. But I agree, not point going that route as far as this discussion is concerned. Sorry about that. Zuggernaut (talk) 22:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

(od) Frankly, we have about 6 lines on the entire 200 year history of British India which focuses on political transitions, as does the entire history section. To this you want to add '3-4 lines' on the 19th century famines. I'm no fan of British rule in India, but I am a fan of this encyclopedia and can see no reason, other than an attempt to paint British rule in a bad light, to include even one line on famines in this article. The notion of history as political transition is a fairly well accepted one, other material should go in other articles. --RegentsPark (talk) 21:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate that feedback. We're all fans of Misplaced Pages, IMO and that's why we are here. There's agreement to include content about the famine amongst several users as stated above. We now need to work on keeping it concise. Critique on the currently proposed content (Talk:India#Step_3_-_Concise_compiling) is welcome. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 22:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the level of agreement for inclusion that would amount to a consensus. I'm also interested in an explanation why something that is not a political transition should be included in a section that confines itself solely to those sort of historical events. --RegentsPark (talk) 22:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• Misplaced Pages articles that use Indian English
• Selected anniversaries (August 2004)
• Selected anniversaries (August 2005)
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press