Zuggernaut (talk | contribs) →Intro: Response |
The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick (talk | contribs) →Encyclopedia not a dissertation: new section |
||
Line 146: | Line 146: | ||
::: We perhaps should also list some of the major causes rather than just going straight into British government actions as if it was the only thing. [[User:BritishWatcher|BritishWatcher]] ([[User talk:BritishWatcher|talk]]) 14:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC) |
::: We perhaps should also list some of the major causes rather than just going straight into British government actions as if it was the only thing. [[User:BritishWatcher|BritishWatcher]] ([[User talk:BritishWatcher|talk]]) 14:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC) |
||
::The summary provided by [[User:Carwil]] covers all relevant areas, it is concise and accurate. I am OK to go ahead with it verbatim. We should not be bothered with black and white issues - we should just stick to what the sources say. [[User:Zuggernaut|Zuggernaut]] ([[User talk:Zuggernaut|talk]]) 21:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC) |
::The summary provided by [[User:Carwil]] covers all relevant areas, it is concise and accurate. I am OK to go ahead with it verbatim. We should not be bothered with black and white issues - we should just stick to what the sources say. [[User:Zuggernaut|Zuggernaut]] ([[User talk:Zuggernaut|talk]]) 21:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC) |
||
== Encyclopedia not a dissertation == |
|||
May I remind people here that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The "famines, independence and economics" section reads like a poorly worded high school student's essay, and comparing and contrasting of individuals' views is itself a form of original research. Why are Sen's views being given such prominence?Who says he is the "mainstream"? <span style="font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold">[[User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick|<font color="red">'''The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick'''</font>]]<sup> [[User talk:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick|<font color="blue">'''t'''</font>]]</sup></span> 23:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:57, 26 September 2010
India: History Start‑class High‑importance | |||||||||||||
|
Death B‑class High‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Update needed...
Am writing a undergraduate essay on this topic. Should provide significant material for updating this article in the near future. In particular I think more is needed on the demographic impact of famine, its relation to disease, and the role of colonial famine relief measures in alleviating or exacerbating famine at different points.
--Benwilson528 09:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Mike Davis' book "Late Victorian Holocausts" discusses Indian famines in great deal and would be a good source. -- TheMightyQuill 10:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- But one which doesn't sound like it makes the slightest attempt to be neutral. Hawkestone 21:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Dear Hawkestone, I hope the extensive references I have supplied will alleviate the justifiable concern that you raised. I have included primary sources from the turn of the century here that are considered classics (Dutt), a somewhat dry but even-handed and well-documented scholarly economic reference (Srivastava), and of course Amartya Sen's Nobel Prize-winning work on this very topic. This is now one of the better-documented articles in Wikipedia. Any question of this article's neutrality should be removed.
Nobody here is making any highly opinionated claims about genocide or an intentional Holocaust on the part of the British-- the job of Wikipedia is just to present the facts of the topic at hand in a neutral fashion and with referencing, and on this topic, the basic facts really are indisputable and extremely well-documented by a number of independent analysts. There were incredibly severe famines in India in the late 19th and early 20th centuries through the Second World War, and they were undoubtedly in part a result of the policies of the ruling government at the time, in this case the British. This is a perfectly neutral and accurate statement and entirely in line with similar, well-understood observations with other famines, e.g. the deadly famines in Maoist China that killed tens of millions of Chinese (in part a result of the Great Leap Forward and other Maoist policies), the famine during WWII in the Netherlands that occurred under German occupation, and of course the Irish Potato Famine itself. In all of these cases, there were devastating famines that resulted from factors that had an obvious causal link to specific policies instituted by the ruling government, with these factors documented as such.
Ramachan 19:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
POV notice
I have removed this from a pov category, but looking at the article, it seems to be based solely on anti-British rule sources. It needs an expert rewrite. Hawkestone 21:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Please see my comment above. Extensive references including primary sources have been provided to confront any questions about the neutrality and factual quality of the article. I have researched this topic in thorough detail including a broad and profound study of the academic and professional literature as well as consultation of primary references, and therefore the article in its current form with the extensive documentation should meet criteria for an expert rewrite. I have addressed any lingering specific concerns in my prior comment. The questionable neutrality tag should now be removed. Ramachan 19:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Can't see any argued and unanswered reason now for the PoV notice. So I'm removing it. Imc 17:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Whaddamess
This actualy needs an expert on the matter, the whole article is written very... originally, and needs desperatley to be salvaged or removed. Some claim the famines were a product both of uneven rainfall and British economic and administrative policies. This is weasel words and POV against British rule. •Elomis• 00:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- I agree, the whole article is written from a blatantly anti-British POV. I'm open to the possibility that British policies contributed to these famines, but to directly tie the two as if the British were as bad as Stalin is an amazingly strong claim that needs to be backed by amazingly strong sources. - Merzbow 06:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- I agree on your standards, let me know when they're met.--Carwil 20:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Good quote. There's a big difference between the British causing famine and not doing as much as they could have to stop one. - Merzbow 01:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
The famines and the basic principle of the responsible governing body
I have laboured to re-craft the sentences in this article in as neutral a POV style as possible, but this is likely as far as any dispassionate student of the India famines can go in attaining standards of neutrality and professionalism on a topic that inherently deals with such a dreadful event in history. It is not possible to refer to the famines without simultaneously noting their utter devastation and the hand of the governing authority in said famines. There is much ado here about a prosaic principle taken for granted by historians: In the midst of a famine and particularly in the midst of a series of such famines, the governing body in any country bears ultimate responsibility for the welfare of the individuals under its authority. This is especially so when the government clearly undertakes specific economic policies that bear upon the course of the famine.
This is why, as has been observed by commenters above and elsewhere, the Stalinist government in the Ukraine and the Maoist government in China are held responsible for the deadly famines that occurred under their purview. It is not claimed that these governments deliberately starved their peoples as a whole, but as they were the governing bodies at the time, as their policies directly affected the production and distribution of food, and as they represented the ultimate ruling authority over the affected peoples, they are held responsible for the famines that occurred under their watch. This applies equally so to colonial governments ruling over imperial domains and a comment above cites good examples: the Nazi government during the Dutch famine of the 1940s, and the British government in Ireland in the 1840s were the ruling authorities over the people in those domains, and so they are held responsible for the famines that took place there. Nobody is "equating the British Raj to Stalin," all of the above-mentioned governments were sui generis and the famines occurring under their watch took place under distinct circumstances, but all of these governments are held responsible due to the same consistently applied principle on the duty of a governing body to the people under its watch.
Some comments have complained about the way this reflects on the British government at the time, but all governments in which such serious famines occur under their watch, particularly under occupation, "look bad." This is unavoidable and it applies equally to other governments: any neutral POV used to discuss such famines will inevitably have to make reference to the responsible government in charge and its policies. Some of the comments even verge on ad hominems to the effect that Indian authors (and that includes cited professional historians) have an inherently anti-British POV. Most of us from India or among the Indian expat community do not harbour an inherent animus toward the British, quite a few of us quite like the country in fact, but it is preposterous to assert that a thorough discussion of the late 19th-century famines and the role of the Raj's policies in them, amounts to an inherent anti-British POV. It is impossible to discuss the British Raj period sans a thorough treatment of the 19th-century famines that had such an impact on India-- this sort of omission would be similar to discussing mid 19th-century Ireland and eliding any discussion about the Potato Famine and its impact on Irish history! It is likewise not possible to address the famines without considering the specific British policies, mercantilist and otherwise, that governed economic activity in the Subcontinent so much. No one here is declaring that the Indian people were deliberately targeted by the British mercantilist policies, but they had a major and well-documented impact on the economic events of the late 19th century in India, including the famines. A dispassionate approach to this topic requires a close look at the policies of the Raj.
As to the role of particular Raj policies in worsening the famines, this has not been under dispute, and has been recognised well before Amartya Sen's work which focused on democratic systems in particular. The British Raj and its predecessors in India were mercantilist in nature and they imposed their systems on the colonies to gain a positive balance of trade, this is not in question. Furthermore, these policies quite clearly had a major impact on food distribution and also on the internal wealth, derived from both exports and internal commerce, used to purchase and distribute food to begin with, and obviously bear upon the course of the India famines. Romesh Dutt documented this at length in his own contemporary accounts, and Amartya Sen did the same in his more thorough treatments later in the century which were awarded with a Nobel Prize in Economics. One comment above expressed the desire for especially strong sources here, and we have in fact, primary sources from a first-hand witness to the famines, and the carefully documented work of no less than a Nobel Laureate and globally respected authority on the topic, supplemented with other detailed academic sources. If references even of this magnitude are deemed insufficient, then no article in any encyclopedia could ever be deemed to have sufficient sourcing.
I have therefore for the time being, removed the NPOV tag here. Naturally it is anyone's prerogative to introduce it again, but I would hope that we could come to some sort of a consensus here based on commonly and consistently applied principles- based on the fundamental responsibility of a governing body to the people under its rule, sans any accusation of deliberate killing of the people under its watch- and also on the quality, depth and even primary nature of the professional sources referenced here.Neeramurthy 05:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Famines before British rule
The article is about famines in India. So why does it not talk about famines in India before British rule? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Led125 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC).
chances are sources are harder to come by before the british —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.138.77.193 (talk) 22:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
more sources on this topic in literature;
I came accross a persian manuscript by one Mata dayal who was living in the days of natural calamity. His village was anbari, near allahabad. He wrote a work on femine and named it ghaht nama (femine letter). the text is in chaste persian of indian style. in this work he has given the full picturesaque description of the casualties occured due to femine and the bad state of the affairs. but he do add that later on the order from England and due to unpopularily the england got for its mismanagement, evey relief was rushed to the vicitms. but at some places it was too late and could be consumed by the animals who had remained survieved by luck. the text of the manuscripts run into 600 couplets and the ms is lying in delhi university library.
Why not compare the British Raj to Stalin? What, substantially, is the difference? Gerrynobody 15:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Why not compare the Irish to Al-Qaeda? What, substantially, is the difference?Sennen goroshi 15:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Judging 18th. century technology/organisation/resources by 21st. century standards
It does seem unfair that the writers of this article seem to expect 18th. century governments to be run as efficiently and as technologically able as they would be in the 21st. century, or to be as resource- or infrastructure- rich. If you are going to evaluate the government, please try to be aware of the many limitations and difficulties of that time. 62.253.52.156 18:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- But we aren't the ones doing the judging. The judging has been done by reliable sources, this article just records what those sources have had to say. Gatoclass 19:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Removed POV
I don't agree with the arguments posed by Hawkestone et al. By what criteria do you classify a work as "anti-British rule?" How would introducing works of "pro-British rule" literature make this article more valid? Would they not be just as biased as the so-called "anti-British rule" works you talk about? I think the references provided, including authors such as Sen et al. offer a knowledgable account of famine in India, irrespective of your own political readings and biases toward this aspect of Indian history. 128.189.137.17 (talk) 20:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
what is Indias greatest success in more than 60 yrs of freedom?
developing a nuclear weapon? victory over Pakistan in 71 war? Reforms of 1991?
Its probably avoiding severe famine which british failed to. I agree that even today we have severe problems when there is crop failure, natural disasters, high food prices etc but it wouldn't be as bad as famine.
This is inspite the inefficient govt, program implementation, scams, corruptions, instability, terrorism etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.243.161.52 (talk) 16:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but what exactly are you trying to say here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.63.14 (talk) 19:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
POV Tag
I have added a POV tag. The recent edits by User:Zuggernaut are not written from a neutral point of view (e.g. "Famines are easy to prevent if there is a serious effort to prevent them, and a government of a democratic country-facing elections, criticisms from opposition parties and independent newspapers-cannot but make a serious effort to prevent famines.") The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 17:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, glad you've initiated this discussion. I've taken the liberty of moving the POV tag to specify the section under dispute. The edit you mention does seem to be an example of unencyclopedic writing. Zuggernaut, I would suggest rephrasing (in a more encyclopedic style) and attributing the perspective you inserted in the sentence itself as well as the footnote. And I would invite Red Hat to be bold and do the same. Some version of the text ought to remain, however, since Famine in India is a prominent case study used by a major social scientist (Sen) to advance a theory concerning famine and democracy. Perhaps, however, that theory should not lead the section on famine since Independence, but rather appear later.--Carwil (talk) 22:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Another problem I have is the separation out of the statistics and sections into British and non-British rule. I'm well aware that causal connections are made in some sources between the presence of the British and the occurrence of famines, but that is a matter of one's point of view. Obviously we need to mention when India was under British rule, but we should not be adding an inherent bias to the article by explicitly linking the two. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC) ps I don't want to make any changes because from my experience, User:Zuggernaut will just come along and immediately revert them, so I'm trying to get consensus first.
- I've rephrased the two small paragraphs, made use of footnotes and citations to attribute them to the authors. The article needs to be cleaned up, sections need to be re-arranged and a uniform cite template needs to be used. I will work on all of that over the next few weeks. As far as the tables go, they are simply numbers and they occur in the stated, multiple secondary and tertiary sources. The two tables lie juxtaposed in the cited sources. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Another problem I have is the separation out of the statistics and sections into British and non-British rule. I'm well aware that causal connections are made in some sources between the presence of the British and the occurrence of famines, but that is a matter of one's point of view. Obviously we need to mention when India was under British rule, but we should not be adding an inherent bias to the article by explicitly linking the two. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC) ps I don't want to make any changes because from my experience, User:Zuggernaut will just come along and immediately revert them, so I'm trying to get consensus first.
- I have a problem with juxtaposing the two tables. It gives the impression of comparing and judging (intended or not). I suggest creating a section for "Famines before british rule" and moving the first table into that section. Sources like Davis, Digby, Rajni Palme Dutt, Dadabai Naoroji are polemical - it is better if we just use their data and not their way of presenting it.--Sodabottle (talk) 03:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think the goal should be to have one table, with nicely broke down subtotals or averages (famines per century or some such) based on the major historical periods that are relevant to the issue (and colonial rule, as well as the independence era have been identified as the key relevant periods). I'm unconvinced by the idea that presenting these two/three historical periods separately is POV, although failure to produce a common standard for the table seems a bit unencyclopedic. If we can combine the information into a comprehensive list, and still illustrate important periods in an accessible way, that would be ideal.
- Sodabottle, "the impression of comparing" is precisely what all tables are meant to facilitate. This is not a POV problem in and of itself (see WP:ASSERT); you seem to be reacting to the POV people might have from reading a verifiable data source, not to the POV of the writing. Now if there is to be analysis (a la Sen and Davis) as to why the quantitative differences in famine exist, we should carefully place all such analysis behind: "X concludes that..." or "Opponents of colonialism argue" or "Historians of famine have concluded...".--Carwil (talk) 05:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Since the central topic of this article is famines in India, I see no problem juxtaposing the tables next to each other (or following each other) as is done by the authors who have clearly analyzed the main topic addressed by this article. If there's a POV problem with the multiple sources I've cited, then I'm sure there's an opposing school of thought/POV. If such sources are presented, we can add a third table, say post-independence famines, to cover the topic comprehensively . I am now concerned if there's an agenda behind this - my attempts to include this material in the India article were also called POV by the same editor. I looked at the Great Irish Famine and Ireland where famines occurred under the same regime in the same period with about a million deaths. Those articles go to the extent of calling this a very deliberate policy of the British administration aimed at destroying the racial/ethnic group called the Irish people. With just a million deaths in a 7 year period, those articles suggest this was genocide. Sources are more of less of the same calibre, yet there's no POV tag there. Zuggernaut (talk) 06:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- The only "agenda" here is yours - first at British Empire, then India, now here. You clearly have a view on the topic - famines were caused by the British - and you want Wikipedia to reflect that view, as reflected by your edits to those articles. My only concern is that Wikipedia adheres to its principles. The argument that "such-and-such article does/does not have the same thing which has been removed/added at this article" is, in my experience, often brought up by inexperienced editors, but it is not an argument for anything at all. My addition of this tag (which no one else disagreed with btw) is a response to your edits. I have not gone round every single article on famines to check whether they also are POV, and the lack of a POV tag at other articles does not justify you adding POV content here. We are discussing this article on this page. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 07:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- I will stick to the central point of this discussion - if you have credible sources to balance the alleged POV, please present them otherwise we need remove the POV tag. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 07:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Per NPOV, "Values or opinions must not be written as if they were in Wikipedia's voice. Factually attribute the opinion in the text to a person, organization, group of persons, or percentage of persons, and state as fact that they have this opinion, citing a reliable source.", your rewording has gone a long way to address my concerns so I'd be OK with removing the tag. However, I still disagree with categorizing famines by whether or not the British were in charge. That's inherently implying something. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 07:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- The category he has created "Famines in British Empire" and added to a dozen articles is highly questionable, but its inclusion on this page which is a general article about famine in India, not only during the time of the British Empire seems problematic. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Unless and until Famines under British rule becomes an independent article, it seems like the category belongs here. It would be entirely appropriate for other superordinate categories of famines to appear here, even if they do not apply to all of India's history, such as hypothetical categories like Famines after decolonization or Famines under monarchical rule. is of course superordinate to . Note also that, Famines, epidemics, and public health in the British Raj is not the possible main article for the section since it leaves out pre-Revolt portions of British rule (which are also covered lightly here), although it could well be transformed into Famines, epidemics, and public health under British rule in India.--Carwil (talk) 11:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- The category he has created "Famines in British Empire" and added to a dozen articles is highly questionable, but its inclusion on this page which is a general article about famine in India, not only during the time of the British Empire seems problematic. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Per NPOV, "Values or opinions must not be written as if they were in Wikipedia's voice. Factually attribute the opinion in the text to a person, organization, group of persons, or percentage of persons, and state as fact that they have this opinion, citing a reliable source.", your rewording has gone a long way to address my concerns so I'd be OK with removing the tag. However, I still disagree with categorizing famines by whether or not the British were in charge. That's inherently implying something. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 07:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- I will stick to the central point of this discussion - if you have credible sources to balance the alleged POV, please present them otherwise we need remove the POV tag. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 07:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- The only "agenda" here is yours - first at British Empire, then India, now here. You clearly have a view on the topic - famines were caused by the British - and you want Wikipedia to reflect that view, as reflected by your edits to those articles. My only concern is that Wikipedia adheres to its principles. The argument that "such-and-such article does/does not have the same thing which has been removed/added at this article" is, in my experience, often brought up by inexperienced editors, but it is not an argument for anything at all. My addition of this tag (which no one else disagreed with btw) is a response to your edits. I have not gone round every single article on famines to check whether they also are POV, and the lack of a POV tag at other articles does not justify you adding POV content here. We are discussing this article on this page. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 07:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Since the central topic of this article is famines in India, I see no problem juxtaposing the tables next to each other (or following each other) as is done by the authors who have clearly analyzed the main topic addressed by this article. If there's a POV problem with the multiple sources I've cited, then I'm sure there's an opposing school of thought/POV. If such sources are presented, we can add a third table, say post-independence famines, to cover the topic comprehensively . I am now concerned if there's an agenda behind this - my attempts to include this material in the India article were also called POV by the same editor. I looked at the Great Irish Famine and Ireland where famines occurred under the same regime in the same period with about a million deaths. Those articles go to the extent of calling this a very deliberate policy of the British administration aimed at destroying the racial/ethnic group called the Irish people. With just a million deaths in a 7 year period, those articles suggest this was genocide. Sources are more of less of the same calibre, yet there's no POV tag there. Zuggernaut (talk) 06:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
"Famines are easy to prevent if there is a serious effort to prevent them, and a government of a democratic country-facing elections, criticisms from opposition parties and independent newspapers-cannot but make a serious effort to prevent famines. Not surprisingly, while India continued to have famines under British rule right up to independence (the last famine was in 1943, four years before independence), they disappeared suddenly, after independence, with the establishment of a multi-part democracy with a free press. For example in India the priority of of preventing starvation and famine was fully gripped already at the time of independence (as it had been in Ireland as well, with its own experience of famine under British rule "
I can not believe the amount of biased crap User:Zuggernaut is adding to articles. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- This text violates NPOV. However, Zuggernaut himself has revised and replaced it. Please be civil and assume good faith.--Carwil (talk) 11:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Britishwatcher - We probably have starkly differing POVs on some content, hence it's important to stick to the pillars of Wikipedia, particularly those related to civility. Zuggernaut (talk)
- His additions are still grossly biased. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Can you point out the specific addition in the current version of the article that you think is "grossly biased"? Zuggernaut (talk) 16:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- You giving a whole paragraph of one mans view in a section with 2 paragraphs? Also wording it in a way that is clearly not neutral. It is POV crap and you have now even added about this one mans view to the introduction. Your edits are clearly biased and problematic. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- I have removed that sentence from the introduction. It is not appropriate to place it there. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- User:BritishWatcher - The edits aren't the problem, it's your repeated flouting of civility that's a problem. A constructive way to move forward would be to provide alternate sources and present content that balance the alleged POV bias. I am removing the POV tag since the article has now been restored to a neutral version by User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick. Zuggernaut (talk) 06:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- All he did was remove the sentence you added to the introduction, your additional paragraph remains in the article and that is certainly disputed. The section clearly gives undue weight to one mans opinions and it presents his views in a way that can easily be read as a statement of fact. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- User:BritishWatcher - The edits aren't the problem, it's your repeated flouting of civility that's a problem. A constructive way to move forward would be to provide alternate sources and present content that balance the alleged POV bias. I am removing the POV tag since the article has now been restored to a neutral version by User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick. Zuggernaut (talk) 06:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- I have removed that sentence from the introduction. It is not appropriate to place it there. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- You giving a whole paragraph of one mans view in a section with 2 paragraphs? Also wording it in a way that is clearly not neutral. It is POV crap and you have now even added about this one mans view to the introduction. Your edits are clearly biased and problematic. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Can you point out the specific addition in the current version of the article that you think is "grossly biased"? Zuggernaut (talk) 16:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- His additions are still grossly biased. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh and the lead has not even been sorted out yet because your POV additions remain in the introduction. The POV tag needs to be readded, you should not have removed it. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Once again - you need to point out the specific words/phrases that you allege to be POV. Zuggernaut (talk) 17:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- A whole paragraph in a section with just 2 paragraphs is clearly undue weight to this one guys point of view. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- The recent edits have addressed all of your concerns - the section has been split, more sources have been provided that show that Amartya Sen is not a "one guy with a point of view". For example co-authored works have been provided. Most importantly he is a mainstream economist honored by the Nobel committee which automatically excludes him from the "one-guy-with-a-point-of-view" label. With the changed situation, we should go ahead and remove the tag. 15:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- You still have a whole paragraph with one POV (with the exception of a single line for a view that disagrees). Surely even you accept that there are other major factors and not just the democracy? Better communications? better transport? International aid? Wealth of nations in general. Most of the population of the United Kingdom were hardly living in luxury 100 years ago. There have been global changes. To have a whole section pushing a single POV that its down to lack of democracy is nonsense. The POV tag should remain until all of this is handled in a far more neutral way. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'm going to respond in way that might seem like a quibble, but it's not. We have in this article a section now called Famines, democracy and economics, which is here because a highly prominent scholar used the case of India as the central case study for a widely discussed theory in economics/development studies/history. That section might one day grow up and became an article, Democracy and famine or some such. It states the theory, perhaps with a bit too much weight, and then states a refutation of the theory and a study with qualified support. For addressing Famines, democracy and economics, it's pretty NPOV. Of course, you're welcome to improve.
- In your interpretation, you're treating it as Social science explanations of famine in India, which would be a perfectly viable section to have in this article. We might put Famine, democracy, and economics as a subsection of it. Right now there's plenty of material scattered throughout the article that consists of such explanations including: India's ecological vulnerability, British mercantilist policies (Dutt), British inaction (various), misguided British policies (Drèze), natural event severity (Drèze again), and democracy (Sen and Banik, with Rubin dissenting). I don't think WP:UNDUE weight is attached to any of these, although the Sen section could be a bit shorter. For now, however, we're not claiming to summarize all social scientific explanations, but again, you're invited to make this article do that. I would suggest the section title above & include the current material as a subsection.
- What really seems to trouble you, however, is that the quite significant difference between famine performance during the British rule period and the Independence period is attributed to the differences between British colonial policy and Indian democracy. You list a number of potentially confounding variables, but no sources making these arguments. Feel free to look for such RSs and add them. However, you might not find as much as you're looking for. The technical capacity to avert famine seems to have been present before Independence and Drèze reports that per capita foodgrain production was even lower during the 1967-73 "near misses" than in much of the British colonial period. Indian famines were well known to administrators during the colonial period and the railroads were built before the turn-of-the-century famines. Of course, well-researched analyses that prove me wrong are welcome on the page. Until you find them, can we call a truce to the POV dispute?--Carwil (talk) 19:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- " It states the theory, perhaps with a bit too much weight, Well i am glad you accept it may be a bit too much weight to his POV. Whilst there is too much weight given to this view, it seems like the neutrality tag is required. If editors want content in articles, they have to ensure it is balanced. At present i do not believe that section provides the required balance. The section has 14 lines (on my text size). 12 of those lines advance one position, 2 lines counters it. If that is not undue weight i have no idea what is. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- The recent edits have addressed all of your concerns - the section has been split, more sources have been provided that show that Amartya Sen is not a "one guy with a point of view". For example co-authored works have been provided. Most importantly he is a mainstream economist honored by the Nobel committee which automatically excludes him from the "one-guy-with-a-point-of-view" label. With the changed situation, we should go ahead and remove the tag. 15:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- A whole paragraph in a section with just 2 paragraphs is clearly undue weight to this one guys point of view. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
On the issue of transport, here is one example i found from a quick search: "By far the most important service rendered to famine stricken areas has been through the introduction of effective means of transportation. We are not concerned whether the building of roads and railways was due to commercial or philantrhopic considerations; the fact remains that those localities which for natural or artificial causes have escaped the famine, have been able to ship their surplus into the areas where shortage existed, and so have reduced the distress and mortality. Before the introduction of the railways into India, it was impossible to distribute the surplus production over the areas of scarcity, so that it frequently happened that the prices of grain in localities where crops had been abundant were very low, while in an adjoining territory the prices were prohibitive. " Even without sources, everyone here knows transport has a big impact. It is far easier to distribute food when you have roads, railways and aircraft. [1].
I have no problem at all with this article pointing out development of democracy played a role. Ofcourse i accept the fact that local accountability encourages action, i believe that. But what i am concerned about is that one factor is taken out of context and suggested to be the primary reason. It is one of many factors. And whilst that is the only one with its own section, and it has 14 lines with just 2 lines dissenting from the position i think we have a problem. Of course the article should be expanded, however the responsibility of ensuring balance falls on the person adding material. If others are concerned about the inclusion, tags are justified until the situation is resolved. I will have a look for some other sources for some of the points i mentioned. However i do believe it will be wrong to go into that much detail about each issue. There should be a section on analysis of trends/changes. With subsections that look into all the different issues, including democracy etc. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- OMG, what has happened to this article? :o ... Amartya ray2001 (talk) 19:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Intro
I have removed some of the POV wording from the intro, and have also made it read more like an introduction by removing some excessive detail and a quotation. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 11:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- Generally, I appreciate your moves towards a well-styled lead. However, there is no justification for this claim: "no need to state political rulers here." Much of the social science literature is devoted to considering the impact of British rule and of democratic governance after Independence. It's the responsibility of the lead to note the importance of these long-term political events. The following text might not have done so explicitly, but did lay out the basic parameters of historical change:
- Famine has been a recurrent feature of life in South Asia, reaching its deadliest peak in the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, before declining in the final decades of British rule, and further with the arrival of independence.
- Now we could accept the shortening of this sentence to...
- Famine has been a recurrent feature of life in South Asia, reaching its deadliest peak in the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
- but only if we insert some summary of the later text. Like this, perhaps?
- Historians, social scientists, contemporary critics, and participants have identified British government inaction and adherence to utilitarian, mercantilist, and Malthusian policies as contributing factors to the severity of famine; the post-1880 British Famine Codes, some transportation improvements, and democratic rule after independence have been identified as furthering famine relief.
- NPOV does not mean silence on responsibility, just a complete summary of the issue.--Carwil (talk) 13:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- That works for me. I'm just completely opposed to black and white "the British were/were not in charge"-style generalisations. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 14:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- I would support something like that, although id split it into two sentences. Also change "some" to "major" transportation improvements. I think we could add a few more things to the list, but at present clearly its not covered in the article so id be ok with that change for the time being. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- We perhaps should also list some of the major causes rather than just going straight into British government actions as if it was the only thing. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- The summary provided by User:Carwil covers all relevant areas, it is concise and accurate. I am OK to go ahead with it verbatim. We should not be bothered with black and white issues - we should just stick to what the sources say. Zuggernaut (talk) 21:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- That works for me. I'm just completely opposed to black and white "the British were/were not in charge"-style generalisations. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 14:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Encyclopedia not a dissertation
May I remind people here that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The "famines, independence and economics" section reads like a poorly worded high school student's essay, and comparing and contrasting of individuals' views is itself a form of original research. Why are Sen's views being given such prominence?Who says he is the "mainstream"? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)