Talk:Indian Century/Archive 1

Shortened

I've only done a quick reading of this article, but it seems to me that the reasons if provides for a new Indian Century are basically the same reasons being provided for the article Potential Superpowers—India. Would it be better to keep this article short like the article American Century, and then include links to others that describe the reasoning, similar how american century links to American Empire, Pax Americana, etc. Joshdboz 01:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

how about the chinese century article

Added Original Research tag

Claims made after claims, but no references to back it up. Bordering POV too. Heilme 11:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and NPOV tag...

Balanced discussion? Heilme 12:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

that article is just....

The article sounds a bit like a promotion for India rather than presenting the facts and theories about the topic. 74.112.123.80 01:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not "a bit" like promotion. It should be shortened, like the other "centuries" to who, when and where used the term, not to be essay on politics, social structure and history. Pavel Vozenilek 03:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm....maybe or maybe not..

Yeah, i've read it too...and done a some editing, a few minor changes. Hope someone expert will do some more and make it much better. For me, if China becomes the largest economy,the term 'Chinese century' should be used. Just for the sake of consistency. And that might happen; also note that China is slowly making good progress in other areas and fields as well, just as how India and other Asian countries are slowly developing their other areas.

==Hi There's a lot of "what if's" in this article. It's better to be titled "21st century should be India, and not China." Some support will be nice.

Hello mate. Dont tell me ur just going to change the title to that, and thus make it more like a promotion. Rather you make some changes to the body and talk about it in this discussion page.

Chinese Century?

We have an Indian Century article, and business magazines frequently mention a "Chinese Century", shouldn't such an article exist?

Chinese Century/Asian Century/Indian Century

Yeah, your correct. Such an article(or term)should indeed exist along other related superpower material.

This article reads like an India versus China chest thumping excercise

Why so much comparisons with China in this Indian Century article? The Chinese Century article doesn't even mention India. If people want to do comparisons, perhaps they should do it in the Asian Century article. Hailing India as a multicultural mecca and China as homogenous juggernaut is just false. China isn't homogenous at all; only someone with very little knowledge of China and Chinese history would think so. --Mamin27 06:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last paragraph

The last paragraph in that article is completely un-wikipediaish! All those clauses, "lives of despair", "shanty-town", "achievement for the world", "lucky ranks of impoverished" and the last sentence especially make it sound like it wants to make us cry! I thought Wikipedia articles were supposed to be neutral! Is this some kind of joke? Are we supposed to be mourning while reading that text? And I've had a quick look at what's above, and it's all the same - biased and determined to make us sad! That's just not the point of a Wikipedia article! Also, suggest breaking article up into smaller parts - the big block that it is now is totally off-putting, like Pavel Vozenilek said earlier. Daniel Montin 18:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Piling On

Joining with the various comments of a number of other editors, I'd only say that it is unfortunate that this article is in such a state, as I do think there is room on WP for a good article on the subject of an 'Indian Century'. The article, as it exists, really fails to meet a number of WP policies, and represents a lot of WP:OR and failure to adhere to WP:NPOV. This article really needs to be reconstructed from the ground up, especially to integrate information from the various sources that have been tacked on to the bottom of the article. Cuffeparade 09:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

As usual with Indian articles the bias is unbelievable. Talk about ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colliver55 (talk • contribs) 13:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC) India is not considered to have blue water navy capabilities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colliver55 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that it is considered that the Indian Navy has the ability operate in considerable numbers in blue water or could do so and are probably capable of projecting power into other nations' littoral waters out of the blue-water. Along with the Russian and Japanese navies. See Blue-water navy Deavenger (talk) 06:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball

211.110.55.63 (talk) 01:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-Sections

The sub-sections on this article are the very same ones that where removed from the potential superpowers article for violations of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Not one of those subsections even makes a referance to an "Indian century". Basically the entire article, with the exeption of the intro section, has nothing to do with "the Indian century". None of the sources talk about an "Indian century". This looks like complete WP:OR and WP:SYN. I recommend that the majority of the sections in this article be deleted. It should be shorter like American century and Chinese Century. Saru (talk) 21:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It is in Wikipedia's best interests to maintain a NPOV, keep the article relevant to the topic, and eliminate nationalistic bias. Nirvana888 (talk) 15:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With that in mind I've removed the sub-sections. Saru (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has re-added the WP:NOR and WP:NPOV violating sections, so I have removed them again and prompted the people/person to read the talk page. If you have an objection, please say so here, otherwhise the offending sections should stay removed. Thank you. Saru (talk) 16:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Economy

Perhaps it would be more fair to leave long-term speculations about India's economy out of the article. The quote attributed to Clyde V. Prestowitz Jr. is not exactly a widely accepted view. It is perhaps worth noting that it was he who predicted that Japan would be the biggest economy in the 20th century and look what happened to that prediction. Nirvana888 (talk) 16:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Japan was second to that of U.S until recently before being overtaken by China and India.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 03:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

if you're talking about gdp measured in ppp, which i assume you are. india is currently 4th largest and japan is 3rd. if you remember that india and china's gdp (ppp) was reduced under world bank estimations. in any case, i don't see your point. it is unlikely that india's gdp will be larger than china's for at least the next century if ever and thus should not be mentioned as a fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.49.8 (talk) 12:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This article appears to be a giant contest of "India is better than China", without mentioning "Indian century" at all besides the first sentances. Saru (talk) 13:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It doesn't take an expert to see that India will grow in power this century and has great potential to be a great power or even superpower in this century. But let's be realistic and not try to play up India as the most powerful nation on Earth. Nirvana888 (talk) 16:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why has this article been shortened

Why has this article been shortened ? Enthusiast10 (talk) 13:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've copied the section on India at regional power here but being a regional power has nothing to do with the Indian Century. Military achievements, on top of being synthesis, have nothing to do with the Indian Century concept. Nirvana888 (talk) 13:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be shortened so that it is on even parity with the Chinese century article. On another note, if some people wish to keep these tidbits about how great India is in the article, maybe the nationalist bias can be removed by including counter-points and criticism of this view. Some ideas might be pointing out that the country is mired in poverty at the same level as many sub-Saharan African countries, with no strategy in place to improve its infrastructure or social services. Or, despite the military achievements mentioned, on a regional level India is nowhere near China or the military/industrial complex that is already firmly established in Russia. This should help increase the neutrality of the article.76.222.29.254 (talk) 03:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Century

Indian century is as common a term as Chinese century is so why some users r objecting against making this pageLAKSJD1 21:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

India is often called the next big superpower it has a thriving economy, third largest military, large land area, large population, nukes, stable and democratic government etc. LAKSJD1 21:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by LAKSJD1 (talk • contribs)

Do we really need a neologism for a possibility? In fact, does it make sense to create an encyclopedia article on a personal/non-scientific hypothesis? If it was a movement, or an ideology, it might have made sense to document it, but this is not that either. I'm pretty sure the British and American centuries were named in hindsight, not as a prophecies. Y not math (talk) 20:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC) Y not math (talk) 01:51, 27 July 2012 (IST)[reply]

Notable?

Well, actually to discuss whether or not this article is remarkable. One should not pursue this edit war. Those who are opposed to present their arguments.

Start the discussion, but do not know if I will continue with it ... My available time is limited. Hallel (talk) 19:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The concept appears at first glance to be quite notable[1][2][3] Three academic books just on a cursory search. Facts, not fiction (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this page shows what is a concept and thus it should be there, not deleted. --117.194.200.168 (talk) 11:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

The article has been nominated for deletion as it fails WP:GNG and has several issues. Mar4d (talk) 07:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Complicado editar com quem força WP:POINT. Desisto do artigo! Hallel (talk) 13:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 19:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indian century → Indian Century – For consistency with American Century, Asian Century and Chinese Century. Charles Essie (talk) 21:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support It's not about the "century" equivalent in some Indian timekeeping method. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per 70.50.151.11. OccultZone (Talk) 19:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support for consistency with the American Century and British Century articles. Xoloz (talk) 18:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Talk pages merged

I text-merged Talk:Indian century with Talk:Indian Century subsequent to the article move. The content of the old Indian Century article has been preserved at Talk:Indian Century/Old article in case there is anything of value there. EdJohnston (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]