Talk:India/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

Picture bickering

For the past few months I've only seen this page used to debate on the appropriateness of the pictures. This is never going to end and no consensus is ever going to be reached. The images on the page are sufficient for the moment. Those actively pushing for images to be changed could invest their time in sourcing images for articles that do not have images. =Nichalp «Talk»= 02:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Indian Hockey

The Rich hockey tradition in Coorg (Kodagu), Karnataka (see Kodava Hockey Festival) and no doubt Punjab and a few other states needs to be mentioned just as soccer in Bengal, Goa and Kerela finds particualr mention in the below sentence, at the bottom of the article.

India's national sport is field hockey, though cricket is the most popular Indian sport. In some states, particularly those in the northeast and the states of West Bengal, Goa, and Kerala, football (soccer) is also a popular sport.

thanksDineshkannambadi (talk) 04:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, both Coorg ([1]) and Punjab ([2]) are reported as the cradle of Indian hockey.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Dwaipayan, user:Dineshkannambadi can't keep adding POV text like " the cradle on (sic) Indian hockey," which, in addition to being grammatically incorrect, implies that all hockey in India was nurtured there. As I have shown below, a large part of Indian hockey, including many of the greats, are not from Punjab or Coorg. user:Dineshkannambadi has now gone ahead and made the changes, without full discussion here, in spite of data that I have presented to the contrary, which he minimizes as "rant." Since I have promised to not edit the article, I won't; however, these edits should be reverted. The user is again trying to introduce regional themes (involving his state, Karnataka), so soon after his previous abortive attempt. Why not simply mention Dhyan Chand, since he is the undisputed great of Indian and World Hockey – like Bradman for cricket or Pele for soccer – and his birthday is celebrated as National Sports Day in India (if you want a vignette)? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Its amazing that one small hill district has produced 50 players of international standards, and a few who actually captained India at the highest levels. I prefer to ignore the ranting underneath.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I have added the citations for "cradle of field hockey" with the links provided above by User:Dwaipayanc just above.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to stay away from editing this page, but I don't think anything needs to be mentioned with regards hockey, unless we want a long list. Of the top ten greats of Indian hockey: (1. Dhyan Chand, 2. Roop Singh, 3. K. D. Singh (Babu), 4. Leslie Claudis, 5. Balbir Singh Sr., 6. Inam-ur-Rehman , 7. B. P. Govinda, 8. Surjit Singh, 9. Mohammad Shahid 10. Dhanraj Pillay), six (Numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9) were from UP or MP, two from Punjab, one each from Karnataka/Coorg and Maharashtra, not counting Ashok Kumar (also from UP), who selected the players for the list. In addition, Bombay had a rich tradition with R. S. Gentle, Leslie Pinto, etc. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

In India's Ministry of Sports' Sports Legends, the men's hockey list is a little longer: Ajit Pal Singh (Punjab), Ashok Kumar (UP), Balbir Singh (Punjab), B. P. Govinda (Karnataka/Coorg), Charanjit Singh (HP), Dhanraj Pillai (Maharashtra), Dhyan Chand (UP), Harbinder Singh Chimini (Punjab), Harmik Singh (Punjab), Kunwar Digvijay Singh "Babu" (UP), Leslie Walter Claudis (MP), M. P. Ganesh (Karnataka/Coorg), Mohammad Shahid (UP), Prithipal Singh (Punjab), Shankar Laxman (MP), Surjit Singh Randhawa (Punjab), Udham Singh (Punjab), Vasudevan Baskaran (Tamil Nadu), V. J. Peter (Tamil Nadu)

Punjab (7), UP (4), MP (2), Karnataka/Coorg (2), Tamil Nadu (2), Maharashtra (1), HP (1)

How are we going to divvy it up? Mention all seven states? Hockey is the national sport. It is played in a lot of places. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The article India is not a page where keep adding info related to a particular state. We all know, India is written in WP:SS style and hence WP:UNDUE should be kept in mind. I must however add that the the info on Coorg is certainly fit for Hockey in India and Coorg articles. KnowledgeHegemony 16:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protect

I've semi-protected this article due to the repeat disruption by anon and new users over the last few days. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 17:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

North indian biased page

In the cultural column why that Toda hut of Tamil Nadu had been replaced by lotus temple of Delhi.More over I poste d the Pic of the The Big Temple Of Thanjavur.why was it deleted though it is master piece in Native indian art and declared as a world heritage sit —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arun1paladin (talk • contribs) 15:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[arun1paladin] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arun1paladin (talk • contribs) 15:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

If it is cultural rotation why Taj Mahal pic is not removed.It is not superior to the temple of Thanjavur jus tbecause it is famous [arun1paladin] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.229.168 (talk) 16:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Taj mahal should be in history section

Taj mahal was built during moghal empire. 3 images

1. early history
2. moghal empire
3. british rule / freedom fight

These 3 images would portray history of India in a graphical way. If not Taj, some other moghal architecture image would suit for history section. Also im unable to fathom how Taj belongs to culture?? :( Vital brick 1 (talk) 04:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Awesome

Awesome article.....I am impressed ...I just stopped by to congratulate the guys over this work.....nice ...really impressive...Keep up the good work Yourdeadin (talk) 09:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Yourdeadin

National Animal

The national animal is Tiger. It is not specifically the Royal Bengal Tiger, though the adjective "Royal Bengal" sounds good, its not correct to be talking of the Indian National Animal. Please correct the National animal to "Tiger". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srinivasbt (talk • contribs) 07:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Poverty Image

User Otolemur crassicaudatus insists on adding an image[3] of people living in absolute poverty. I think mentioning poverty in india in the text is enough and placing a link at the top of the economy section for "poverty in india" is enough and I certainly dont think that an image needs to be used.

• This image shows absolute poverty, which does not represent all of india. Yes, India has a lot of poor, but they certainly dont live like this. This image is very misleading.

• Also, there is poverty in every country. I see poverty everytime I walk in downtown Los Angeles. I see poverty when I walk in Manhattan, New York the world's financial capital. I live in what is considered the richest area in America [ Beverly Hills, Hollywood, Bel Air, Brentwood ], yet I can tell you first hand that there is some poverty here as well. It is nothing new and it is nothing unique to India. I hope the examples made my point clear. The text in the economy section and also the "See also" link to poverty in india at the top of the economy section is enough.

• Every country has poverty, but there is no specification that every country article on wiki must have an image of poverty, so why should just the India page? This is an attempt to deride india by a user who obviously does not have a liking for the country as can be judged by his edits: [4]

• Also, what happened to picture quality? User Fowler always taks about getting quality images on the page that are featured, so how can he explain his addition of this image, which is certainly not quality? [5]

• Image does not show economy, "the system of human activities related to the production, distribution, exchange, and consumption of goods and services of a country or other muffin."

• If this image goes on the India page, I might be justified in putting an image of the Mukesh Ambani family sitting in their skyscraper under the caption "Shown here is the world's richest family in their skyscraper"

Nikkul (talk) 22:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

indeed. it is important to mention issues like poverty, but if we began to illustrate country articles with images showing their least attractive sides, it isn't just the India article that would soon look radically different (one such suggestion was made here... :). Making a point by image choice is to be strongly discouraged. dab (𒁳) 20:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a propaganda website nor a website of the tourism department of a country trying to attract foreign tourists. Wikipedia is general encyclopedia should be written from a neutral point of view. Poverty exists in India, exits despite significant economic progress. It is not neutral to try to illustrate only the attractive sides of a country. A country page in wikipedia should not be written in a way depicting the country a utopia, a country page should be written with verificable, relevant and necessary true facts.

• What is the reason behind saying "Image does not show economy the system of human activities related to the production, distribution, exchange, and consumption of goods and services of a country or other muffin." Poverty is a significant issue in India and poverty is an integral part of economy. Hence the necessity of the image in the Ecvonomy section.

• Can Hikkul prove that the image is "very misleading"?

Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Your image does not represent economy, "the system of human activities related to the production, distribution, exchange, and consumption of goods and services of a country or other muffin."
• Also, there is no sentence showing India as a utopia. If this were the case, there would be no mention of poverty and malnutrition, and economic degredation and illiteracy, and especially in the intro. There is nothing illustrating attractive sides of the country unless it is balanced by the unattractive like the intro paragraph
• We agree that there is poverty, but there is no need to have an image. Go try putting an image of poverty in america in the economy section on the us page see if it will stay.
• This is a featured article that has been reviewed by many editors and admins and it has stayed a featured article because it is neutral.
• Can you prove that all indians in poverty live like this?

Nikkul (talk) 21:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

If you put this image in the economy section, I will be justified in putting an image of the Mukesh Ambani family sitting in their skyscraper under the caption "Shown here is the world's richest family in their skyscraper" Nikkul (talk) 22:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Images of poverty to be used in articles is right. But it must be uptodate information. And the policy cannot be applicable to one particular article about India. It must be there in the article of all nations. Since this picture was taken three years before, I wish I could know about the people. Are they still beggers or they have found a better life.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 06:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The image caption should be "The result of 400 years of colonialism. 60 years is not enough to better everyone's life."Chanakyathegreat (talk) 06:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The poverty picture can stay in a separate page depicting Poverty of India. But not in this page. I would also remind other patrons/editors that such scene does exist in India as I have travelled from Bangalore to Delhi covering 7 states, 4 National Highways and what I have seen is immense poverty which you guys sitting in air-conditioned room can never even imagine off. I have worked with the slum children and construction workers children in NCR. I have seen them eating only a roti in entire day.

We can have a separate page for poverty in India or ECONOMIC Re-surgence of India.

Regarding the TAJ photo it is one of the 7 new wonders of world and represents a traditional, design rich architecture form India. It marks the history of this great country who witnessed so many historic events from Mughal invasion to British rule to modern India.

Guys lets adhere to Wiki polocies and be more judgemental in editing. At the end of the day none of you will want your editing rights to be revoked. Isnt'it.

AB (talk) 12:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• I have removed some flaming and personal attacks, and discussion of personal attacks per WP:TALK. Take such things to user talkpages, this page is burdened enough as it is. This page is exclusively for directly discussing article improvement in specific terms.
• the poverty image is appropriate on poverty in India but not here. Try to avoid Wikipedia:Main article fixation.

dab (𒁳) 14:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Taj Mahal, a part of the daily rotation?

The Taj Mahal, an FP, is a long-term (permanent) image in the culture section and has not been a part of the daily rotation template. Some users have included it now in the images to be voted on. I wanted to clarify that there first needs to be a consensus that the Taj image should be removed from its long-term place.

• Im sorry, let us make it clear that nothing is permanent on Wikipedia. Things change. Thats the difference between Encarta and Wikipedia.
• Second of all, the the Taj image is not being removed it is being placed in a rotation. This will give us a better chance of representing Indian culture since the reader will be exposed to more images about Indian culture.
• The Taj image isnt sooooooo crucial that it must remain on the india page for ever with no option to change it ever. Please! It relates more to history than culture anyway, which is what I feel (and you dont have to agree)
• Putting the Taj in the rotation will allow us to better display Indian culture.
• Also, we could have two rotations: One relating to architecture with a few architecture images as shown above. The other image rotation could be other cultural things like Diwali and Tagore and Sakuntala etc. Nikkul 08:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

"Nothing is permanent on Wikipedia?" Is that a Wikipedia official policy or guideline? After all, none of the other country pages – Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Russia, People's Republic of China, United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Greece, Ireland, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Peru, Australia, New Zealand, and Indonesia – to name a few, have daily or even monthly rotation.

Why this hurriedly propounded categorical imperative for India? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Im sorry, I think that little tab up top that says "edit this page" means that nothing is permanent and that Wikipedia is always changing for the better. I'm not sure if it was you, but someone earlier on had proposed that we stop editing the India page since it was a featured article. This goes against wiki policy.

There is no hurry. I dont see why you feel rushed. There is no deadline. We will wait and see what users think about each image. But for users to discuss images, they must be added in a place where they can discuss them. That is what has happened today. I hope i've caught you up with todays events. Dont worry we will wait and see the comments we get about the images from users and once we have consensus on images, we will add them to the rotation. Nikkul 09:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me read this out to you fowler since you think everything is permanent on wikipedia:

"The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold when updating pages. Wikis like ours develop faster when everybody helps to fix problems, correct grammar, add facts, make sure the wording is accurate, etc. We expect everyone to be bold and help make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia"

"Don't be afraid to edit — anyone can edit almost any page, and we encourage you to be bold! Find something that can be improved, whether content, grammar or formatting, and make it better. You can't break Wikipedia. Anything can be fixed or improved later. So go ahead, edit an article and help make Wikipedia the best information source on the Internet!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikkul (talk • contribs) 09:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Vote against making the Taj image a part of the rotation template and letting it remain in its current position

• Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Pretty obvious, really. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 09:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Obvious, Taj must be permanently placed.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• No question. KnowledgeHegemony 17:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• See my reasons in previous discussions on this page Rangek (talk) 18:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Quite obvious really. I thought there was a huge talk over this just last month.Rueben lys (talk) 11:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse the arguments supporting this side from the discussion below. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 22:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• Agree, of course. ~ priyanath talk 02:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• Wiki dr mahmad 12:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC) Rotation is against availability of info at all times. May we place it in history section?

Vote for making the Taj image a part of the rotation template and moving it from its current position

• Nikkul 08:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Can those saying Taj should be hardcoded into the page give some reasons why you think that way? No 'COZILIKEITs please. Sarvagnya 19:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Name a single architectural creation of India. Ask this question to as many people around the world as possible. Among those who will answer (Many may not be able to answer), I daresay the unanimious majority would be Taj Mahal. The Taj is a cultural icon of Indian architecture as well as Mughal architecture. Yes, despite such rich architectural heritage as Konark, Madurai, Ajanta, Kutub, Lal Killa, Vijaynagar (and so on), Taj remains the numero uno. Everything comes afterwards. Taj and Gandhi are the most knows names from India. That's why.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You're saying.. coz not just ulikeit.. but manypeoplelikeit. And secondly, why should I ask them about "architectural creation" specifically? Sorry, doesnt cut it. Sarvagnya 06:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The one-liner then — the taj mahal is the number one cultural icon of India. (There may be others, but Taj is number one). Don't ask about "architectural' creations only, generalize it to culture broadly. This "wonder of the world" is the number one culture icon of India.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

"the taj mahal is the number one cultural icon of India" - ILIKEIT-itis again? The liner makes for a good slogan, yes.. but it is not remotely a verifiable fact. Anything else? btw, am also curious about that 'wonder of the world' thing. sez who? Sarvagnya 06:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Taj is one of the seven wonders of the modern world and the most recognised and historically significant monument in the country. We are not here to deal with subjectivity. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 06:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

imo, the sarnath pillar or Ashoka's edicts can easily give the Taj a run for its money as the most historically significant monuments. Sarvagnya 06:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Then, let's stress on "most recognised"—how's that?--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The debated New 7 wonders has concluded Taj as one of the wonders. Other "wonder-lists" such as this include Taj as one of the wonders. However, these lists are sometimes debated, and their validity questioned (the new 7 wonder was based on polls by sms etc). But, that Taj is the only entry from India in these lists goes on to show that wonder or not, it is India's most recognised cultural icon.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

That 7 new wonders is some enterprising businessman's POV. Not encyclopedic. Not fact. For that matter, in a similar contest organised by the Times of India Gomateshwara was "Wonder No. 1"(by miles, actually) while Taj was a poor third. *over* Sarvagnya 20:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I already admitted that new wonder thing is much debated. Let's have a look at Wonders of the World. It has many lists. Some lists feature Taj mahal, some does not. However, the only entry from India is Taj Mahal, otherwise none from India. Whether becasue of writings of the travellers, or other forms of publicity, I don't know, but Taj is the number one cultural icon of India. There are a lot of other treasures of India comparably significant or aesthetically pleasant. But, taj has somehow become the number 1 icon. Now that it has become so, we cannot help that. It is not a matter of "I like it". Yes, it is a question of "Majority knows it, recognises it". --Dwaipayan (talk) 20:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

POV, regardless of how many people share it, is still POV. Not fact. Not even tangible. For that matter, it is an equally(perhaps more) widely held POV that "Sachin is the greatest!!" That doesnt mean we hardcode Sachin into an article even at the expense of stubbing out the likes of Vishy Anand, Milkha Singh, P T Usha, Prakash Padukone et al. Does it? Sarvagnya 21:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, the Taj isnt to India what the Statue of Liberty is to the US. The Taj has little or no historical significance. Beautiful for a cemetry, yes. But not much else. Sarvagnya 21:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

oops, you denied it right before I was going to put it. Exactly it is. Staue of Liberty-USA, Pyramid-Egypt, Eiffel Tower-France; so is Taj-India. I am not talking about historical sigificance. Am talking about the association (that has developed for maybe some weird reason, but the association has developed). --Dwaipayan (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

All those monuments except the Taj are associated with their native countries for very good and very tangible(non POV) reasons. All of them are historically extremely significant to their home countries. That apart, the Eiffel tower and the pyramids were engineering feats of their time of their country (biggest, tallest etc.,.). In fact, they still are. Nothing else in Egypt, for example, can compare either in sheer size or in terms of historical significance to its pyramids. None of this is true in the case of the Taj. Simply saying.. "aah! its so beautiful.. it takes my breath away!" doesnt fly because wikipedia fortunately has a NPOV policy. Sarvagnya 21:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

One particular image cannot be there for ever. I support including Taj in the rotation policy.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 15:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Dwaipayanc, there are certain reason for giving the Taj the importance whereas neglecting other historical important, beautiful architectural marvels. It's the western way of looking at things. Especially from a religious perspective.[6]. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Chanakya! The video link you provided was extremely good, the lost temples of India. However, the initial sentences in the video (This is the face of India the whole world knows...Taj Mahal...) is precisely why the taj Mahal image should be there on the page. It may be wrong (in your words, the western way...) to consider Taj as the face/cultural icon of India. But, the fact is, it is considered so, at least at present, despite India having so many marvelous monuments/temples/structures.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

In light of Chanakya's comments above, I am a bit confused. Is it that keeping the image gives prominence to Islamic architecture, or that it gives prominence only to one historical (sans religious) site while ignoring others? While the Taj is accepted one of the most beautiful examples of islamic architecture, that is not its only identity. As Dwaipayan points out, it is amongst the most beutiful architectures in the world. And Taj and India is a bit like you think Statue of Liberty for USA, or the Colloseum when you say Rome. And I must disagree with Sarvagnya, because the Taj itself is (was) also an achievement for when it was built. And I dont see how it violates the NPOV policy, if a view is shared by a huge majority of people, that is a mainstream view, although I cant see what's nonneutral with thinking, the Taj is one of the most beuatiful buildings in India and in the world.Rueben lys (talk) 11:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The Taj Should be added to the rotation list and should not be used as a permanent image (Arun1paladin (talk) 10:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)arun1paladin)

Minor edit in the preamble of this article: A suggestion

We have at present the text: -

Bounded by the Indian Ocean on the south, the Arabian Sea on the west, and the Bay of Bengal on the east, India has a coastline of 7,517 kilometers (4,671 mi).[12] It borders...

Can we rewrite it as: -

India's lower half, a triangular peninsula, is bounded by the Indian Ocean on the south, the Arabian Sea on the west, and the Bay of Bengal on the east, creating a coastline of 7,517 kilometers (4,671 mi).[12] Her vast, northern, upper half borders ...

I am rather new here and do not know how a protected article receives edits. Please look at the proposed emendation and incorporate it if acceptable. Thanks. Wiki dr mahmad 16:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries (lead section). Geographical features are typically not mentioned in the lead (see also other country articles like United States, United Kingdom, Australia). Please also see WP:SS. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Fowler. Incredible; how fast it works here ! I saw the USA article. Now, will it be proper to improve the sentence strucure (it is not conveying the country's coast line and borders info in accurate language), or drop from the lead this somewhat inaccurate geographical boundries sentence altogether? Your decision and further action please. Thanks again for the message. Wiki dr mahmad —Preceding comment was added at 18:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The current sentence is fine. Your proposed sentence is not an improvement. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I close this topic. Have a nice day. Wiki dr mahmad —Preceding comment was added at 19:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Ganges Image

The Ganges River is the most important river in India. It is not only a cultural and religious landmark, but also a huge geographical structure that has made India, for it provides water, sanitation, and agriculture to millions of Indians. How can we not have an image of the Ganges? Nikkul (talk) 20:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

What is the significance of the ganges image in Geography section with reference to a particular religion? This image can be opposed for various reasons:

• This image shows a scene of a river. Any river in India can be photographed like this. Ganges is an important river in India. But this particular image does not clarify the significance of Ganges.
• In geography section, it would be better to add maps or something like that. Hence a map showing rivers in India can be added.
• What is the significance to mention Hinduism? The significance of something to a particular religion should be mentioned in religion section, not in geography section. The Geography section is not the right place to talk about something with reference to religion.Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

How would u liked the ganges to be photographed?

• It is a river...with water. how else can u show a river. all rivers look similar.
• there already is a map of rivers and geography
• if u dont like the mention of hinduism in the caption, u can change the caption. there is no need to remove the image entirely

Nikkul (talk) 20:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The picture (Ganges) is not informative enough as it is. We may substitute another picture which shows the river and includes a Kumbh-mela scene, or the cremations, on its ghats; it could appear in another section e.g. on Religions or cultures of India.Wiki dr mahmad (talk) 17:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Geography section

I have replaced the current illustrations (one too high-res with little annotation, the other anonymous with little information) in the Geography section with two maps from the Geography of India page. These maps illustrate the text perfectly. I hope these edits will be acceptable. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

What is the point of having one map that shows rivers and mountains and having another map that shows just rivers? Thats pointless. What do u mean anonymous? The Ganges is a very very important river and having just maps for the page is bad. I have brought the ganges image back. please discuss having two images showing the same thing before adding it to the page. there is no opposition to the ganges image as long as it doesnt mention hinduism. Nikkul 04:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The maps illustrate the text perfectly. The "rivers" map shows a reader where the rivers are in relation to each other, something that your Ganges image does not. The Ganges image is anonymous because any river could look like that in a picture. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Why dont we just make the whole page just maps? In the history section, we can show the british raj in a map and Gandhi's Salt March route in a map. For the government section, we can show where New Delhi is. For the flora section we can show in which regions the animals live and for the culture section, we can show the culural divide in india. Infact, why have text when you can have maps? Lets just have a series of maps or just one giant map!!! Nikkul 20:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The rivers of India.

The Ganges River is a major river in India

That is because Geography is about maps. (Compare the Wikipedia pages on Geography and History. Where do you see the map?) Here is the text from the India#Geography section about rivers:

“ Major Himalayan-origin rivers that substantially flow through India include the Ganges and the Brahmaputra, both of which drain into the Bay of Bengal. Important tributaries of the Ganges include the Yamuna and the Kosi, nicknamed "Bihar's Sorrow", whose extremely low gradient causes disastrous floods every year. Major peninsular rivers–whose steeper gradients prevent their waters from flooding–include the Godavari, the Mahanadi, the Kaveri, and the Krishna, which also drain into the Bay of Bengal, and the Narmada and the Tapti, which drain into the Arabian Sea. ”

It really is a nobrainer as to which of the two illustrations is more informative, especially when the "Ganges" image is about as unencylopedic as an image can get. There is nothing in the image that gives us any information about the Ganges. The body of water displayed could be a lake, or the ocean, or any other river like the Brahmaputra, Nile, Amazon, ... Please re-read Mikaul's comments on your Qutub Minar FPC image. The same applies here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I have replaced rivers, as topo is essential, for who can understand pic. But currently there is no image showing something related to hinduism. Mind you India is motherland for hindus. Some hindu temple would be appropriate, dont say ajantha caves carvings.. Vital brick 1 11:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Topographic map of India

Hinduism in the Geography section? Why is the topographical map essential? (It is displayed on the right.) Especially, when it is too high-res to be useful? It doesn't have the names of the rivers, only cities. Almost like someone was trying to turn a physical map into a political map. On the other hand, you are right, it does give some visual and finer scaled information that the other map doesn't. Let me suggest the following compromise. Later in the day, I will add the names of the rivers to the topographical map (shown on the right) and reduce it in size a little and then replace it with the current rivers map. How does that sound? Please don't revert until then. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I've asked Nichalp to weigh in (since he made the two maps). Why don't we hold off making further decisions until we've heard from him? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

How about adding the names of the mountains and the rivers to the original map instead of replacing the original with two new maps. This page is not supposed to be all maps. We have maps in demographics and subdivisions already. Nikkul 21:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Kangchenjunga, highest point in Indian Himalaya

Here's another suggestion for a geography image, in place of one of the maps. I agree with others that the Ganges image 'says' nothing visually, whereas this (or another like it) visually 'says' Indian Himalaya. (no, I'm not back editing the article yet, just suggesting one possible solution to yet another image discussion.) ~ priyanath talk 02:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

These days rivers are of least significance. Its climate, rain, soil, forest etc are what matters in geography. Topo map says it all clearly, and it is there in "every" other country's article. Vital brick 1 03:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Huh? "Its climate, rain, soil, forest etc" What are you talking about? All that this topographic map has is altitude. All countries don't have topographic maps. To be sure, some like United States and Peru do, others like United Kingdom and Australia don't (they have climate maps); others still, like France and Canada have satellite images. I tend to agree with a combination of Nikkul and Priyanath's suggestions: label the rivers in the first map (Nichalp's map with caption "Topographical features of India) and replace the second map with the Kinchenjunga image (which looks like a nice high-def image). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, altitude determines climate, rain, forests etc etc and etc,(or those can be "guessed" by altitude data) if one can understand a topographic map. It is an encyclopedia which is supposed to be professional, not to teach a layman with text-labeled-images like textbooks. Vital brick 1 16:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Why dont we add names of mountains and rivers to the original topo map? This can be done instead of having two maps. Nikkul (talk) 06:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Topographic map shown here is valuable in itself. I wish it were not lost due to this discussion and finds a place somewhere; with manageable zooming and labeling as suggested separately by Users F&F and Nikkul. That map would aid specific groups in understanding the role of topology in quite a few areas of interest, e.g. the pathways of evolution of ancient civilizations and subsequent largescale political/religio-cultural events in this part of South Asia, (not to mention prehistoric Vedic/Poranic accounts); adding more maps may be considered. Thanks. Wiki dr mahmad (talk) 18:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Taj debate: My two cents !

We know India is bigger than many countries of Western Europe put together. And so, expectedly, perceptions on monuments and cultures are so different in its four corners. Can we resolve the Taj issue by adding more pictures permanently, as follows?

1. If, in addition to Taj monument, we accommodate at appropriately chosen locations in the article more permanent pictures, e.g. of Minakshi temple, Madurai (with an additional photo of its great interior architecture)/ Konark temple, Khajuraho (and an example of its famous exterior iconography)/ Gomteshwara statue, Karnataka/ Golden temple, Amritsar and Ashoka’s pillar, Delhi (or one important stupa), we might overcome various objections put forth by other Users.

2. Cultures may better be represented by show casing Durga puga/procession (Bengal), Ganpati pendal/procession (Maharashtra), Diwali illumination (North India), Onam (or Ayyappam) celeberation (Kerala), Kumbh Mela scene etc.

Please consider. Thanks. Wiki dr mahmad 18:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. Taj has nothing to do with "culture", it should be moved to some other section, preferable to history section. Also there is no image related hindus. Hindus are little over-secular that they feel it is shame to call themselves so. Vital brick 1 03:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I have been stating this forever. Finally, someone who understands! Nikkul (talk) 06:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

why don't you take the Brihadeeshwara temple of Thanjavur.It is several times better than the Madurai Meenakashi temple .Brihadeeshwara temple is an architectural and engineering wonder.It is a WORLD HERITAGE SITE.The shadow of the capstone of the temple's tower never falls on ground !! [user talk:arun1paladin|talk] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.226.158 (talk) 15:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC) (talkArun1paladin (talk) 15:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC))

Caste system

I don't really understand why there is no link to the caste system. It's one of the most distinguished key-terms, that is, it's significantly related to India and its people but is not indexed in this article. Is there any reason for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.157.215.108 (talk) 21:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Archives

Does anyone know why Archive 37, 38 and 39 don't show up in the display? Also, why is Archive 28 displayed as Archive 18? (I think these problems may have begun with the automated archiving, but I'm not sure.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

see Template_talk:archive box. The feature has been altered for performance reasons and a new solution has not been implemented yet. (John User:Jwy talk) 08:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Complications about use of the word "India"

This:

Due to national pride and sensitivities, South Asian nations now insist that, use of the word "India" should be restricted to describe only the present "Republic of India" and should avoid including its other South Asian neighbours in it. Further, they argue that the Indus valley civilization was shared by present day Republic of India and Pakistan and this fact should always be explicitly stated. In order to be neutral, and in fareness to both sides, the International scholarship is now careful in the correct usage of these 'politically loaded' words.

was edited into the India (disambiguation) page by Wiki dr mahmad. I think it inappropriate there as - well - its a disambiguation page for quick access to the various uses of the word and not for the discussion of the word. I experienced first hand some of the difficulties of this topic when I attempted to standardize the dab page, so I know there is at least some truth to this statement. I would suggest a some mention of this difficulty on this page - or a short mention and further details on a referenced page.

I don't have the citations to create such content and, frankly, am far enough removed from the issues that I prefer not to get in the middle of any discussion that might ensue - but I think it is clearly a topic that should be addressed in Wikipedia. (John User:Jwy talk) 09:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

hello

hello —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.63.28 (talk) 23:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, how are you? Welcome to Wikipedia. If you need some help, please ask us. Saravask (talk) 04:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Why was the "Hindustan" etymology shortened?

Why was

Hindustan (), which is the Persian word for “Land of the Hindus” and historically referred to northern India, is also occasionally used as a synonym for all of India.

changed to

Hindustan (), is also occasionally used as a synonym for all of India

59.182.42.143 (talk) 18:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Old version reinstated. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

New data about the state of the world economy (and India's too!!!)

The ICP [7] released data for the year 2005, containing measured data from China (for the first time) and India (first time since 1985), as against EXTRAPOLATED data we had come to rely on (through CIA et. al.) over the last decade. The news item that compelled me to have a fresh look is here. Articles on Economy of India and others need to be updated.

I am looking forward to discussion/criticism, but please vet the data on the WB web site before refuting or undoing changes. The report (with individual tables, region wise data) is available here.

Pizzadeliveryboy (talk) 12:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The World Bank is literally a bank. Their use is to give loans and take interest...The International Monetary Fund, on the other hand, monitors money and the CIA World Fact book is also a credible source. The IMF and CIA both say that the Indian econ is 3rd or 4th so how can u justify that the World Bank's info is more credible that the first two combined? Nikkul (talk) 22:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

As I have already indicated above, both the World Bank and the IMF (according to the New York Times) will soon officially revise their PPP estimates. India will then be the fifth largest economy. The quibbling above will become moot. BTW, the World Bank is not "literally a bank." Both the World Bank and the IMF are nonprofit organizations that offer loans to needy countries and charge very low interest rates (0.5 to 1%). They are nothing like commercial banks. The money comes from donor countries, primarily the U.S., the advanced economies of Europe, and Japan. The donor countries provide the money interest-free and the minimal interest is used to finance the operating budgets of the two institutions (the salaries of the advisers, the economists, and the administrative staff). The difference between the World Bank and the IMF is that the former finances only development projects and gives advice on them, while the latter loans money and looks for implementation of changes in monetary policy and gives advice on that. To say that the World Bank or the IMF will somehow raise the PPP index so that they can get more interest, is ludicrous. The CIA book is fluff and usually outdated in any given year. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Nikkul. Either we list the CIA or the International Monetary Fund estimates (since their estimates are almost identical) or we put all 3. I've seen it on other countries page so I know it's an acceptable compromise. Cosmos416 23:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, maybe I'm missing something. If an institution lends money out for a specific period of time and charges interest on it, does it not make it a bank? Hence the World BANK is literally a bank, else it would not be called a bank, Fowler. The CIA and IMF, both credible sources, say that India is third for 07 and fourth for 06. These two, reliable sources together contradict and overpower the World Bank's opinion. And the fact that you think the CIA book is fluff is your opinion. It is considered very reliable and most country articles use it as a reference. Understand that when you have two equally reliable sources that contradict a third equally reliable source, the two overpower the one. Nikkul (talk) 05:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

You are missing a lot. A bank, according to the OED, is "An establishment for the custody of money received from, or on behalf of, its customers. Its essential duty is the payment of the orders given on it by the customers; its profits arise mainly from the investment of the money left unused by them."

• A bank's principal function is not to lend money to customers, but rather to borrow money from them, provide them interest, and then invest the money elsewhere to make its profits.
• Both the World Bank and the IMF are non-profit organizations.
• The donor countries (principally the US, advanced economies of Europe, Australia, Canada, and Japan) do not receive any interest for the money that is borrowed from them. Their loans are interest free.
• Neither the World Bank, nor the IMF invest the borrowed money in the private market to make profits (like commercial banks).
• The very low interest, 0.5 to 1%, charged to developing countries like India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Tanzania, Malawi, etc. that borrow the money, is used to finance the operating costs of the institutions, and that alone.
• The IMF is no more and no less a "bank" (in your terminology) than the World Bank is.

According to the New York Times, both the IMF and the World Bank will revise their PPP estimates (officially) in the next six months; in the interim, you are welcome to have your moment in the sun, and push India up to position three. Meanwhile, the other reality that India is ranked 126 in per capita income and 128 (slipped from 127 last year) in the UN's Human Development Index—well behind Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Thailand, Iran, and Malaysia—will remain the uncomfortable backdrop to the gloating. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully writing more realistically about India's state may make the country progress more quickly, since Wikipedia's article is heavily viewed and is growing in its influence. Glamorising India is not propaganda or anything, but doing so excessively will only create an arrogant and lazy society. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 09:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Although I am inclined to accept Fowler's commentary as credible, it remains original research. Maybe some of the details from the new report from the World Bank can be included in the articles. The general attitude of a society is none of our business. We do not edit with an agenda. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Foreign Relations in Intro

Many major country articles have a sentence about foreign relations. India should have the same. I have added the sentence 'India is a founding member of the United Nations, Non-Aligned Movement and SAARC as well as an active member in the WTO, G8+5, and G20; India is also a nuclear power." to the intro, but Fowler keeps deleting it. Here are my reasons why this is important:

• These countries all mention it: United States of America, United Kingdom, Japan, Pakistan, France, People's Republic of China, Russia, Malaysia, South Korea, Germany, Italy, (i can go on). This is an encyclopedia, meaning that every country article should be similar in format. This is not anyone's myspace. Thus, we should conform.
• India's nuclear status is one that only 8 countries have, thus making India unique
• India's nuclear weapons have made India stand out of the ordinary and have had a great impact on economic sanctions, global status and regional power
• India is a founding memeber of many well-known international organizations and has served in the UN Peacekeeping missions.
• An INTRO should introduce each section. This line introduces the foreign relations and miltary section.

Nikkul (talk) 05:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• Most countries pages you have mentioned are not Featured Articles. Of the 16 country FAs (other than India), 11 (Australia, Cambodia, Canada, Cameroon, Chad, Indonesia, Israel, Libya, South Africa, Peru, and Turkey) do not mention "foreign relations," G-8, UN, Nuclear, etc. while only five (Bangladesh, Belgium, Germany, Japan, and Pakistan) do. What does that tell you?
• Obviously, the lead doesn't introduce every section, otherwise, the 11 FAs would have the Foreign Relations information in the lead, or alternatively, India would have sentences on Government, Politics, and contemporary Culture in its lead.
• WikiProject Countries doesn't say anything about mentioning foreign relations, nuclear, military, etc. in the lead.
• This issue has been discussed many times before on this page. Each time the consensus has been against including this material. If you want to change it, you will have to establish new consensus. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

It makes sense for small nations like Cambodia, Cameroon, etc. not to mention foreign relations because they dont have much power and are not major players. India on the other hand is a global player with 1/6 of humanity. The India page should have the same foreign relations info that other major countries have. India is one of the few nuclear powers. India is one of the few major developing countries. We have to look at articles like USA, UK, Italy, Pakistan, Malaysia, etc. Not poor, under developed countries like Chad, Camerroon, Libya which have no influence on global politics.

If the Pakistan article can say 'Pakistan was a founding member of the OIC, SAARC, D8 and ECO. It is also a member of the UN, WTO, G33, G77 and is a nuclear power.' Why cant India??? Both are featured articles.

Even the Bangladesh article has a sentence on foreign relations. Why can't India??? Nikkul (talk) 15:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• "Not poor underdeveloped countries like Chad, Camerroon (sic), Libya ..." It would interest you to know that in the List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita, a leading measure of poverty, Libya is ranked 50, Cameroon is ranked 127. Where is India? It's rank is 132. As for the other country FAs, Australia, Canada, Israel, South Africa, and Turkey, which are every bit as much "international players" as India, don't include that information; similarly Brazil (often compared with India), Argentina, Chile don't include it either.
• You can make ad hoc arguments all you want. I too can come up with ad hoc reasons. How about adding, "India has the highest number of malnourished people of any country in the world; this number includes one third of the world's malnourished children. A majority of its citizens do not have clean drinking water or drainage. Its last epidemic of the bubonic plague occurred in the western states of Maharashtra and Gujarat in 1994." right before you add the bit about the nuclear power?

The bottom line is that on this page, the consensus has been against including these details. You cannot add the material unless you establish new consensus. Until such time as a new consensus is reached in favor of your edits, I will either keep reverting them, or or keep adding balancing edits whose rationale will be equally ad hoc. So, I urge you to remove your edits before I get to them. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

My edits are backed with evidence that this has been done before.

• Fowler- Can you find me any country article which says anything about malnourished children? or about clean drinking water in the intro? Your arguements are novice and havent been used before. Mine have been done before.
• United States of America, United Kingdom, Japan, Pakistan, France, People's Republic of China, Russia, Malaysia, South Korea, Germany, Italy, Bangladesh (i can go on) ALL have something about foreign relations.
• China and Pakistan, which is more often compared to India than Brazil both have foreign relations in their intro's
• I can also delete all of your editions to the page like Skakuntala and say "please discuss before including" and then i can also make excuses for not including it on the page before consensus. This will just make everything harder, but it can be done. Also, fowler, India's per capita income is always going to be lower because of its population even if the economy exceed's the US. That is not a fair comparison. If you look at the total economy, India is ranked third while Libya, Camaroon, Chad, etc are far, far far away from the top. Nikkul (talk) 01:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Original image

Fake enhanced image

As I said before, you can come up with ad hoc arguments all you want, but this page had a previous consensus not to include text on G-20, Nuclear power, and founding membership of the UN (in the lead). In any case, it was British India that was a founding member of the UN (which was founded in 1945, long before RoI's independence). There are at least three discussions in the archives. You need to establish new consensus. Plain and simple. Sakuntala, BTW, was discussed here for a long time and a consensus was established long before it made an appearance in the article. Also, please stop replacing user:Priyanath's original image of Kangchenjunga with a fake enhanced image that makes the clouds below Kangchenjunga appear blue and the Himalayan cedar trees a lime green (with highlights of electric green) when the latter are supposed to be fern green. OK? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Nikkul, without any intention to offend you, I see your additions as unnecessary. The lead as it is currently is solid and dense enough. Any further additions is likely to spark a chain reaction with others users wanting to add interesting, yet trivial facts on India which in turn will lead to a futile bloating of the lead section. I personally disagree with your opinion that measuring GDP per capita is unfair. Having the third largest economy is not anything to boast about when it is only high up in the ranks because of the 1.1+ billion people. It is in fact embarrassing that the children of the nation are becoming indirectly patriotic of India's overpopulation. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 09:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is about India not Indians. Hence when you look at the economy, you should look at the overall economy. The per capita economy is more appropriate for the page describing an Indian. Similarly, when we look at culture, we look at overall Indian culture not each individuals culture. It's rediculious to look at per capita income because it will never measure up even if the country's economy grows to double of the US's. Nikkul (talk) 14:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

These countries all mention foreign relations in the intro:

• United States of America,
• United Kingdom,
• Japan,
• Pakistan,
• France,
• People's Republic of China,
• Russia,
• Malaysia,
• South Korea
• Germany,
• Spain
• Italy,
• Algeria
• Austria
• Armenia
• Azerbaijan
• Bangladesh
• Barbados
• Belarus
• Belgium
• Central African Republic fluff in intro
• Colombiafluff about size in intro
• Comoros
• Croatia
• Cyprus
• Czech Republic
• Denmark
• Equatorial Guinea
• Estonia
• Ethiopia
• Finland
• [[Georgia[]]
• Germany
• Greece
• Hungary
• Iceland
• Iran
• Kazakhstan
• Lithuania
• Luxembourg
• Macedonia
• Malta
• Moldova
• Montenegro
• Morocco
• Mozambique
• Namibia
• Netherlands
• Norway fluff
• Portugal
• Romania
• Rwanda
• Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
• Singapore
• Slovakia
• Slovenia
• Switzerland
• Taiwan
• Ukraine
• Uruguay fluff

• Fluff = ridiculous sentences in the intro like “In 2001 The Ecologist magazine estimated that Central African Republic is the world's leading country in sustainable development, that go well beyond mentioning things and can be considered arbitrary bragging.

If all these countries mention Foreign Relations, India must. This is after all an encyclopedia, which means we must maintain uniformity. If we have country infoboxes and uniform layouts, we must also have uniform intros. Nikkul (talk) 17:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Update economy size

According to the latest list released by IMF for 2007, India is now 3rd largest economy in PPP terms ahead of Japan. Please update. --74.140.120.11 (talk) 04:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

done Nikkul (talk) 05:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

user:nikkul, please don't keep inserting the PPP listing first. PPP calculations, while aiming to be more comprehensive are also less accurate. This is especially true in view of the IMF's determination last week that the PPP computations for China and India need to be reduced by 40% on account of the higher price levels in both countries. (That also means that the PPP ranking that you changed above will soon have to be changed again in the opposite direction.) The countries who do list their GDP standing, all list nominal GDP ranking first and then (only sometimes) the PPP ranking. As I have explained in the edit summary, please see the People's Republic of China page, as well as United Kingdom, Germany, and Japan pages. This page itself always had the nominal ranking listed first until you started fiddling with it. Please desist. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Can someone who can please put the GDP (PPP) and per capita rank here? I don't know why it is missing it. User:rotinajeht —Preceding comment was added at 05:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The Nominal GDP figure is also inaccurate. India's nominal GDP is now over one trillion dollars according to several news articles but if that is not a compelling enough source, the 2006 World Bank/IMF estimates still place it at 900 billion.99.238.137.107 (talk) 14:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Change Requested

Someone please change the fact that BSE is India's oldest stock exchange. The Calcutta stock exchange is the oldest stock exchange in India (maybe in Asia too). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.77.169 (talk) 00:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

"Foreign relations" in the lead: the correct numbers

user:Nikkul has stated above that the Wikipedia pages of the majority of the world's nations mention foreign (and/or military) relations in their leads. On the basis of this statement, he has seen fit to add the sentence, "India is a founding member of the United Nations, Non-Aligned Movement and SAARC as well as an active member in the WTO, G8+5, and G20; India is also a nuclear power." It turns out, however, that user:Nikkul's statistics are grossly inaccurate. A majority of the country pages do not make any such mention in their leads. In fact, 135 out of 184 country pages do not mention foreign relations, G-8, NATO, WTO, G20, UN, nuclear power etc. in their leads. This list of these nations is given below. (In it, a handful of European nations mention EU in the context of having no border controls (under the Schengen agreement) and a common currency; two CIS countries mention the UN in the context of their former soviet republic's history; a handful of ex-British colonies mention independence under the Commonwealth in describing their history.) In any case, the total number of such countries in 11 and indicated in parentheses below. Even without them, a substantial majority of the country pages do not have any mention of foreign relations.

Canada, Spain (mentions EU/Schengen), Brazil, India, Australia, Turkey, Sweden (hosts Red Cross and WTO), Taiwan, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Norway, South Africa, Ireland, Argentina, Thailand, Venezuala, United Arab Emirates, Chile, Israel, Colombia, Singapore, Philippines, Nigeria, Egypt, Ukraine (Ukrainian SSR founding member of UN in history), New Zealand, Kuwait, Peru, Kazhakstan, Vietnam, Qatar, Libya, Angola, Ecuador, Sudan, Belarus (Bylorussian SSR founding member of UN, in history), Oman, Syria, Serbia, Dominican Republic, Tunisia, Guatemala, Lithuania (EU/Schengen), Sri Lanka, Kenya, Lebanon, Turkmenistan, Costa Rica, Latvia (EU/Schengen), Yemen, Uruguay, El Salvador, Cameroon, Cyprus (EU/Schengen; independence within Commonwealth), Zimbabwe, Madagascar, Nicaragua, Benin, Niger, Laos, Barbados, Fiji, Malawi, Mongolia, Guinea, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Mauritania, Swaziland, Rwanda (independence within Commonwealth), Togo, Suriname, Lesotho, Central African Republic, Sierra Leone, Eritrea, Cape Verde, Antigua and Barbuda, Bhutan, Gabon, Paraguay, Uganda, Senegal, Honduras, Nepal, Equitorial Guinea, Afghanistan, Mozambique, Republic of Congo, Cambodia, Chad, Mauritius, The Bahamas, Mali, Burkina Faso, Papua New Guinea, Trinidad and Tobago (Port of Spain candidate for ...), Ivory Coast, Panama, Uzbekistan, Bahrain, Jordan, Myanmar, Ghana, Tanzania, Brunei, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bolivia, Zambia, Botswana (independence within Commonwealth), Jamaica, Saint Lucia (independence within Commonwealth), Burundi, Maldives, Guyana, Seychelles, Djibuti, Liberia, Grenada, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Vanuatu, East Timor, The Gambia, Solomon Islands, Guinea Bissau, Dominica, Tonga, São Tomé and Príncipe, Kiribati, Somalia, Cuba, North Korea, and Iraq.

This list does not included small states in Europe (Andorra, Monaco, San Marino, Liechtenstein, Vatican City) and the Pacific (Palau, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru and Tuvalu) or dependencies (Greenland, none of which mention foreign relations, etc. in their respective leads. If those are included as well, then 146 out of 195 national pages do not mention foreign relations in their leads.

Given such a overwhelming majority, and given the many previous consensuses on this page against any such mention, I am reverting user:Nikkul's edit. I would urge him not to keep pushing these edits and needlessly waste everyone's time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

user:Nikkul, I don't know what game you are trying to play, but you can't copy and paste the same long post here from a different section above as you did in this edit and then change the date stamp on the post, as you did in this edit. Please refrain from doing so. If you persist, I will ask for admin help. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Even I am of the opinion that foreign relations should not be mentioned in intro paras. Thanks. --Mellisa Anthony Jones (talk) 08:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I too feel that foreign relations and other trivia need not be added in the leadBinarymoron (talk) 16:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

user:Nikkul's persistent undiscussed edits

Since user:Nikkul has persisted in making edits without first discussing them on the talk page (and has thus flagrantly disregarded the long-standing consensus on this page), and since he has chosen to ignore my warning in the section above, I have now asked for admin help. For the record, user:Nikkul first tried to add sentences about foreign relations in the lead (without prior discussion). As he was prevented from doing so, he has now attempted to remove, again without prior discussion, mention of poverty, illiteracy and malnutrition from the lead, a sentence that have been a part of the stable article for more than a year. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh Fowler, let me just say that what ever I do is based on other entries. I added a sentence on India's economic growth because it has brought tremendous change in India's social, cultural, demographic and economical sectors. I added a section on foreign relations because 60 other nation articles have it. If Pakistan, China and Bangladesh can have foreign relations,why can't India? I have taken away the sentence about social problems in India because no other featured article has such a section, even for poor nations which are featured.

You keep looking at featured articles to try to defend yourself, so look at the facts: Australia, Belarus, Belgium, Canada, Germany, Israel, Japan have no mention of social or other problems faced by the nation in their intro. Of the poorer countries, Chad, Indonesia, Libya, Nauru, Pakistan, Peru, South Africa, Turkey do not discuss social problems in their intros. All of them are featured. Why then should India? cameroon and bangladesh have one small sentence about poverty but nothing about environmental degradation, malnutrition, illiteracy, etc.

Now that you dont have any support, you have tried reporting me to an admin! And specifically an admin that you have spent much time pampering in the past [8]

You have persistently kept reverting my good faith edits Wikipedia encourages everyone to be bold. Why then do you consistently keep reverting all my edits? At one point, you have even supported a claim to stop edits on the India page. This just goes to show that your opinions and actions are misguided. Please think before reverting.

In the past, Fowler has told me I should be ashamed of myself[9]. What kind of user says this to others? He always criticizes images for not being good quality and being too purple or too small yet, he has himself added pictures that he knows do not show India correctly and are not good quality images[10]. Fowler is a rude, self-contradicting editor who keeps reverting any good faith edits anyone makes. Nikkul (talk) 19:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Umm, excuse me. Both Indonesia and Cameroon discuss political problems in the introduction. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Many of the countries that Nikkul claimed do not mention any problems in fact do. Chad (Chad remains plagued by political violence and recurrent attempted coups d'état, and is one of the poorest and most corrupt countries in Africa; most Chadians live in poverty as subsistence herders and farmers.), Libya (The country is led by Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi, whose foreign policy has often brought him into conflict with the West and governments of other African countries.), Pakistan (political instability), South Africa (Racial strife between the white minority and the black majority has played a large part in South Africa's history and politics), Peru (poverty level around 50%), Israel (Israel has been in conflict with many of the neighboring Arab countries, resulting in several major wars and decades of violence.), Belgium (cultural conflicts are reflected in the political history) and Nauru (its environment severely degraded by mining) all mention problems of some sort in their lead. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 05:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Nanda Dynasty: Mention is needed?

In the subsection 'History', no mention is made of the large Nanda Empire, which predates the Mauryan Empire. Nanda Dynasty could come as the second para of this subsection. Authorised editors of this protected article may please see what is needed to be done. Thanks Wiki dr mahmad (talk) 13:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be good to add this in 'Ancient India'.There has been Hundereds of kingdoms in India, with many great kings. Also the article fails to mention that India was a Buddhist country under the Maurays. and Vedis hinduism originated after the Mauryas.Ajjay (talk) 04:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Demographics

I suggest the first sentence in demographics be shortened. Repeating that India is the world's largest democracy three times in the article (once at the top, once in government, and once in demographics) is quite enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.11.97.146 (talk) 19:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

True. Removed the redundant info from Demographics. KnowledgeHegemony 16:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

other topics needing mention

contributor of so called 'arabic numerals'

contribution of 'zero' to the number system

ISRO and its achievements —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sajithps (talk • contribs) 21:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Topography map of India has multiple mistakes.

- River Yamuna is misspelled as Yamunda - River Mahanadi is misspelled as Manahadi - River Godavari is misspelled as Godavara - River Krishna (south of Godavari) is wrongly named as Tapati - River Kaaveri is misspelled as Kasveri - River Bramhaputra is misspelled as Bahramputra

These are just a few I could find in 2 minutes. Pleas replace this map with a better one, or remove it until we can find a better one.

Thanks Balu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.145.54.15 (talk) 19:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Military section image

Military image has been updated with the AAD missile image.--Chanakyathegreat (talk) 06:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I like the image, but it is low resolution and it is doubtful that the uploader User:Roghov is the copyright-holder for this and other images he has uploaded - therefore it might not fall under GFDL. Hope we can find a better image than the current Agni-II image though ... Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 09:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I lime the site very much —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.54.176.51 (talk) 11:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I dont like the image cuz you cant really see the acutal missile and also cuz its in the dark and rather unclear. I am for the agni missile. Nikkul (talk) 21:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

O.K. The missile image is there for a long time and it's that of a Agni-II. Since India has tested the Agni-III, I wish to see one there. Now I am replacing it with another beautiful image of the INS Tarangini taken by Cruadin. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 11:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Lets discuss the images and see them here before implementing them on the page. Nikkul (talk) 11:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure nuclear missiles are cool for representing "military", but I am not so sure they are appropriate as epitomizing "foreign relations". It is strange to combine the two topics in a single section anyway. E.g. the Germany article treats these topics as two separate h3 sections. dab (𒁳) 16:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Nikkul, how many years it will take to make the change after discussion in this article. Anyway please start the discussion now and decide as fast as possible.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 10:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I also think that foreign relations should be its own section. To tell you the truth, I like the tank image here. Nikkul (talk) 19:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I will prefer something Made in India rather than showcase an imported one. There is no good quality images of the Arjun MBT in Wikipedia. Anyway there are many images of Indigenous weapons systems. Try to find a favorite among those images.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 12:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

This vehicle is actually made in India. It is the most advanced tank in the army. Whats wrong with this image? It doesnt show anyone getting blown up or anything. Nikkul (talk) 12:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

No, Regarding T-90, its technology transfer and producing it here. I will prefer a good image of Arjun MBT over the T-90. But I think the most appropriate image for this section is the image of INS Tarangini which supports foreign relation and military. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 05:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I too think the INS Tarangini image is a good choice for the section as it relates to both the (incongruous) subjects of 'Military' and 'Foreign Relations'. Comments ? Abecedare (talk) 21:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The ship image would be misrepresenting the military since this ship is not used for military reasons. I feel that we should keep the agni image since it shows India's military development. Nikkul (talk) 01:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

O.K, Since you are against it's addition I have choosen another image. It's that of the PAD missile. This missile is the latest technology that was tested successfully. Only limited nations have succeeded in acquiring this BMD capability (only 3 nations). So I hope that you will not have any objection to it. Also this is the latest in the series of technological advancement India has made in the defense field. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 10:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The pic is hard to see. I have to tilt my head to get a good view. I will try finding other images. I think the T90 image is perfect for the section Nikkul (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I cannot make it stand vertical. And why are you tilting your head and looking at it. Just look at it as it is. Anyway if you still have objection here is another image of AAD missile in a vertical position.[11] Is this O.K or need another change. Regarding T-90, I will prefer the image of Arjun MBT over it. If you can find a good image of Arjun MBT, that will be better.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It's O.K to have the Su-30MKI image at the moment. But I will add a beautiful image of the Tejas when I get it.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 03:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Spoken version

It is quite old. Can someone with clear English pronunciation read the article and create a new spoken version?198.62.10.11 (talk) 11:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It has now also deviated from the article. But otherwise the rendition is barely OK. I would have volunteered myself had I been confident about my own diction. nirax (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll do it, if someone provides me instructions Nikkul (talk) 12:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Follow the instructions stated below:-

1. Record

   (optionally, see reading guidelines (under construction) for help on how to read an article when recording)

2. Upload
3. Add to article
4. Add to Spoken articles list

KnowledgeHegemony 15:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Indian accent or American accent? Nikkul (talk) 01:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Indian off course. Isn't this obvious? Desione (talk) 09:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Sukhoi image

This image is of better resolution.

THe image is on Sukhoi Su-30MKI and NOT Sukhoi Su-30. PLease make the correction. --74.140.120.11 (talk) 18:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Pic for Geography section

We can add in Geography section one more picture of most important river of India i.e Ganaga/Ganges representing its strong relations with culture of millions of people in India. We can add Kumbh mela picture organized around this river which also represents largest religious/non-religious gathering anywhere on the face of humanity. Such a picture will speak 1000 words at once, which ofcourse we need in this article that represents huge nation like India. This will also show strong relation between geography and culture of masses of this nation.

Waiting for what others think! Thank You - Holy Ganga ^talk 14:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I have added and I support adding a pic of the ganges..its the most important river in India. And also the most important geographical element in the country Nikkul (talk) 01:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

India the only country that has bright in couleurs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.78.66.6 (talk) 09:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

picture of people praying in varanasi

should I propose here to add this picture to the "culture" chapter? Is it Ok? what do you think? HornK (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Vedic period in history of India

The Vedic period is the Aryan period of India which isn't mentioned in the history but it's an important part of the history of India and should be noticed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.10.173.29 (talk) 21:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ayurveda under sports section

Why is Ayurveda mentioned under the sports section? I believe it should be moved to a more appropriate section. Rajamouly (talk) 09:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

What happened to Languages, Religions sections?

Lot of sections deleted since I visited the last time!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.18.104.1 (talk) 08:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The India page seems to be very volatile just like Indian share market. Sections have been cut down, merged separated, deleted ....what not. Everyday there is a new image replacing an existing one. One day I visited the flora & fauna section it had a tiger image, next time, I noticed a giant Indian squirrel and today its a peacock. This page is far from what wikipedia calls stable. --gppande «talk» 08:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

See WP:SUMMARY. --Ragib (talk) 09:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Article size explosion

The article has become too large to qualify under WP:SUMMARY style and also WP:FACr. Since the last time I looked at it, it has grown at least 30%. If this trend continues (i.e. addition of material here rather than topic specific pages), soon we will have to nominate it for WP:FAR. Right now, it fails several FA criteria badly. --Ragib (talk) 09:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the WP:OWNers of the article don't want anyone to touch it, contrary to Wiki's Be Bold policy. It may mean FAR is the only plausible solution. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 00:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The same is happening on Mumbai, where I raised the issue in vain on the talk page, as did Nichalp (related to images) on the India portal. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

American English

The Article is mainly written in Indian Standard English, but there is some use of American Standard English. Since the page is about India, it is evident to use Indian Standard English, very similar to British Standard English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.152.147 (talk) 17:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Lead

Further information: WP:LEAD

F&f, "Home to the Indus Valley Civilization and a region of historic trade routes and vast empires, the Indian subcontinent..." isn't outright false, but it is positively pathetic just in terms of tone. It shouldn't grace a FA for a day, let alone two years(!?). That's just style ("home to"? "vast"?). In terms of WP:DUE, how is it defensible to name a prehistoric culture in para 2 of the lead to India, but subsume historical items of tremendous notability (Maurya, Gupta, Mughal empires) under a cheesy "vast"? I'm sorry. This isn't the worst bit of prose on Wikipedia, of course, but what is it doing in the lead to a Featured Article? This should be a no-brainer, fix and move on. dab (𒁳) 13:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

:) I only just noticed this. Let me think about it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

To add to the list

Among Indian writers of the modern era active in Indian languages or English, Rabindranath Tagore won the Nobel Prize in 1913. (In Culture section)

"modern era active"?? KnowledgeHegemony 14:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It's fine grammatically. Read it again, this time taking the few seconds to stop at 'era' and think that maybe active isn't connected to it as a phrase. 172.143.154.84 (talk) 19:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Indian Empire,East India Company, etc...

My edit was reverted last time but I really think its a needed constructive edit. As things stood before it leaned towards a rather simplistic and erroneous view of history that the British 'owned' India for 200 years. That it was a part of the UK but denied the vote and all that. Of course it didn't directly say that but that's the way it read to me. It wasn't the main focus of my edits though
That would be that I really think it needs mentioning that there were at least two different periods in European domination of India- first was all the informal stuff with the EIC dominating at the end and second was the actual British empire. Quite different periods of history and 1858 is a pretty significant year in Indian history which needs mentioning just as much as 1947 does. It was afterall when 'India' was founded. --Him and a dog 11:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There have been long discussion on this before and the current wording was arrived at after much back and forth. Please read talk archives from Jan-March 2007. I understand you point, but this is an extremely (nay, impossibly) abbreviated history (in a lead). However, the links are provided and a reader can easily read up the details there. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Agekm (talk · contribs) insisting India is in Africa

Hi. Please revert this user's actions. If I remember correctly, India is in Asia, and has been for the past 5 million years. The last time it was in South Africa was 100 million years ago. I have already reverted this user twice, reverting twice more will result in 3RR, so please revert this edit. It has stated it is in south Asia for a long time. Seriously, if someone moved India to Africa, the global climate will be in big trouble. Please help. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 23:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

That is simple vandalism. Simply revert the edit and warn the editor. If he/she persists, they will be blocked from editing. Abecedare (talk) 23:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

this site is extremely good and well thought out it has every thing thatb anyone needs i am doing an english talk and this is the best site ever it has a lot of interstinbg facts on it and it has encouraged me to look into more detail for india thank you if you are wanting to talk back to me i go to fortrise academy in Scotland the UK my address is jackzp22@hotmail.co.uk write back soon thankyou once more —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.63.101 (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Even 200 Ma ago, India wasn't part of Africa as such, but of Gondwana, a supercontinent that included Africa, India, South America, Australia and a few other small land masses in modern times. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 23:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Updating GDP(PPP) per capita information

Just like to point out that India's GDP(PPP) per capita information has changed on the List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita page. IMF estimated data published in April 2008, ranks India differently. The information on the India page should be updated to reflect new data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.161.138.200 (talk) 20:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

British colonial rule

Surely India declared independence from the United Kingdom? Speedboy Salesman (talk) 20:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

No. The about statement is correct if Republic of India is used. India is far greater in all aspects.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 12:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, AFAIK, Republic of India didn't "declare" independence. The independence was granted by the Indian Independence Act 1947 of the British Parliament. --Ragib (talk) 12:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all, India was not a republic at the time of Independence. It became republic on Jan26, 1951. And yes Independence was granted to India, it was not a run-away territory of the British Raj. gppande «talk» 10:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

British colonial rule is fine I guess or is British Raj the correct term? KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 13:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

British Raj --gppande «talk» 16:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, what part of the text is this confusion about? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Images (again ... sorry)

Can more editors please watchlist the Template:Indian image rotation, which for the past three months has seen (AFAIK) unilatreral and undiscussed changes by User:Nikkul, many of which I think were inappropriate (list of changes). For example:

• Image:Ophrysia superciliosa hm.jpg was replaced by Image:MumbaiClimate.jpg, the latter being a silhouette image of two palms, which while artistic, has minuscule encyclopdic value since the reader cannot even see the objects of central interest.
• The selected picture Image:Panthera_tigris_tigris.jpg was replaced by Image:India_tiger.jpg (click on the images to see why I think this was a bad idea)
• The high-resolution Image:Sakyamuni_Buddha.jpg image was replaced by the low-resolution, and highly colour saturated, Image:BuddhaTwang.jpg.
• Besides that, several of the captions added or modified by Nikkul are in my opinion sub-standard, especially for an FA article; example
  • Today's version of the page contains the image Image:Shiva_Statue.png with the caption "Lord Shiva is one of the principal deities of Hinduism", without any mention of what is actually pictured. (The image itself is iffy for the page, but I'll leave that aside for the moment)
  • Today, Nikkul, modified the caption on the Image:SU-30MKI-g4sp.jpg image from "The Sukhoi Su-30MKI is part of the Indian Air Force" to "The Indian Air Force is the world's second largest air force" sourced to [12]. Again the new caption failed to say what was pictured; additionally it was POV and misleading since a reader is not expected to know that by "second largest" one means that IAF has the second largest number of personnel.
  • Nikkul changed the caption on Image:India tiger.jpg from "The Bengal tiger, threatened by poachers and smugglers, faces declining population levels and possible extinction." to "The Royal Bengal tiger is India's national animal." Normally I would assume good faith and disregard this, but its hard not to interpret it as POV pushing given the consistent pattern of behaviour.

So what can we do ? I don't wish to go back to the days when each image change on the India page, required mega-bytes of heated discussion; but I think there should be some minimal attempt to invite input before adding/replacing content (perhaps following the WP:DYK/WP:PINSPC model of inviting comments rather than trying to build wide consensus in each case).
Secondly, I see that several editors have raised concern about Nikkul's adding/removing pictures from India, Mumbai, Kolkata, Bangalore etc: for instance Nichalp, Dwaipayanc, Gppande, thunderboltz, Arejay and now, me. I wonder if we can have a consolidated discussion about this issue (perhaps at WT:INB), instead of dealing with it piecemeal. Note that I am not seeking any sanctions/probation against Nikkul, who I think does some exemplary work in getting images onto wikipedia from flickr; however it would be useful to reach some general consensus on the number and quality of images that is thought appropriate on India and India city pages.
Comments and suggestions are invited!. Abecedare (talk) 21:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is the link to Image Rotation Discussion, where some users did arguably express support for some of the changes Nikkul made. Please note that I am not aiming to start a discussion on the individual decisions here, but rather the process and judgment that we should use in the future. Abecedare (talk) 21:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello there Abecedare, I understand your concerns, and the way you clearly mentioned that you are not aiming to start a discussion on the individual decisions here, but rather the process and judgment that we should use in the future.

But still as a fellow Wikipedian and a friend, who is also associated with WP:IND I would like to request Nikkul to abstain from 'glorifying' (not the apt word I guess) India on Wikipedia, which we as nation loving Indians tend to do, at times unintentionally, influenced by the "India shining" wave sweeping the world media. I have noticed that you have tried removing the 'negative' aspects of India from the lead related to poverty, illiteracy, malnutrition etc. However these are facts, which can't and should'nt be hidden.

Like Abecedare, I too admire your efforts in getting quality pictures from flickr to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Thanks, KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I've rv'd all the unilateral and deceitful edits to the India rotation template made by user:Nikkul. He's been doing this for ages, and needs to be dealt with boldly. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he is making unilateral edits again. I though adding a phrase like 'fellow Wikipedian and a friend' would get him involved in this discussion. But now I guess the only solution is to appoint someone as the 'admin' for this particular page. He/She shall have the authority to decide whether consensus is for or against (on the basis of discussions on the talk page). Something like the WP:PROD or WP:FAC or even WP:FP... Or else this template is going to be a failure. The person should be someone who has not uploaded any of the nominated pictures. KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 04:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Since when was the toda hut part of the image rotation? I have tried to make some images better, but if there is a problem i understand and I have not insisted all my edits be reverted. Fowler has added his own images under the cover of replacing mine

And by the way, next time you have a discussion, it might be a nice idea to alert me by leaving me a message rather than waiting for me to somehow find all the pages things are discussed.

• Why would you accuse me of adding a Shiva image when clearly there was consensus to have it below?
• There were 2 images of Buddha- both were present when people voted for the inclusion of that shrine in the rotation.
• No one has ever discussed the flaura and fauna images and artistic impressions of a species that might not have even existed are being used. And no images of flaura were present. As there was no discussion of these images, I was bold and tried to make this better.
• When a fresh vote was taken, 9 people were against the Toda hut, 1 person was for. How can fowler make his own unilateral edits and add it when there is clear consensus to eliminate it from the rotation?
• How are my edits unilateral when there is CLEAR evidence that everything I added adhered to the consensus below?

Please keep in mind that I am trying my hardest to improve the page. I am not trying to make it harder for everyone. So if there is a problem, do leave me a message. I feel that my edits were beneficial and in total agreement with the consensus that had been established for the culture rotation. Nikkul (talk) 18:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

CULTURE ROTATION VOTE COUNT CLICK TO SEE

• AKSHARDHAM TEMPLE - 6 for, 2 against
• BUDDHA (two images)- 9 for, 1 against
• TODA HUT- 1 for, 9 against
• TAGORE- 4 for, 2 against
• CUISINE OF NORTH INDIA- 3 for, 4 against
• MYSORE PALACE two images- 5 for, 4 against
• PRAYER FLAG- 5 for, 0 against
• SHAKANTULA- 5 for, 2 against
• THRISSUR POORAM- 5 for, 5 against
• BULL TEMPLE- image deleted
• KONARK- 3 for, 3 against
• LOTUS TEMPLE- 5 for, 2 against
• MAHABHODHI TEMPLE- 4 for, 3 against
• SHIVA two images- 6 for, 3 against

Apparently, user:Nikkul never tires of prevaricating. What was this vote? Would he like to personally query all the 18 people who voted to keep the Toda image, in contrast to the 17 who didn't, whether they had all suddenly changed their minds? Enough with the lies. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

WHAT LIES? The most recent vote proved that you were the only one for the Toda Hut. Stop making your own unilateral edits, Fowler. 9 people against 1 (you) means the Toda Hut shouldnt be part of the rotation. Nikkul (talk) 00:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

By the time the "most recent vote" was held, most people had tired of your antics. Indeed, I myself, didn't vote "for" the Toda image, only said that the vote was already over. So, perhaps, you can delude yourself that the Toda image was voted out 9 to 0. Of course, convincing others to share in your delusion, is an entirely different matter. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh now you've started making excuses as to why you were the only vote. Wikipedia relies on consensus and we had clear consensus against the Toda hut image. Nikkul (talk) 03:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

As Nikkul's count above clearly shows, the Toda pic was voted out. Not just voted out... it was also argued by many that it was UNDUE. A user:Fowler&fowler deluding himself that he only abstained from the vote is irrelevant to the consensus that the Toda pic has no place in this article. Sarvagnya 17:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain, Mr. Sarvgnya, in your usual unsurpassed gracefulness, how 18-17 is the same as 0-9? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Can YOU, Mr. Fowler, explain why it was 1-9? It was not like anyone was physically banned from voting for the toda image. Why were you the only one to vote? The 17-18 and the 1-9 vote shows that the Toda image should not be included. There was never consensus or significant majority to keep the toda image, while there was consensus to remove it from the rotation. Stop wasting everyones time, Fowler Nikkul (talk) 23:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Military image

Destroyer INS Ranjit (D53).

It's time to change the Su-30MKI image with a new one. What about this image. Since the missiles and Air force section is covered, let the selection be from the IN section.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 05:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This image doesnt show much. I prefer the su image Nikkul (talk) 17:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The image has been updated with the Arjun MBT image.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 10:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Opinion on using the Arjun MBT Image.[13]

Support
1.

Oppose
1.Nikkul.

Chanakyathegreat (talk) 09:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Christianity in India

"Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam arrived in the first millennium CE". From what I know, Christianity arrived (by St Thomas) 20 years after Jesus' death. --RaviC (talk) 13:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Navi Mumbai more populated than thane

population of Navi Mumbai is currently 2mil —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.201.41.134 (talk) 10:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Article readability

I've been measuring the readability of different articles, and among the FA's the readability of this article is quite awful. The Flesch Reading Ease score is only 32.3 (out of 100, lower value means less readable), and the Flesch-Kincaid Readability Test score is 13.97. What do these numbers mean? The second one means that on average, you'll need 14 years of education to understand this article properly. In other words, this article, as it stands now, is written for people at least 19 years in age, in 2nd or 3rd year of university.

Readability is not an accurate measure, but gives more or less a rough idea of how effective is a given piece of text in expressing the ideas. The metrics I quoted above are well established statistical measures for English language text.

This implies that, the text needs to be improved. We need to cut the long sentences, use less complex words etc. Indian English constructs (of using long sentences with multiple clauses) might also be an issue. --Ragib (talk) 04:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The article is written in the indian 'Grammar' language, It may confusing to hear the word center, often spelled as centre. However, if the article needs to be improved why don't you do it. Dwilso 05:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Readability stats are not concerned with spelling, rather they use syllables in measuring the scores. I don't think writing "labour" would cause syllable count to change. Besides, the number of such words used in this article are not significant enough to cause such a high readability score. --Ragib (talk) 05:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Ragib, Nice idea to test for readability!

What are the stats. for other country FAs ? Is there a difference between English/non-English speaking articles. I ask because it is possible that unavoidable non-English terminology such as geographic entities, people (Jawaharlal vs John/Bill :) ), dances etc may also play a role in the low readability score.

A related issue: Just glancing at the article I see a sea of "blue". I think it may be possible to drastically reduce wikilinking, for example in the culture section all the state names need not be wikilinked again; Mumbai is linked 4 times; etc. Abecedare (talk) 05:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I tested 36 FAs, the median readability was 12.835, average 13.22. While this article is 0.8 grades higher than the average, it is 1.2 levels above the median score for FAs. --Ragib (talk) 05:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It certainly needs to be summarised a lot. But again, each time you summarise something, you come across inexperienced editors espousing the inclusionist policies that are unsuitable for an article of such nature. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the fact that this article is hard to read and not ideal for everyone. I remember there used to be french phrases in this article, which is completely unnecessary. I also think there are too many links. Portugal, france, netherlands uk do not need to be linked. State does not need to be linked! The last sentence of the geography section does not need links. Ahmedabad is spelled wrong, nuclear family doesnt need a link. Nikkul (talk) 09:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there an ideal value to which we should strive for? I agree that 14 is far too high, but it would be very difficult to pull it down to say 6/7, so that all secondary school children can understand the article. Because of the wealth of non-English terminology like Bharatanatyam and Kathakali, it won't be easy task to cut down the Syllables/word value. The best option is probably to shorten the very long sentences. An ideal average for words/sentence length is 15-20. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 04:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't know if readability is really determined by lengths of sentences. Also, I've never heard that Indian English has on average longer sentences or more complicated sentence structure that other varieties of national English. A quick check in the New York Times, the London Times and the Statesman, in fact, suggests exactly the opposite conclusion:

As the Federal Reserve completes work on rules to root out abuses by lenders, its plan has run into a buzz saw of criticism from bankers, mortgage brokers and other parts of the housing industry. One common industry criticism is that at a time of tight credit, tighter rules could make many mortgages more expensive by creating more paperwork and potentially exposing lenders to more lawsuits. To the chagrin of consumer groups that have complained that the proposed rules are not strong enough, the industry’s criticism has already prompted the Fed to consider narrowing the scope of the plan so it applies to fewer loans. (New York Times, 28 April 2008)

The bitterness surrounding Chelsea’s 2-1 win over Manchester United continued on a day of claim and counterclaim that threatened to sour relations between two of the country’s biggest clubs. Allegations that the postmatch flare-up between groundstaff and the United substitutes was sparked by abuse directed at Patrice Evra, initially encouraged by some at Old Trafford, were strenuously denied by Chelsea. Chelsea reacted strongly to the allegations, particularly as they were not made immediately after the incident at Stamford Bridge on Saturday, leading to talks last night between Peter Kenyon and David Gill, the respective chief executives. (The Times, London, 28 April 2008)

PRESIDENT Ahmadinejad arrives in Delhi on Tuesday. During his brief stopover he will confer with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Recently a statement from official US sources advised New Delhi to persuade Iran to stop its uranium enrichment programme. New Delhi rebuffed the USA. It said India was capable of conducting its foreign policy without foreign advice. The government reiterated its close historic ties with Iran. Earlier, India had voted against Iran for ignoring, as a signatory to Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), its commitments to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). India was justified in doing this. Russia and China did the same. The West’s concerns about nuclear proliferation are valid. (The Statesman, Kolkata, 28 April 2008

Certainly if I compare an author like R. K. Narayan, who self-consciously wrote in Indian English, with someone like Doris Lessing, I can't help making the same (opposite) conclusion. Neither am I sure that other encyclopedias follow such readability guidelines. Certainly Britannica doesn't. Consider the two sentences from its "India" article's lead:

From that period on, India functioned as a virtually self-contained political and cultural arena, which gave rise to a distinctive tradition that was associated primarily with Hinduism, the roots of which can largely be traced to the Indus civilization. Other religions, notably Buddhism and Jainism, originated in India—though their presence there is now quite small—and throughout the centuries residents of the subcontinent developed a rich intellectual life in such fields as mathematics, astronomy, and architecture.

I agree that uniformly long sentences can be tedious to read, that the long should be mixed in with the short, but that applies to other aspects of syntactical structure as well: variation is key to holding a readers interest. But I don't see why a sentence that is, say, 35 words long, should be automatically disqualified. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

PS I should add that I haven't taken a look at the India page in a long time, so I'm not disagreeing with Ragib that it is not very readable, only that sentence length might not be the best gauge of readability. A very simple solution would be to request a good copy-editor like user:Finetooth to copy edit the article if she is available. I'm happy to request her if there is consensus here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

With respect to readability, I think the phrase "do the needful" needs to be used somewhere :-) Then please replace please with pls. pls is even starting to get popular in US now. Desione (talk) 10:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Please add sections on Indian a)science and technology b)ancient contribution in maths,languages etc

This article has been effectively orgainsed and detailed BUT I don't see ANY section on Indian science or technology. India has made many great contirbution to the world in the field of science ,maths,inventions,philosophy etc Even in this modern ear there are many noteworthy achievements in the fields of sciences,space,nulcear eneergy,IT,communication etc I have also seen the China page in wiki and found that its highlighting its Ancient culture and civilization very well.It also had a good section on Chinese science,inventions and technlogical achievements. So who so ever is maintaining this page can you please take my suggestions and improve/add section on ancient contrubtuions of India to the world,science and technology and other relevant topics in this wonderful article.

John Rambo 20:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the science and tech section is needed. Japan has such a section and is a featured article. Nikkul (talk) 06:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Why not Arabic numerals for a start? --RaviC (talk) 13:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This page has already voted to not have such a section. Please see previous discussion. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a dynamic site that doesn't stay the same. If there is new consensus here, we can def. add it regardless of what happened in the past. Nikkul (talk) 07:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear user:Nikkul, why don't you develop the parent article Science and Technology in India, which has been largely unedited since it was hurriedly created at the time of the first straw-poll six months ago and remains one paragraph long? All the other sections in this page have reasonably well developed parent articles (History of India, Geography of India, Economy of India, Fauna of India, Culture of India, ...)

Also, this page is about the Republic of India and "Science and Technology in India," as you can see in the parent article, refers to science and technology in current-day India (not about Arabic numerals etc. beyond a quick perfunctory mention)

As for consensus, you will have to establish new consensus. Given that the parent article is a stub, and that the majority view six months ago was against adding a new section, I wish you the very best of luck in your endeavor. Warm regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I have added links on History of Indian science and technolgy, Mathematics etc is the List of Indian topics template so that readers can atleast get info on India's contributions to these fields.These topics have been very well written and developed.It would be helpful.

I like to also work on the Science and Technology topic so that we can provide the link in the main article.Most of the countries in wiki do have this section so it make it pertinent and sensible to have such an important topic included in this one too.

John Rambo 20:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Here are the results of the majority view from six-months ago:

Definition: A Large paragraph is approximately 250 to 300 words; a small paragraph is 125 to 150 words. Those are the approximate upper limits.

• Science and Technology (Parent article Science and Technology in India

1. Full section
2. (Large/Small (please choose one)) paragraph within (Culture, Economy (please choose one)
3. No addition/expansion in any form needed at this time.

• Votes:
  • Most needed 1,Chanakyathegreat 03:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • (Example) 2, small, culture, signature.
  • 3, not needed at this time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • 2, small, within Economy.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • 3,Blanket no new sections from my end. The article is bloated enough. =Nichalp «Talk»= 01:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • 3, Blanket no new sections at this time. --Blacksun 13:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • 3 - No new sections at this time as the article is very bloated. Green Giant 17:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • 2- Large. It is rather important to economy Nikkul 02:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • 3 - Blanket NO NEW SECTIONS. Article is already super-sized. --Ragib 21:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Dear Fowler&fowler«Talk»,

Why dont you stop telling me what articles to edit. I do have the capability of deciding that myself and do not need your advice on that issue. Nikkul (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I have wonderful pictures of India

I have wonderful pictures of India (really nice) and I dont know how to put upload them or if i have permission to do so....can someoen tell me simply how to put them up and if i have permission to do so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.82.152 (talk) 01:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, To load images to wiki, you need to make your own account. Then click upload file on the left. Then click "my own work". You can then select the license of your choice and upload the image. If you dont want to create an account, I can upload the images for you if you declare "I am the creator of this image and I license it under {license of your choice}" Let me know if you need me to do so. Thanks! Nikkul (talk) 06:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Science and Technology

I think we need to have a science and technology section (or a paragraph in the economy section) to show India's achievements in the field because they are important to the country. apan]], a featured article, has such a section. Germany, a featured article, also has a science section. Beligium and Israel are also featured article with this section. South Korea has a Science and Technology section, as does China, UK, USA, Brazil, Argentina, Greece, Finland, Portugal, Bulgaria, Poland, Austria, and many other countries which I do not have time to look up. Other countries, like Chad, may not have this section because they are much smaller and do not have the money and resources to launch satellites (like ISRO does) or have nuclear technology like India does. Hence, science and technology is not a big part of their country. Still, Science and Technology in India is a vital part of the country's Electronics, Space, Defence, Nuclear, Biomolecular, Medical, Environmental, Agricultural, etc. needs and this page needs to address this just like the countries listed above.

I know there was a straw poll before, but if there is consensus to add a science and technology section now, we can add it now. Let's discuss this here. Cheers Nikkul (talk) 17:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, and would suggest that you develop the article Science and Technology in India first before starting yet another straw poll. --Ragib (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Ditto, per Ragib. AreJay (talk) 18:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Ditto, per Ragib and AreJay. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Ditto We can add a summarised version of the sub-article once it has progressed to a certain extent. That would be a better option than drafting the section on an FA. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 23:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Change Cricket sport section

here are the true facts ->

   * India won icc cricket t20 championship,South africa,2007

   * India runners up in cricket in worldcup 2003

   * india won world cup in 1983

The Indian Squad that won the 1983 World Cup comprised:

  * Mohinder Amarnath

  * Kirti Azad

  * Roger Binny

  * Kapil Dev (captain)

  * Sunil Gavaskar

  * Syed Kirmani (wicketkeeper)

  * Madan Lal

  * Sandeep Patil

  * Balwinder Sandhu

  * Yashpal Sharma

  * Ravi Shastri

  * Kris Srikkanth

  * Sunil Valson

  * Dilip Vengsarkar

Raunakroy --Raunakroy (talk) 11:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

This page isn't fully protected so there's no need for administrator intervention. As soon as your account is autoconfirmed (4 days old with at least 10 edits) you can add this yourself. However, if there is not consensus for the addition it may be reverted (and at a quick glance, this information doesn't look appropriate for the main India article). Trebor (talk) 12:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Demographics

There is sufficient evidence to prove that Hindi is just not "the" official language of India and its one of the official languages of India, nevertheless its the largest spoken one. By using it as the official language of India, we are slighting other facts and thereby presenting a biased picture of the demographics of this nation. Refer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_languages_of_India

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Showmethedoor (talk • contribs) 21:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Its better to use - 'one of the' instead of 'the official' or else - use 'Hindi is the official language of the Union government' and there are several other official languages at each state and link it to the wikipage on "official languages of India". I prefer to phrase a sentence that encompasses all the facts in one go rather than breaking it up into several sentences. I hope we are addressing what is the current status of official languages of India rather than how it evolved and changed over the decades. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Showmethedoor (talk • contribs) 21:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Make sure you use ~~~~ to sign. In the US, Spanish is widely spoken but not officially recognized as an official language. I myself am Gukarati and consder Gujarati and other languages officila, but t's not recognized by the government Juthani1

I guess comparing India to US is not a reasonable. We are here to represent what India is on date as a fact, rather than by comparisons. Hindi is the official language of the Union govt. Quoting from the wikipage on the official languages of India - "As a large and linguistically diverse country, India does not have a single official language. Instead, the Constitution of India envisages a situation where each state has its own official language(s), in addition to the official languages to be used by the Union government. The section of the Constitution of India dealing with official languages therefore includes detailed provisions[1] which deal not just with the languages used for the official purposes of the union,[2] but also with the languages that are to be used for the official purposes of each state and union territory in the country,[3] and the languages that are to be used for communication between the union and the states inter se.[4]". In the current wikipage for India - it says - Hindi is the official language of India, which is very misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Showmethedoor (talk • contribs) 15:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Hindi is the national language of India and I have updated the same in article. In hindi we call it Rashtra bhasha. --gppande «talk» 15:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Use of the term national language is controversial so we better not label Hindi as the national language. But it is the primary offical language of India with English as the subsidary. All the confusion will disappear if one sees the citation provided. - KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Right, this has already been discussed previously. There is no such thing as "national language of India". The term doesn't exist, either in the Constitution or in the Official Languages Act. AreJay (talk) 16:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, we are digressing from the point that I posted first - i feel its more than highly reasonable to rephrase the sentence - Hindi is the primary official language advocated by the Union government, with English as the subsidiary language. However, there are plenty of other languages that are afforded official language status at the state level. Hence, the demographics does not present a neutral picture. Is it okay to rephrase the sentences in the intro section of official languages of India? Showmethedoor (talk) 21:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I would say, add a subheading to the talk page that is more reflective of your question (eg. "Hindi", "Official languages", etc) and then just build consensus before you make the change to the article. I should caution you that consensus building on such a contentious issue will take time. My personal opinion based on the verbiage above (which I'm guessing is how you plan to style your suggested change) is - a) where does it say in the constitution that Hindi is the "primary" official language? b) was it really "advocated" by the Union government? c) Where does it say that English is a "subsidiary" language?

Also, upon further review of the Demographics section, I don't see where it suggests that Hindi is the only official language of India. It specifically says, "one of the official languages of India.." and then goes on to discuss other official languages. My personal opinion is that this representation is fair. Thanks AreJay (talk) 15:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

No, Hindi is the Official language of India and English the subsidiary official language. It is not just the language of the Union Government. We went through an exhaustive discussion on this a year ago. You can always cherry-pick from a document here or a paper there, but the bottom line is that the reliable sources have interpreted the Government of India's various pronouncements about official languages in the manner reflected in the first sentence above. Here is the list from a year ago. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Expand to see 15 focused secondary sources, including 1) Encyclopaedia Britannica, "India—Linguistic Composition." 2) Encyclopedia Encarta, "India: Official Languages". 3) Encyclopedia Encarta, "Indian Languages: Official Languages" 4) Indo-Aryan Languages. 6) United Kingdom, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, "India—Country Profile." 7) United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 8) UNESCO, "Education for all—The Nine Largest Countries." 9) US Library of Congress, "Country Profile: India." 10) US Department of State, "Background Note: India." 11) UN High Commissioner for Refugees, "Country Profile: India." 12) Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Languages of India. 13) Mallikarjun, B. 2004. "Fifty Years of Language Planning for Modern Hindi-The Official Language of India.", Language in India. 14) Mallikarjun, B. 2004. "Indian Multilingualism, Language Policy, and the Digital Divide" Language in India. 15) Laitin, David. 1989. "Language policy and political strategy in India." Policy Sciences. 22:415-436.

1. Schwartzberg, Joseph E., 2007. Encyclopedia Britannica, India—Linguistic Composition. Quote 1: "Of the originally 14 (subsequently 18) languages recognized as official in the Indian constitution, 13 are Indo-European (Assamese, Bengali, Gujarati, Hindi, Kashmiri, Konkani, Marathi, Nepali, Oriya, Punjabi, Sanskrit, Sindhi, and Urdu), 4 are Dravidian (Kannada, Malayalam, Tamil, and Telugu), and 1 is Sino-Tibetan (Manipuri) ... Indo-European languages are collectively spoken as mother tongues by nearly three-fourths of all Indians. By far the most widely spoken is Hindi, the country's official language, with more than 300 million speakers. ... Apart from its nationally preeminent position, Hindi has been adopted as the official language by each of a large contiguous bloc of northern states—Bihar, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh—as well as by the national capital territory of Delhi." 2. Oldenburg, Phillip. (1997-2007) Encarta Encyclopedia "India: Official Languages." Quote 2: "According to the national census of India, 114 languages and 216 dialects are spoken in the country. Eighteen Indian languages, plus English, have been given official status by the federal or state governments. Hindi is the main language of more than 40 percent of the population. No single language other than Hindi can claim speakers among even 10 percent of the total population. Hindi was therefore made India’s official language in 1965. English, which was associated with British rule, was retained as an option for official use because some non-Hindi speakers, particularly in Tamil Nādu, opposed the official use of Hindi." 3. Fisher, Solveig G. (1997-2007) Encarta Encyclopedia "Indian Languages: Official Languages" Quote 3: "No one common language is spoken on the Indian subcontinent. Hindi and English are the co-official national languages of India, and both tongues are used as lingua francas in the various linguistic regions. In addition, the Indian constitution recognizes 18 state languages, which are used in schools and in official transactions. These are Assamese, Bengali, Gujarati, Hindi, Kannada (Kanarese), Kashmīri, Konkani, Malayalam, Meithei (Manipuri), Marathi, Nepali, Oriya, Punjabi, Sanskrit, Sindhi, Tamil, Telugu, and Urdu." 4. Cardona, George and Dhanesh Jain (eds). 2003. Indo-Aryan Languages. London: Routledge. 704 pages. ISBN 0700711309. Quote 4: "Hindi, generally considered by language statisticians to be anywhere from the third to the fifth most widely spoken language in the world, is spoken natively by upwards of 300 million people. The language is, along with English, one of the two officially recognized national languages of India. (pp 250-251)" 5. Kurzon, Dennis. 2004. Where East Looks West: Success in English in Goa and on the Konkan Coast, Multilingual Matters Limited. 180 pages. ISBN 1853596736. Quote 5: The Constitutional Position (p. 4): "Let us take a look at the relevant part of the Constitution, which was originally promulgated in 1950. Part XVII (Articles 343-351) deals with the official language of the Union (Chapter 1), with regional languages (Chapter 2), with the language of the judiciary (Chapter 3) and with special directives (Chapter 4). The first of the articles in this part states categorically that the official language of India is Hindi, written in the Devanagari script (based on the ancient script in which Sanskrit was written). However, this declaration is then subject to a proviso concerning English.... In India, reality controlled decision-making and in the following clause of Article 343, it is stated that English 'shall continue to be used for all official purposes of the Union for which it was being used immediately before' the promulgation of the Constitution. The status of English as 'associate language' was guaranteed for 15 years from the promulgation of the Constitution (i.e. until 1965)." Continuation of Quote 5 above: However, the following article (344) relates to the other Indian languages by setting up a commission and a parliamentary committee to study the use of Hindi 'for the official purpose of the Union', the use of English and the use of the languages spoken in non-Hindi parts of the country (the south in particular). The official languages of the states of the Indian Union are then dealt with in three articles. State legislatures are given the right to "adopt any one or more of the languages in use in the State or Hindi as the Language or Languages to be used for all or any of the official purposes of the state," but English may still be used in those fields in which it was used before the adoption of the Constitution unless the legislature decides otherwise. Each state then has at least (and usually only) one official language. Inter-state communication is dealt with in Article 346, and the rights of a linguistic minority in a state to have their language recognised as official as long as 'a substantial proportion of the population of a State desire (its) use' are the subject of article 347." 6. United Kingdom, Foreign and Commonwealth Office: India—Country Profile. Quote 6: "The official language of India is Hindi written in the Devanagari script and spoken by some 30% of the population as a first language. Since 1965 English has been recognised as an 'associated language'. In addition there are 18 main and regional languages recognised for adoption as official state languages." 7. United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Hindi. Quote 7: "Usage by Country, Official Language: India. Similarly, English Version says: "Usage by Country, Official Language: India." Contrast with: Kannada Version, which says, "Usage by Country, Official Language: Karnataka/India; Marathi Version, which says, "Usage by Country, Official Language: Maharashtra/India," and the Telegu Version, which says, "Usage by Country, Official Language: Andhra Pradesh/India." 8. UNESCO: Education for All—The Nine Largest Countries Quote 8: "Linguistic Diversity of EFA-9 Countries. India: More than 200 languages are spoken. Four major language groups are represented. The most important of these is the Indo-Aryan branch of the Indo-European Group. Hindi is the language of 30% of the population and the official language of India. Hindi and the other Indo-Aryan languages—including Assamese, Bengali, Gujarati, Kashmiri, Marathi, Oriya, Punjabi, and Urdu--are spoken mainly in the northern part of the country and derive their script from ancient Sanskrit. The leading Dravidian languages--Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam, and Kannada--are spoken in four southern states. Sino-Tibetan and Austro-Asiatic languages generally survive only in small and isolated regions." 9. United States Library of Congress, Federal Research Division, Country Profile: India Quote 9: "Languages: The total number of languages and dialects varies by source and counting method, and many Indians speak more than one language. The Indian census lists 114 languages (22 of which are spoken by one million or more persons) that are further categorized into 216 dialects or “mother tongues” spoken by 10,000 or more speakers. An estimated 850 languages are in daily use, and the Indian Government claims there are more than 1,600 dialects. Hindi is the official language and the most commonly spoken, but not all dialects are mutually comprehensible. English also has official status and is widely used in business and politics, although knowledge of English varies widely from fluency to knowledge of just a few words. The teaching of Hindi and English is compulsory in most states and union territories. Twenty-two languages are legally recognized by the constitution for various political, educational, and other purposes: Assamese, Bengali, Bodo, Dogri, Gujarati, Hindi, Kannada, Kashmiri, Konkani, Maithali, Malayalam, Manipuri, Marathi, Nepali, Oriya, Punjabi, Sanskrit, Santhali, Sindhi, Tamil, Telugu, and Urdu. Numerous other languages are recognized by individual states but not officially recognized by the central government, and linguistic issues related to education, employment, and politics are sometimes politically contentious. Indeed, some state borders are based on linguistic lines. The most commonly spoken languages are Hindi (40.2 percent of the population), Bengali (8.3 percent), Telugu (7.9 percent), Marathi (7.5 percent), and Tamil (6.3 percent)." 10 US Department of State, Background Note: India, December 2006. Quote 10: In Profile: "Languages: Hindi, English, and 16 other official languages." Later, in "People: The government has recognized 18 official languages; Hindi, the national language, is the most widely spoken, although English is a national lingua franca." 11 United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Country Profile: India Quote 11: "Hindi is constitutionally designated as the official language of India, with English as an associate official language. However, English, which is spoken by some 15 million people in India, is 'for practical purposes . . . the official language of India, the principal medium of communication among the educated classes' (Ibid.). Out of 1,652 languages and dialects spoken throughout the country, only the 15 that are spoken by 91 per cent of the population are recognized as regional languages: Sindhi, Urdu, Punjabi, Assamese, Bengali, Gujarati, Kashmiri, Marathi, Oriya, Sanskrit and Rajasthani from the Indo-European family, and Kannada (or Kanarese), Tamil, Malayalam and Telugu from the Dravidian family. 18 regional languages are recognised by the 8th Schedule of the Constitution read with Articles 344(1) and 351 namely: Assamese, Bengali, Gujarati, Punjabi, Sanskrit, Sindhi, Tamil, Telgu and Urdu." 12 Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Languages of India Quote 12: "Republic of India, Bharat. 1,065,070,607. Indo-Aryan 777,361,000, 76%; Dravidian 216,635,000, 21.6%; Austro-Asiatic 12,250,000, 1.2%; Tibeto-Burman 10,350,000, 1%; Other 2,468,600, 0.2%. National or official languages: Hindi and English. There are 22 official 'scheduled' languages: Assamese, Bengali, Bodo, Dogri, Gujarati, Hindi, Kannada, Kashmiri, Konkani, Maithili, Malayalam, Marathi, Meitei, Nepali, Oriya, Eastern Panjabi, Sanskrit, Santali, Sindhi, Tamil, Telugu, Urdu." 13 Mallikarjun, B. (Nov., 2004), Fifty Years of Language Planning for Modern Hindi–The Official Language of India, Language in India, Volume 4, Number 11. ISSN 1930-2940. Quote 13: "Once the Constitution of India came into force on January 26, 1950, the status of Hindi was greatly enhanced. Hindi in Devanagari script and the international form of Indian numerals form the Official language of the Union. Among the Indian languages, Hindi is the most highly empowered language which constitutionally/legally has multiple status - an official language of the Union; official language of 13 states and union territories; the major regional language in 9 states where it is a majority language, and an important minority language in 18 states and union territories. Also it is a language of deliberations of the Parliament of India and state legislatures in the states in which it is recognized as an official language. Apart from this, the Constitution also provides that, with mutual consent, any two states or the states and the Union can use it as a language for their inter- communication. It is the majority language of the country and also a Scheduled Language since it is in the VIIIth Schedule of the Constitution. It is the only language about whose development the Constitution has given direction, and hence it has the constitutional right for development." 14 Mallikarjun, B. (April 2004). "Indian Multilingualism, Language Policy, and the Digital Divide", Language in India, Volume 4, Number 4, ISSN 1930-2940. Quote 14: "Normally for any policy extension initiated by the government, the government wants a list of languages. It will start with Hindi the official language of the Union at the first instance, and then move towards, at the second instance, to the Scheduled Languages. 15 Laitin, David 1989. "Language policy and political strategy in India." Policy Sciences. 22:415-436. Quote 15: "Gandhi also emphasized the need for an indigenous all-India language as something of grave need, and promoted Hindustani, a north Indian koine that blurred the distinction between Hindi and Urdu. In 1925, the Congress amended article 33 of its Constitution to read, 'The proceedings of the Congress shall be conducted as far as possible in Hindustani? Gandhi did not advocate that the regional languages should be ignored; rather, he felt that a common Indian language for an independent country was of utmost concern. As Congress party nationalists debated as members of the constituent assembly to draft a Constitution, despite heated arguments about a plethora of language issues, there was hardly any question about the desirability of a common official language, and that some form of Hindi would play that role) ~ India's constitution therefore specified that Hindi would eventually become the official language for all-Union business, supplanting English. Then came the question of state languages. The Constitution did not prescribe Hindi for official use within states (see Article 345). Furthermore, in Articles 344 (1) and 351, states were permitted with some restrictions to adopt any language they wanted for official purposes. And the 'Eighth Schedule' specified a list of fourteen 'languages of India' whose speakers would be given protected seats on the Presidential Commission to implement the All-India language policy."

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

F&F, its solely the view of the GOI and not of the people. The people's viewpoint is that all the 24 languages are their national languages and no language is given any special status. Now when you say the otherway, you are spreading misinformation. I again say that the viewpoint is that of the GOI's only.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 07:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

What is GOI? Government of India? If yes, then you are endorsing F&F's view. See, government view becomes more important here than people's viewpoint. After all people elect government in India. I don't know exactly what you mean by people's viewpoint? Or where you have it at one place? Government sources are the most trust worthy in this case. --gppande «talk» 08:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't categorize quotations sourced from the Indian Constitution and the Official Languages Act as cherry-picking. They are authentic sources and are fairly lucid in their language. Article 343(1) very clearly states, "The official language of the Union shall be Hindi in Devanagari script". No further interpretation required. Our job is to state facts, and not to reinterpret interpretations of official texts (which is really all the authors in that gargantuan list above are doing). Similarly, nowhere does the Official Languages Act [14] provide for the hypothetical relationship between Hindi and English that this article seems to imply. AreJay (talk) 14:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Going by the official languages act that AreJay has quoted, if I understand it right, it says Hindi is the official language of the Union (which I guess shall encompass Central Govt. offices/parliament/courts etc.) and also it advocates to use English as an another official language. And it recognizes the usage of 21 other regional languages for official purposes. Though, its hard to interpret and present the linguistic diversity of India in just a couple of sentences, atleast, we can abstain from presenting a biased picture. My point again is - just rephrase the sentence that Hindi is the official language of the Union Government and English is considered as a subsidiary. By writing Hindi is the official language of India, we are ignoring the importance of the 21 other languages, relegating it to a lower position, which is not true. 129.186.68.138 (talk) 15:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

User:AreJay, My post above was not in response to your post, but rather to someone earlier who was trying to interpret what "union" meant. In the infobox, we simply quote the constitution, "Hindi in the Devanagari script is the official language of the union." I have now changed the statement in the demography section to be the same. The relationship between Hindi and English is not hypothetical, but rather one that has come to exist as a result of various legislations passed by the Indian parliament, and in some cases legislations not passed. Just because it is not explicitly mentioned in the two primary sources you have quoted, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. That interpretation is what one looks to reliable secondary sources for and what Wikipedia goes by. Clearly, if the UN, the US State Department, the UK Foreign Office, UNESCO, Encyclopedias Britannica and Encarta all regard, English to have subsidiary official status, that interpretation is good enough for Wikipedia. You are welcome to restart this dispute if you'd like, but let me warn you that the person who presided over the last resolution, user:Lexmercatoria, was a lawyer and a specialist in Indian constitutional law. Lastly, since you seem to be slighting the list by calling it "gargantuan," let me point out that lists are not gargantuan (which means "colossal," or of immense "volume or capacity"); they are typically long.Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Fowler, interpretations, however reliable, are only interpretations. Using interpretations, when the language in the primary text very clearly spells out the status of the language, appears to be an attempt to try and add "flavor" to constitutional directives when there is no need for one. Having said that, I am perfectly happy with the change that you just made and see no point in restarting the discussion. Finally, I wasn't slighting your list (gargantuan list is actually a fairly common expression) and I do not need unsolicited advice on how I should go about writing English or any other language. Thanks AreJay (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Hindi, with the largest number of speakers,[98] is the official language of the union.[99] English, which is extensively used in business and administration, has the status of a 'subsidiary official language.'[6]
  

This is fine - Official language is fine. But not 'subsidiary official language.' Is this term used anywhere in the constitution? Is this an official government term? Looks like a derogative term to me. --gppande «talk» 16:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't have much time right now, but the way I remember it is that user:Lexmercatoria (the constitutional law expert) introduced it sometime in early July 2007. I remember he was very clear that it was not "associate official language," but "subsidiary official language." You'll have to look in the talk archives of this page, (and also in the Official languages of India from late June to mid July 2007. I should also add that I don't have much time to take part in a new discussion; I added the references to save people rehashing the topic all over again. However, if they nonetheless want to, I obviously can't stop them. This will be my last post on this topic. Good luck. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the issue of the national language, I support the viewpoint of F&F since it is reality and I feel that's the only think F&F did correctly. But we must be looking into whether the GOI's version must be taken into account or the people's viewpoint on the issue must be given importance. Even though India is a democratic nation, in this issue no opinion of the people were asked. Even no one knows who made those changes and when. It will get changes within few years time and all languages will be elevated to equal status by GOI itself. Until then either allow the GOI's viewpoint to exist or the article must reflect the common perception and belief (which is a good one) among the populace.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 07:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)