Wikipedia

Talk:India/Archive 32

< Talk:India
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Yogesh Khandke in topic India that is Bharat
Archive 25←Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35

Maurya

Latest comment: 13 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
 
The extent of the Maurya Empire after Chandragupta's southern conquests c. 300 BCE.

Isn't it perplexing that you have foreign invaders being mentioned British, Mughals but no mention of Maurya's in the lead, look at this wikipedia map of the Maurya empire, bigger than the British colony of India, who drove the Greeks out and reoccoupied Gandhara and Kambhoj? We also need mention of the Hindu Shahi's of Kabul, the maritime Srivijaya kingdom, the Laguna Copperplate Inscription,

Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

We, in the lead, need to mention things which aren't in the article, or even actually in India itself?!? Wow, I need to go and read WP:LEAD WP:SUMMARYSTYLE and WP:UNDUE all over again, as I'm obviously missing something big. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Chip, just as I had written about Bene Israel, these are the things that a person reading about India needs to know at first glance (IMO), I am not suggesting that we break rules, the inclusion in the lead can be preceded by adequate representation in the article.
If something's not in the entirety of a Fine Article, I highly, highly, doubt it merits inclusion in the lead, even if now added. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Also Yoga and the global impact of Hindu spirutualism such as ISKON etc.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

We have four people supporting the uploading of the paragraph on Mauryas to the lead. RegentsPark provided support initially but has now withdrawn it because he is off Wikipedia. We have one person opposing the same paragraph (CarTick's version). I feel we should go ahead and upload CarTick's version of the 2nd paragraph in the lead. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

One of the supports opposes part of the paragraph, note "A lead should not contain name of any individual. In this case Gandhi's name if not mentioned will be more apt." So clearly even in the supports there is a dispute. At any rate, I highly doubt consensus achieved there. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
(Reply to Zuggernaut) Besides there are four supports for my version as well: AshLin, Munci, RegentsPark, who not only didn't withdraw his support for my proposal, but also supported Munci's view that my version should be uploaded, and I. Even CarTick, himself seemed to agree with Munci's point but prefers to keep the current lead in case the page is going to FAR]. Please pinch yourself out of your dream. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Pdheeru's changes

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

User Pdheeru is removing a line about Akbar from the history section. When he proposed doing it in August 2010, it was opposed by four other editors Talk:India/Archive_28#History. He proposed again in February and the discussion went nowhere (got lost in the flurry of recent discussions) - Talk:India/Archive 30#FAR.

He has removed it again now and has been reverted by Fowler and me. An established text that has been there for so long in this article cannot be changed without discussion and arriving at consensus first. So i am putting in this note. Dheeru do not remove the line UNTIL you get a consensus here to remove it. The established practice is to intiate discussion, arrive at consensus,then modify. You are going about it in the wrong order and this is the second time you are doing it. --Sodabottle (talk) 07:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Sodabottle, I only went in for the changes because there was no response to the discussion already initiated. Probably this was one-way of gaining attention to this issue which, as Sodabottle said 'got lost in the flurry of recent discussions'. Comments are welcome on this proposed change in the history section.Pdheeru (talk) 08:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The Maratha’s may have made many mistakes, but to the Hindu citizens of India who had been crushed under Islam for over five hundred years they demonstrated by their action that Hindus could live with honour …(On the back cover of Tryambak Shankar Shejwalkar’s Panipat 1761, Rajahans, Pune. ISBN No. 80-7434-010-6), we don't need Akbar, it is undue.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I support Pdheru's edit and oppose Soda's revert, but cannot have this ping-pong match. Reason is Shejwalkar above.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Requesting editors to comment on this issue so that this can be speedly finalized. It has been pending for a while now. Pdheeru (talk) 06:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

removed the disputed paragraph

Latest comment: 13 years ago23 comments5 people in discussion

seems unfair to continue to host the lopsided and disputed paragraph in the lead. even without that paragraph, it really doesnt sound that bad. gives everyone time to iron out a compromise. --CarTick (talk) 21:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, CarTick, whether you personally like it or not, you can't remove a paragraph that has been in place in the lead of an FA for over four years. You had plenty opportunity to dispute it earlier in all your time on Wikipedia. But you did not. It came only as an afterthought to you after one week of discussion about other aspects (whether and how to include religions) of the lead. The paragraph is the default paragraph. It stays in place until there is consensus on a new one, FAR or no FAR. An FA cannot have a truncated lead. What is to stop a third person from disputing the first, third and fourth paragraphs as well, and remove them all. We would then have an FA without any lead. Sorry, but you have to bide your time like everyone else. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Again, as I've reminded you earlier, Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles#Featured_articles states clearly:

"Editors are asked to take particular care when editing a Featured article; it is considerate to discuss significant changes of text or images on the talk page first."

That Wikipedia takes this injunction seriously is shown by the lack of sympathy for user:Zuggernaut's attempt to make a minor change in it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
well, i personally dont think the article is FARFeatured Article quality with such lopsided history preview in the lead. you and a few apologists wrote this article a million year ago and had it passed when FARFeatured Article guidelines were weak and you have been misusing the FA tag to fend off any effort to rectify the blunders. you would love to have no consensus because your favorite East India company is mentioned in the lead. that is all you care about. --CarTick (talk) 02:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
that you even made sure that East India Company in wikipedia would always refer to your beloved British East India Company. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:East_India_Company_%28disambiguation%29#Requested_move. --CarTick (talk) 02:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Regardless of whether the article is "FAR (sic) quality" or not, whether I am an "apologist" or not, whether I wrote is a "million year (sic) ago" or not, whether I have been "misusing the FA tag" or not, we all have to bide our time until new consensus is reached. As for the page move to East India Company, I'm afraid you have the wrong link. The correct one is: Talk:East_India_Company/Archive_1#Requested_move. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
it doesnt change anything, you were the who proposed the page move. great. you got four support votes. surprise, RegentsPark is one of them. :) --CarTick (talk) 02:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
The page move went through CarTick, propose a move if you want. As for "FAR quality", that makes no sense. As a statement on the topic of this section, a dispute in the text is not a reason to remove it. WP:BRD. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Whether Fowler likes it or not, there are other people on Wikipedia who share CarTick's view. For example, take an IP's (possibly a regular admin on Wikipedia) post on RegentsParks talk page. About the policy, yes we need to encourage everyone to edit FAs, even IPs, newbies, and the not-so-crazy-university-professor types and all. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) There are other people? I am shocked. I must be an apologist and a scary one at that if I reduce a "regular admin" to such a state of gutlessness that he takes to hiding behind the skirts of an IP address. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and I feel some of them may not be coming forth because of your "university professor" userbox. Let us see if you can level the playing field by taking it off to have your edits stand by themselves. Zuggernaut (talk) 07:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

We have reached an impasse regarding the 2nd para of the lead. The current para in the article is very badly writen and needs to be changed. I request editors Fowler and CarTick to re-write their proposed versions of the 2nd paragraph with improvements suggested by various editors and them let us select one of the two proposed para.Pdheeru (talk) 06:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a good suggestion. I support it. Zuggernaut (talk) 07:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, good suggestion. However as Zuggernaut should know, they have both already provided their proposed leads above, and no consensus was reached. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
No harm giving it another shot to try and form consensus. Zuggernaut (talk) 14:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Alternatively I also suggest the below said version for consideration:

Home to the Indus Valley Civilisation and a region of historic trade routes and vast empires, the Indian subcontinent was identified with its commercial and cultural wealth for much of its long history. Four religions, including Hinduism—India's ancient and majority religion—and Buddhism, originated here. Uniting large swathes of ancient India, the Maurya and Gupta empires, and some middle kingdoms of India, had a lasting cultural impact that reached well into the neighboring regions of Asia. Islamic invasions from Central Asia began in the early second millennium and Muslim rule rose to its height under the Mughal empire in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Colonised by the United Kingdom, India became an independent nation in 1947 after a non-violent independence movement.

I have deleted the name of Gandhiji and the statement saying other religions arrived in India, since this does not make any sense as in todays world every religion can be found in almost all country. Pdheeru (talk) 07:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I feel your last sentence is too verbose, Pdheeru, and too quick to acknowledge the British. How about: "Colonised, India decolonised?" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
will you stop your patronizing everyone who disagrees with you? we all know you were the smartest kid in the block. Pdheeru's last sentence gives exactly the right amount of weightage to British. we also know you would love to spend an entire paragraph describing East India Company. --CarTick (talk) 12:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
No they wouldn't. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I'm pretty sure, he would. Zuggernaut (talk) 14:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
This is frankly pathetic. Just because someone wants to mention the EIC does not mean they are a huge supporter of the EIC and what it did, and does not mean they believe it is all-important. You are not helping your arguments at all by trying to grossly exaggerate and over-represent the arguments of others. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Pdheeru (and Yogesh) Gandhi was a central figure in the independence movement; he enjoys world-wide recognition for his role and deserves a place in the lead. However since non-violent non-cooperation with inhuman and evil regimes is synonymous with Gandhi, I am OK to drop the name from the lead, though reluctantly.

Additions and Modification to Introduction to India (Beginning article para)

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Part 1:

The reasons why it should be modifies as it is written:

If you see in economics much of the organisations are much like forums and are forums but does not end with named like "XXX forums" Like BRIC represents 4 countries in the world. This was though originally a concept made by an Goldman Sachs economist; its not taken into consideration as really a organisation like the UN, NATO or other western organisation. I am not saying BRIC is not important but its importance will be known in the future years. So if you see the functioning its almost like a forum where 4 countries come and meet to discuss the future of the world and economy.

With the same reason, even IBSA Dialogue is a forum which is also very important. It should also be important. Likewise the SCO has also to be mentioned because India is a part of it. I dont care if it is not a full member but it is still a member state. The respresentative of Indian Govt does attend their organisation meeting, I cant understand why are they two excluded completely from the paragraphs. Obmission is like India is not even a part of the two respective IBSA Dialogue Forum and Shanghai Cooperation Organisation organisations.

India is not a member of the SCO, so that can't be included. Furthermore, organisations in the lead must be mentioned in the text, which these aren't. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Vital, Strong and Historical pictures should be added

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
    • DO NOT DELETE THIS SECTION: More pics will be posted down soon for considerations and finalization for pics to be put up and posted in final article of wiki article - India.
I personally feel after reading articles on various countries, India has text but misses lot of historical, nature and vital pictures that define, portray, distinguish and speak of India. The article of India is though a top class article but is not a complete one. I believe pictures speak a lot on their own which just a body of paragraph, text and link to articles can't. See China, UK, USA, Brazil even Pakistan has so many good pics; why is India fail to portray its image and reality?
  • I put down pictures I believe are good to be put on the final official wiki "India" article. I do not know where exactly and to which part of paragraphs to be put on. However I give a collection to it might be agreed to further the article's to a higher level of aesthetics and rating to a number one article in wiki.

Anyways, the pics below are of great clarity and high resolution with great detail and significant value to aesthetic value and vitaliliity of article. Hence, I presume that everyone will vote for to include all the pics below to India. Thanks, Chindia (China-India) (talk) 07:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem is images should reflect and extend on the article text, standalone images are pointless. Furthermore, as an article is not a repository for images, and needs to follow WP:MOSIMAGES, the number and arrangement of images in the article is restricted. As for those other country articles, only the USA is slightly comparable (being a GA) but at any rate all those articles need to follow this one, not the other way around. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I made a point for adding more images (specifically to the Geog section) a few months ago. Any reader would not find out the diverse climate from the single image of the Himalayas currently used in the article. Many other articles, such as the China article outline the diversity of their respective countries, I would like to see this in the India article as well.--RaviC (talk) 21:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
All of these pics are terrible. Please do not add. Nikkul (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

removal of disputed content

Latest comment: 13 years ago40 comments6 people in discussion

the disputed paragraph that includes east india company in the lead is not mentioned in this December 3, 2004 version which featured on the main page. Please see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/India. apparently, the content was added later. Second, Fowler who proposed to take the article for FAR doesnt seem to take any effort in that direction. Due to these two reasons, i am removing the disputed paragraph until a new consensus emerges. --CarTick (talk) 22:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Please don't be ridiculous. The paragraph has been in place since late 2006 when a large number of editors headed by user:Nichalp, who headed the page's FA drive earlier, and including user:Saravask, user:Ragib, .... revised the India page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
A number of sections, including Flora and Fauna, were added at that time. The lead was in place, when the last FAR, nominated by user:Sarvagnya, was conducted in the Summer of 2007. The article milestones are incorrect, the last FAR was in 2007, not May 2006. An FA, Mr. CarTick, can't be without a lead! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
The deletion of the disputed content by CarTick makes perfect sense. Wikipedia articles are never set in stone and can always be improved. An example is the removal of a huge error that went undetected in this FA for many years. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
If they are not cast in stone, why is antiquarian CarTick looking for stones from 2004? It is the usual case of WP:Main article fixation. Neither CarTick, nor Zuggernaut have made substantial contributions to this page, but yet, with limited prose skills, they want to write the lead of this FA. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think either of us has "limited prose skills". To those whose first language is not Enlgish: don't let people like Fowler scare you away from editing this page. You can always recruit the help of the copy editors guild. And English skills are the least important of skills in comparison to the understanding of fundamental Wikipedia policies. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Please don't put words in my mouth. I'm talking about the lead of an FA. That does require prose that "is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;" (see Wikipedia:Featured article criteria). Even GAs require decent prose as you no doubt know from your last review. How are people who have made minimal contributions to this page, zero contributions to the History of India page, nevertheless leading the battle charge in rewriting the history paragraph in the lead of this FA?? If you say anything to them, they start waving AGF, OWN, "anyone can edit," and the usual dogmatic claptrap in your face. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
BTW, Zuggernaut, Judaism, mainly did arrive in India in the first millennium or even later. The myths, of the Cochin Jews and the Bene Israel, that a handful of them arrived in 500 BC, are just that, myths. The latest DNA evidence has shown that the main Jewish migration to India took place much later. So, please don't gloat over your major discovery of this error. I let it go because most people on this page were of the opinion that the Jewish numbers were and are too small to merit mention. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't understand what's "disputable" about the EIC/British Empire section of the lede. It's an integral part of Indian history and definitely merits mention in the lede. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for a dispute or removal. —SpacemanSpiff 06:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Gupta, Maurya, Vijayanagara, Maratha, Chola, Chalukya, Pallava, Kadamba, Rashtrakuta, Pala, Chera, Pandya, Thuglaks, Lodis and several othere were parts of Indian history. Spacemann, the question has always been why the Undue mention of East India Company. The question gained further traction when it was later found out that it may have been sneaked in by Fowler who has worked favorably to British East India company all over wikipedia. --CarTick (talk) 11:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Like I said, the article was revised in late 2006 and directed by user:Nichalp; there were many admins involved including user:Ragib and user:Saravask and I believe also user:Sundar. If you have evidence that I "sneaked it in," please produce it; otherwise you are just lying through your teeth in the service of your distended world view, which you, apparently, aren't skillful enough to render into FA-grade prose. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Just because you believe that the EIC has an UNDUE mention in the lead does not mean you remove the entire sentence leaving a giant hole in the history section of the lead and does not mean you make that change without consensus once it has been reverted. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Fowler: that is a ridiculous argument. being skilful in prose has nothing to do with generating unbiased content. we dont need biased English professors for that, plenty of copy editors around. you need to show us the previous conversation where British East India company was chosen to be included in the lead over all other rulers i mentioned above. i would like to know the rationale why this decision was made.
Chipmunk: when are we going to get consensus and how are we going to achieve this? Fowler said he was going to take it to FAR. it has been two weeks. if he is not interested and doesnt have time, he should let other people take care. By the way, what is your argument for the inclusion. you, by your own admission, have no sufficient knowledge of Indian history. are you fowler's sidekick or what? you just agree with him on everything and revert things on his favor without an argument of your own. --CarTick (talk) 11:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
There are numerous steps in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution I suggets you look at. In addition, why don't you ask Fowler yourself if they still intend to take it to FAR, and when (I'm waiting as much as you are). Where did i say I don't have "sufficient knowledge" to work on this article? I'm not an expert in Indian history, I'll freely admit that, I doubt many of us are. Do you want my reasoning? Would it make a difference? Just to appease you, the EIC was responsible for bringing the British into India. The EIC is thus responsible for British rule. British rule is a massively important part of Indian history, where a common Indian identity was developed, and determined the current borders of the country, as well as providing a base for many of the political, judicial, and governmental systems of the country. Leaving it out leaves a large hole in the steps of history that led to modern India. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
here is the bottomline. whether British played a role in Indian history? yes. decisive role? yes. Was British entirely responsible for everything that is Indian today? no. Should British Raj be mentioned in the lead to convey this message? yes. Should both British East India company and British Raj be mentioned in the lead to convey this message? no. too much for the lead. we are not mentioning Mamluks, Thuglaks, Lodi and other Islamic dynasities that preceded Mughals.
Here is the [link] to when Fowler added this sentence on 18 November 2006. His rationale is Incorporating mention of British empire in lead from user:Saravask's version of 14th Nov. 2006. unquestionably, added by Fowler and now defended by Fowler. --CarTick (talk) 12:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not going to argue about the EIC ad nauseum, so suffice to say I disagree with your argument. So do others. As for when Fowler added it, do more digging if you wish, but his rationale seems to say it was added by someone else first. Even if he did add it first, considering other's support that sentence it doesn't really matter. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
yes, he mentions, Saravask added it first. but, i cant find 14th Nov 2006 edit of Saravask that added it. i would like to know what Saravask added. apparently, this seems to be the first time the exact point in question is ever under any scrutiny. 12:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) It's not for me to find evidence for your statement, Mr. CarTick. You said above, "The question gained further traction when it was later found out that it may have been sneaked in by Fowler who has worked favorably to British East India company all over wikipedia." You are either lying through your teeth or you should be able to provide evidence that I "sneaked it in." Anyway, here the evidence for what it is worth. Next time, CarTick, if you don't know, ask, but don't talk through your hat.

  1. Nichalp had been away for about six months in summer and fall of 2006. The India page had degenerated in his absence and I found it in poor quality when I arrived on Wikipedia in October 2006. I copy-edited the lead and brought it to this condition by 12 November 2006. As you will see, there was no mention of British anything, only of ancient India's contributions.
  2. My first version of the lead was rolled back by Saravask in this edit of 14 November, and that brought the "British" into the picture. Saravask also made a a post on this talk page. As you will see in the link, I was appalled by the rollback and protested.
  3. Nichalp, upon his return, was not happy with the state of the article. He made a post here about the poor quality of the lead. I was not happy with Nichalp's version.
  4. I went and look at the various history texts and copy-edited his version (mind you the British stuff was his idea; mine had nothing originally about the British) and came up with this version, which was more complete and added the bit about the East India Company and the direct administration by the British Crown, and
  5. I then made this post to which Nichalp responded in "blue" Notice that he said, "the current draft is better," in response to my revision of the British edit.
  6. I had originally favored, "Politically controlled by the East India Company from the early 18th century, and directly administered by the British Crown from the mid nineteenth century," but it didn't stay over the many discussions about that sentence over the next six or seven weeks.
  7. In the end "annexed" was suggested by Nichalp and "gradually" either by me or user:Dab, and the "colonised" stayed (against my version). It took a lot of work, CarTick, some six weeks of back and forth. So, next time, when you go about shooting in the dark, without having contributed a damned thing to the article itself, give other people some credit. At least don't judge others by your compromised standards. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
PS, In the end also, as you will see in the "Improvements" discussion. I had to take out all the "decimal number system," "Ajanta," "Taj Mahal," stuff because Nichalp was of the view (and rightly so) that the lead of an FA is not the place for lists. In the process, I learnt something about writing on Wikipedia. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
PPS The reason for adding the East India Company, and therefore, a more accurate description of the British period, was to distinguish India from other colonies in the empire, in some of which, such as Egypt, the British stayed only a few decades. Here is the exchange from this talk page section. The italics is Nichalp's version of the lead; the roman is my comment; the blue text is Nichalp's reply. He states that my draft (current) is better:
  • "Colonised as a part of the British Empire ..." India was colonised by Great Britain and consequently became a part of the British Empire. Again, given the size of the British Empire at its height, it doesn't distinguish India, for example, from Zimbabwe, Botswana, Sudan, or Egypt--countries that the British arrived in late in the 19th century.
  • "...after an intense struggle for independence" When was any struggle for independence not intense?
The current draft is better
Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
it demonstrates the following clearly. 1) you (Fowler) are the one entirely responsible for Company being in the lead. 2) Through Nichalp's reservations about the lead proposed by you, you bulldozed him, with your aggressive POV pushing and poor-prose writing accusation, to agree half heartedly with your edit 3) none of these explains why company was included in the lead over many other indian rulers. --CarTick (talk) 15:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
All it demonstrates clearly is that you seem to be having issues in understanding English prose, not just in writing it. What, then,
  • explains my lead of 12 November 2006 which I had worked on for a month?
  • Where is the mention of East India Company there?
  • Where is the mention of anything British?
  • Why didn't I put anything about the East India Company when I had a month long carte blanche?
  • Nichalp, by the way, was no slouch. He was a bureaucrat on Wikipedia with a strong personality (and someone I respected, unlike some latter-day pretenders much in evidence today). When he disagreed with me, as he did about the list of contributions (decimal number system, Ajanta, Taj Mahal, influence of Indian culture in South East Asia and East Asia), he told me in no uncertain terms. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and, by the way, I couldn't have
[this link] shows that you introduced company in the lead on 18th Nov 2006 refering to 14th Nov revision by Saravask. [this 14th November revision by Saravask] shows he introduced british empire, while he did not mention company. am i missing something. pls help me. i would really like to know who introduced company in the lead first. if it is not you, i would like to withdraw my "sneaked in" accusation. please also keep your replies brief and to the point. --CarTick (talk) 16:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
What you are missing, and continue to miss, is that [my original version of 12 November 2006 had no mention of the British (Empire or Company). What explains that? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

If you don't withdraw the "sneaked in" allegation, I will take you to ANI and let the people there decide. I've had enough of your nonsense. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

whether your original version had east india company or not doesnt matter. what matters is you are the one who included company in the lead as it stands now with available information, unless, there is another diff which will prove otherwise. i am not withdrawing the accusation unless you prove me wrong. --CarTick (talk) 16:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
But how did I "sneak it in?" "Sneak" in the English language means "to put, bring, or take in a furtive or artful manner." What did I do that was furtive or dishonest? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Maybe you don't understand the meaning of "sneak in." But now that I've explained it, you need to withdraw it. Otherwise, as I've said, I'll take you to ANI and they will then explain the meaning to you again. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
i love the sarcasm and persistent attempts at insulting. Incorporating mention of British empire in lead from user:Saravask's version of 14th Nov. 2006) is the edit summary you used to incorporate the company in the lead. here are two reasons why i think you "sneaked it in". 1) according to the edit summary, you are introducing british empire, but in reality, you added British Raj and East India Company 2) according to the summary, you are refering to Saravask's previous edit. but, in reality, he had not mentioned the word company in his edit. --CarTick (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Here are the two sections of the British Empire page devoted to India: a) Rise of the "Second British Empire" (1783–1815): Company rule in India and Britain's imperial century (1815–1914): East India Company in Asia, British Raj. According to that page, British Empire in India = Company rule + British Raj. In fact they mention the Company more than the Raj. Why is that deceptive? "Incorporate" doesn't mean copy without alteration. It means "To combine or unite into one body, to mix or blend thoroughly together (a number of different things or one thing with another)." (OED) How have I not incorporated mention of the British Empire in India (which was = Company + Raj)? I then discussed the edit with Nichalp and it was debated for a full month afterwards. How was I being deceptive? If I had introduced it deceptively, wouldn't six weeks of open discussions, in which every word was debated, not have brought it out? Again, now that I have explained what the British Empire in India was and what "incorporate," means, you need to withdraw "sneaking in" otherwise, as I have explained, I will take you to ANI, and they will explain the meaning of the three words all at once to you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

This has been pointed out on several occasions - we do not go in to the details of other empires so why make an exception to the British Empire? Mentioning EIC is an unnecessary detail which is completely out of place given that we don't mention how the Maurya Empire (or any of the other empires) was built or how it has influenced the modern Republic of India. Zuggernaut (talk) 17:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Exactly Zuggernaut. Why even mention the British Empire when the Mauryas, the Guptas, and all the other Indic empires go unmentioned. That's why in my [my original version of 12 November 2006 the British were completely and definitively absent. However, if you noticed my edits in that link, I am very particular about accuracy, down to all the footnotes. I felt that, once I had to include the British, per Saravask's version of the previous consensus, the statement needed to be accurate and not "India was colonised by the British Empire." That's is what I say in the Talk Page debate, "India was not colonised by the British Empire, it was a part of the British Empire. It was colonized by the Company from 1757 to 1857 and by the United Kingdom from 1858 to 1947." All I did was to make the statement accurate. I had no experience of editing the Company rule in India page before that, I wasn't even aware of its existence. Why is CarTick making up a ludicrous tale about "sneaking in" edits? It was done in the glare of a spotlight. Nothing was sneaked in. Like I said, he needs to withdraw "sneaking in." Otherwise I will go to ANI. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
everyone understands British empire means both company and raj. but, mentioning the empire is not the same as mentioning both. it is not a minor edit that you didnt need to explain. the fact (as you admit) that you discussed it with Nichalp only after you added it doesnt help your cause. please take it to ANI.
By the way, your responses at 13:13, 13:38 and 14:06 (see above) to my simple question whether you were the one who added company in the lead first were while verbose, quite confusing and misleading. please dont confuse verbosity with correctness. --CarTick (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
"Everyone understands British Empire means both Company and Raj, but, mentioning the Empire is not the same as mentioning both." Why are you not upset that I mentioned the British Raj, why only the Company? CarTick, I suggest, that you not increase your burden of inaccurate allegations. Now you are calling my explanation "misleading." What I said upstairs was:

"I went and look at the various history texts and copy-edited his version (mind you the British stuff was his idea; mine had nothing originally about the British) and came up with this version, which was more complete and added the bit about the East India Company and the direct administration by the British Crown, and I then made this post to which Nichalp responded in "blue" Notice that he said, "the current draft is better," in response to my revision of the British edit."

Where have I misled anyone?? Now you need to withdraw both your "sneaking in" as well as "misleading." Why are you making life more difficult for yourself at ANI, CarTick?? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
) --CarTick (talk) 18:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I just realized that I've got CarTick to admit that" Everyone understands British Empire means both Company and Raj." Then, in the Alternative version of the Lead, why is he only mentioning the Raj?? Isn't that deceptive? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
i guess you are very angry. you might want to take some time off. anyway, if you are willing to accept this version with a different link? --CarTick (talk) 19:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm angry at your naked lying and blatant dishonesty. I had no idea you could sink this low. It shows that Wikipedia's basic weakness. That an editor like you, who has made minimal contributions to this page, none whatsoever to History of India page, who has apparently been seething with resentment and only resentment, for a very long time, takes hostage a page, and others have to stand by and watch. As for what I need to do with my time, Dr. Freud, if your psychological knowledge is as complete as your historical, please keep it to yourself. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

We need to stop this worthless argument which is taking us no where. Requesting both Folwer and carTick to stop throwing allegation against each other and be constructive. Regarding the second paragraph in the lead, kindly see this discussion which had taken place a few months ago regarding the use of Mahatma Gandhi's full name. Talk:India/Archive_28#Mahatma_Gandhi Pdheeru (talk) 06:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Also regarding the second paragraph in the lead, the disagreement is only whether to include the EIC or not. Other sentences in the second para seem to have consensus. Since we are headed nowhere regarding this EIC issue, I suggest a voting for or against including EIC in the lead. The voting should be open for a reasonable period of time.Pdheeru (talk) 07:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

CarTick's inaccurate allegations

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion
Shutting this down before it turns into another boxing match. Points have been clearly made by all, no progress will be made at this spot. Continue elsewhere if necessary. General consensus to get back to work anyway. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I'm listing CarTick's problematic statements for future ANI reference, but also giving him one more opportunity to retract:

  1. "The question gained further traction when it was later found out that it may have been sneaked in by Fowler who has worked favorably to British East India company all over wikipedia." (User:CarTick, 11:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC))
  2. "Through (sic) Nichalp's reservations about the lead proposed by you, you bulldozed him, with your aggressive POV pushing and poor-prose writing accusation, to agree half heartedly with your edit" (CarTick, 15:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC))
  3. "here are two reasons why i think you "sneaked it in".
    1. according to the edit summary, you are introducing british empire, but in reality, you added British Raj and East India Company
    2. according to the summary, you are refering to Saravask's previous edit. but, in reality, he had not mentioned the word company in his edit." --(User:CarTick 17:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC))
  4. "everyone understands British empire means both company and raj. but, mentioning the empire is not the same as mentioning both. it is not a minor edit that you didnt need to explain. the fact (as you admit) that you discussed it with Nichalp only after you added it doesnt help your cause. please take it to ANI." (User:CarTick, 18:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
CarTick, I have highlighted your four problematic statements above.
  • I am giving you one last opportunity to retract them. You are implying on the one hand that I "bulldozed" Nichalp with my "aggressive POV pushing" and on the other that I "sneaked in" the edit. To bulldoze someone is to blatantly coerce them—there is nothing furtive about it; to sneak in is quite the opposite. You have stated that I deceptively added mention of the East India Company and the British Raj by not being entirely accurate in my edit summary and that it has some connection with my working "favorably to British East India company all over wikipedia."
  • As for the fourth point, which I didn't respond to in the section above, I had already an assurance from Saravask in this talk page thread:

    Fowler, I can understand why you would be upset. I can help you reintroduce your work. Just let me know what you need fixed, and I'll be glad to assist. The problems I was pointing out above resulted mostly from the work of anons, trolls, and vandals. The purpose of the rollback was to erase their impact and allow good editors (like yourself) to proceed. I never meant to simply erase your work. I have no problem with your edits Saravask 06:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

    It was only after Saravask reintroduced my edits, and Nichalp, still later, removed them, that I incorporated Nichalp's incorrect British empire formulation, "India was colonised by the British Empire," into "India was colonised by the British East India Company from 1757 to 1858 and directly by the British Government from 1858 to 1947." One can take issue with excessive detail in my edit, but to suggest that in providing the detail, I acted deceptively and furtively and to further link it to my working "favorably to British East India company all over wikipedia" is not only inaccurate, but also itself deceitful.

It seems to me that having found yourself in a soup with your allegations, you are now making up reasons and explanations on the fly. It is better to cut your losses, and retract your "sneaking in" statement. Otherwise, you will only make my task at ANI easier. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC) Updated. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. It doesn't seem that Fowler actually sneaked in anything in to the article. Also, the version comes across as quite innocuous to me and I'm really surprised that it could result in to such heightened level of edit war. I would request both the parties to end this battery of allegations and counter-allegations and work on improving the actual article. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 05:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Shovon76 that we need to focus on improving the article. However I do not feel CarTick has to retract anything at all. It is Fowler who is the real problem here with his aggressive POV and relentless attacks on people who oppose his POV. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, for starters, CarTick has been lying, and you're not supposed to lie. That is much worse than being aggressive. CarTick has been lying continuously since he got himself into this mess and realized that I had actually worked on a lead, seen in this version of 12 November 2006, that not only acknowledged the ancient Indian contributions, but also didn't mention the British. That doesn't square with his dark fantasy that I've been busy promoting the East India Company. Unfortunately, he can't bear to accept the truth so he is boxed himself into a corner and is concocting one cockamamie story after another to explain my edits. He needs to retract. As for you Zuggernaut, does anyone really care any more what you have to say? You conduct RfC after RfC and either people completely ignore it or they respond negatively. You think RegentsPark is calling you mentally ill because he talks about your obsession and then proceed to take him to ANI. (The incident gets dismissed in a hurry.) The jig is up, Mr. Z. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
is there any denying you were the one who added company in the lead? and you added that 2 years after the article became FA. but, when we want to remove it 5 more years after, you would argue that we can not remove it because it is an FA article. for some reason, you were exempted from that golden "FA status rule". let us stop the drama and get back to work. --CarTick (talk) 16:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Upper House and lower house in india

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

RajyaSabha is the assembly made at state level. Elected MLA of Rajyasabha called as "Aamdaar" and Loksabha is Upper legestive house of indiaShekharsaad (talk) 02:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Shekhar Shinde, Pune, Maharashtra, India.

What?? Where did you get these informations from? Rajya sabha is the upper house and Lok sabha is the lower house. And, what the hell is "Aamdaar"? Shovon (talk) 20:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, a member of rajya sabha would be an MP not an MLA, unless you are referring to his office before election —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.163.17.65 (talk) 09:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Copy editing for grammar and choppiness before FAR

Latest comment: 13 years ago22 comments1 person in discussion

I'm copy editing the page before nominating it for FAR. Since the article is now going to FAR, it will be worked on by many people. It is one time when everyone gets to have a go at it. I have to do copy-edit, because the FAR rules say, "Nominators must specify the featured article criteria that are at issue and should propose remedies," and "Nominators are strongly encouraged to assist in the process of improvement." I can't very well turn in something shabby knowing fully well that it is shabby. People at FAR, who take time to work on an article, tend to get irritated if the page hasn't been minimally checked for choppiness, grammar, cohesion and coherence. Nothing that I do now is etched in stone. I am listing below any significant changes that I make. You are welcome to post objections or improvements either now or during the FAR process.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Image changes/additions by User:Kurienne

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion

Kurienne made some changes to images and added some. The changes are actually for the better. But as is our practice, i have reverted them to propose the changes here and gain consensus. The changes are

1)Replace

 
The Secretariat Building, in New Delhi, houses key government offices.
 
Vijay Chowk with the Secretariat Building in the background which houses key government buildings in the national capital New Delhi








with




2)addition of two new images

 
200pxRashtrapati Bhavan, the official residence of the President of India
 
Kathak, one of the popular forms of Indian Classical Dance










Please comment on this. If there is no opposition, i will revert my reversion and let the images stay--Sodabottle (talk) 05:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I think they're fine, they don't cause issues with text and can fit within where they were placed. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The Vijay Chowk pic is fine. In the Rashtrapati Bhavan pic, the gates seems to be prominent that the building itself. Not a well composed pic. Vijay Chowk pic : YES, Rashtrapati Bhavan pic : NO Pdheeru (talk) 08:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Vijay Chowk - Not good enough, too dark, little merit in itself. , Kathak Yes. Instead of Vijay Chowk, Secretariat Building. AshLin (talk) 08:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree and propose all changes and support images posted here for change by Kurienne. The reason being for the first image the pic with states in below caption "Secretariat Building, in New Delhi, houses key government offices" - the pic only shows the North Block but excluded the South Block in the same pic. However in the image proposed by Kurienne "Vijay Chowk with the Secretariat Building" shows both the North and the South Block. Hence the north and the south block which both comprise together to be called Secretariat Building is shown. I support this change fully.
Secondly, the "Rashtrapati Bhavan image" proposed by Kurienne is also very good. I support this as the pic shows both the main dome building of the bhavan as well as the entrance gate to the building. Hence the pic kind of give the display to those people who have never visited it or are just viewing the article for first time or reading on India.
Thirdly, I also propose here one more thing new to this section. As India has recently won the ICC Cricket World Cup 2011 ----> the image of the same of the victory of the team with the cup or the game should be posted into the sport section of the main article in replace of the current pic in the sport section that is " 2008 Indian Premier League Twenty20." Chindia (China-India) (talk) 07:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

These pictures are terrible. The Rashtrapati Bhavan can not be seen because of the black fence!. The Vijay Chowk shows two halfs of buildings and is really dark. And there is already a Bharatnataym image in the culture section. Nikkul (talk) 02:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Iceeshwinn, 2 April 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

, emergence of devotional poets such as Kabīr, Tulsīdās and Guru Nānak. This period was characterised by varied and wide spectrum of thought and expression and as a consequence, medieval Indian literary works differed significantly from classical traditions should be changed to devotional poets such as kabir and nank with Tulsidas be taken out due to unwavering devotion to the classics i.e. The Ramayana. Iceeshwinn (talk) 09:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Not Done. The section given above is not encyclopedic. Shovon (talk) 10:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Provisional population data, Census 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

The provisional population data for Census 2011 has been published (Provisional Population Totals for Census 2011). These can be incorporated in the article.India's population density is now 382 people per sq km. Joy1963Talk 07:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I think the provisional population data, which pegs the population at 121 crores, should be mentioned somewhere. Shovon (talk) 08:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Have included some details in the revised Demography section. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Census 2011 has many other things like GDP, growth rate, literacy rate. I think those should also be mentioned. Nitish.game (talk) 03:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Lombardo.nick, 4 April 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

{{edit semi-protected}}

Thanks for your feedback SpacemanSpiff; I really appreciate it. I definitely understand your point regarding the little added value another reference would make for those two specific sentences.

Alternatively, may I suggest an additional sentence in the "military" section of the "India" page with my reference included? I recently added my reference to a previously unreferenced sentence under the "Budget" section of the "Indian Armed Forces" page. The sentence I'm referring to is:

"A major portion of India's current defense budget is devoted to the ambitious modernization program of the country's armed forces."

My reference speaks specifically to this crucial point about India's defense spending. I would suggest inserting this same sentence along with my reference after the sentence ending, "...defence budget for 2011 stands at US$36.03 billion (or 1.83% of GDP)" under the "military" section on the "India" page. Again, my reference would be formatted as follows:

Lombardo, Nicholas R. "India's Defense Spending and Military Modernization" (PDF). Center for Strategic & International Studies. Retrieved March, 2011. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

Thank you again for your assistance.

Best regards, Lombardo.nick (talk) 18:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm addmitedly new to this process, but could someone please add the reference I'm including below to the "Military" section of the "India" page, following two seperate sentences? The sentences to which I am referring are:

"The official Indian defence budget for 2011 stands at US$36.03 billion (or 1.83% of GDP)."

and...

"India has also become the world's largest arms importer, receiving 9% of all international arms transfers during the period from 2006–2010."

The reference to include should be formatted as follows:

Lombardo, Nicholas R. "India's Defense Spending and Military Modernization" (PDF). Center for Strategic & International Studies. Retrieved March, 2011. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

Thank you!

Lombardo.nick (talk) 15:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

  Not done I haven't done this currently as the refs that were there with the sentences were good enough. I'm not sure why we'd need to change them to this paper as they all appear to be equally reliable. Please let us know if there's a particular reason to change and we can discuss that. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 15:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

notice to India page watchers

Latest comment: 13 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

it may sound like a crazy conspiracy theory, but please watch for this. there is a subtle but elaborate attempt by some users to separate India and Indian history from South Asian history for reasons i still cant very well understand. Look at this Template:History of India, like history of India starts only from British Raj? Template:History of South Asia shows all history you would have expected in History of India template. I also would like to bring to notice (without any prejudice about the merit) of the attempt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Indian_inventions_and_discoveries#Requested_move) to move Indian discoveries to South Asian discoveries. Consider all of these with the lead of this article which mentions hardly anything about Indian history other than the British time and IVC. how fancy it is to think India and Indian history start with British intervention? --CarTick (talk) 02:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

This would have sounded like a conspiracy theory to me a few months back. Now that I have worked with Fowler for months, it is clear that he has an agenda on Wikipedia and a very strong POV. He initiated the move request (from "List of Indian inventions and discoveries" to "List of South Asian inventions and discoveries")and then encouraged User:Mar4d to game the system to achieve his goal of deleting 'India' and replacing it with 'South Asia' when he saw that people voted against his move request. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Just looking at this, the history of India template is titled History of Modern India, in which case starting from the Raj seems appropriate (not starting from the EIC, which I suppose should make some happy). It has see alsos to the wider history.
The requested move looks good if considered in its wider goal, which is to standardise the lists of Indian and Pakistani inventions. From what I gather, even if it was moved, a new list of Indian inventions would be made, covering post-1947, which would be the same as the Pakistani list. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Template:Part of History of India exists as well. i am more interested in the History of South Asia template. let us step back and look at it from a larger perspective. --CarTick (talk) 03:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, yeah, yeah. More paranoid musings. Please consider relaxing with a fine chilled chablis.Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I suppose CarTick you could argue for a renaming of Template:History of India to Template:History of Modern India, or even better, Template:History of the Republic of India, but in terms of the actual appearance of the template, there isn't a problem. The template name is not shown to the reader anyway. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Right from the time Chandragupta Maurya's India, when he cleared Seleucus's forces off Kabul, Kandhar and Herat, to the Mughal India which met Safavid Iran beyond Kabul, India is what the sub-continent is called, the term South Asia is very fine to use contemporarily but would be incorrect to use in the historical context. Is Wikipedia the place to promote novel theories? It is a pity that serious reservations are condemned as paranoid.Would one change Indo-Iranian to South Asia-Iranian? Or Indo-China to South Asia China, or West Indies to West South Asia, or Indo-Aryan to South Asia-Aryan? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Demographics subsections

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Another user added a subsection on religions. I chose to leave for now as it was previously discussed and the idea of it seemed feasible. However, it it does exist, I think it needs to be expanded. If something is judged important enough to have its own subsection, it's very strange to have just that little bit of information. Looking at this, the languages section should also be expanded. On the other hand, there's the option to remove both subsection headers, and have the text exist as part of a single unified demographics section. Thoughts? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it's only appropriate that we have a more substantial section on both religion and languages, particularly religion since India is viewed by many as the land of spirituality. I will try and expand the subsections in due course.--Kurienne (talk) 07:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

India at FAR

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I've finished copy editing sections 3 to 7 in the section above. I'm leaving section 2 (History) and section 7 (Culture) alone as they need more work. Accordingly, I have just nominated the India page for an FAR. Please help improve it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of actually transcluding the review to the WP:FAR page, as that step had been missed. If the transclusion was deliberately not done, please feel free to reverse my action. Dana boomer (talk) 15:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't realize I had missed it. Thanks for helping out! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Fowler undid my edit with the summary Need stable version for FAR editors Undid revision 4227370..., the article is not locked it means it can be edited as far as I understand. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm staying off this page now for the next two or three or four weeks. I've done my bit for the FAR. I will let RegentsPark, Spaceman, Chipmunk, Sodabottle, AshLin, CarTick and other able Wiki-Indianists work on the FAR from here on in. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Pointless list

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Empires in southern India included those of the Chalukyas, the Cholas and the Vijayanagara Empire. Science, technology, engineering, art, language, literature, mathematics, astronomy, religion and philosophy flourished under the patronage of these kings.

This unsourced sentence is simply a list of kingdoms than a list of other stuff, with no rhyme or reason and no actual substance. We can either remove it, or perhaps source specific examples of what these kings actually did during their reigns. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

doesnt look great. i dont have a strong opinion and am just throwing out this idea just to generate some discussion. i would say we include a couple of highly notable. Vijayanagara empire for consolidating most of South India and Cholas for their military ambitions outside the subcontinent. --CarTick (talk) 00:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I'd prefer if instead of talking more about military consolidation etc., we try to stick to the theme of this sentence and note advances in some form of culture or science. If not, out of the two choices you've suggested the Vijayanagara option sounds better, as activities within the continent are more relevant that activities out of it. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
there was patronage for art, language, literature, and architecture. there was no science and technology as far as i can tell. --CarTick (talk)
Cholas and Vijayanagar empires are worth the mention. Vijayanagar can be mentioned for its temple architecture and Hampi (a world heritage site). Cholas can be mentioned for their detailed record keeping in the temples of Tamil Nadu. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

if we want to keep the theme, i would remove everything but these four i mentioned in my previous post and use some references from the correponding articles. from the one Indian history book i have at home,"the kingdom (Vijayanagara) has been seen as the epitome of traditional Indian kingship and a spectacular finale to two thousand years of Hindu empire.... it was also 'the last bastion of Hinduism'. when it fell, 'the south died'". --CarTick (talk) 03:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Child marriage

Latest comment: 13 years ago39 comments10 people in discussion

The statement about child marriage was supported by two sources, one was a BBC report about Rajasthan a state of India, which reports about the measures taken by the government to tackle child marriage, this report is 10 years old, the second source mentions that the percentage of women in the age group of 20-24, who were married or in union before the age of 18, as 47%. Contrast this with countries like the United Kingdom or the United States where the figures are 86% and 75 % respectively [1], in Britain according to the Gillick Fraser competency it is legal for children to have sex before they can open a Facebook account.[2]Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

"Child marriage is still a common practice, more so in rural India, with half of women in India marrying before the legal age of 18." This was the sentence you removed. The issue is not how old they were when they had sex - the issue is how old when they were married. You are comparing two different things. There are other sources to back this up like [3]. I am reinserting the line you removed. The reason you provided "the cited sources do not show fidelity" has now been addressed. --Sodabottle (talk) 05:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
And BTW in Britain according to the Gillick Fraser competency it is legal for children to have sex before they can open a Facebook account. Age of Consent is same in India and UK (16). And if both participants are below the age of consent, there is no legal restriction (unless force was involved) about sex in both countries.--Sodabottle (talk) 05:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
The Child marriage line is crap, it doesn't even mention a good source. Kindly remove it. Source it has lands to some US based tabloid and only the article is new the data it provides is unacceptably old. The other reference given which is stated to be 2009 report of UNICEFis actually 2002-2007 data. Remove it.Nitish.game (talk) 04:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Sodabottle. Yogesh Khandke seems to be confusing consensual sex with forced sex. And Nitish.game, cannot do Sodabottle the courtesy of reading what Sodabottle has written, and apparently believes that saying "remove it" enough times, like a magical incantation, will make the problem of forced child marriages in India disappear in a cloud of patriotic smoke. There are plenty of up-to-date references on forced underage marriages in India; it is a public health hazard that has contributed to India's high maternal deaths, the highest by far among all countries of the world. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Hahaha :D you were funny :/ I know it can't be vanished in a moment. I just want a correct reference of it. As I have mentioned earlier that sources are quit old to make impact and in the lack of sources better remove it (I know m using it once again, lol) and wait for the next UNICEF report. I am not being biased or something I am just putting o POV. Nitish.game (talk) 04:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh, OK, I misunderstood you. My apologies. I'll look for recent references. Back soon. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) Here are some:

  • Early marriage implicated in child malnutrition:
  • Early marriage implicated in maternal violence:
    • Raj, Anita; Saggurti, Niranjan; et al. (2010), "Association between adolescent marriage and marital violence among young adult women in India", International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 110 (1): 35–39 {{citation}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |first2= (help) Quote: "Nationally representative data from India document that 37.2% of married women report physical or sexual MV in the last year [4] and that 45% of young adult women in India were married before 18 years of age .... Over half (58%) of the participants were married before 18 years of age; 35% of the women had experienced physical or sexual violence in their marriage; and 27% reported such abuse in the last year. Adjusted regression analyses revealed that women married as minors were significantly more likely than those married as adults to report ever experiencing marital violence." There are many more. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC) (Note: MV= maternal violence) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm... must have taken an effort to find this... isn't it? now see... article 1 Raj, Anita; Saggurti, Niranjan; et al. (2010), "The effect of maternal child marriage on morbidity and mortality of children under 5 in India: cross sectional study of a nationally representative sample", British Medical Journal, 360 {{citation}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |first2= (help) yup I've thoroughly gone through it... it focuses more on child malnutrition but yes it has references of our point still the data given even in that article is of survey 2005-2006 Raj, Anita; Saggurti, Niranjan; et al. (2009), "Prevalence of child marriage and its effect on fertility and fertility-control outcomes of young women in India: a cross-sectional, observational study.", British Medical Journal {{citation}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |first2= (help). This is the article which has been referred in your article for citation purposes however this article also published in 2009 quotes old data itself 2005-2006.
In your second article u can see urself that it quotes the data of 2005-2006. Let me remind you dear I am not saying it does not exist or neither I am the activist trying to save my country's image (or may be I am lolz no actually not like that)or what else we can do is Census 2011 report is out may be you can spend time on that to find something more reliable for this grand level till time I'll also go through it I've actually read it but its a very long and messier report to understand. My point is till you get the new data or reference just remove it (oh yes I've said it once again lolz its getting funnier)...  :) Nitish.game (talk) 06:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
You may want to consult this. "Provisional Population Totals Paper 1- Census 2011", Provisional Population Totals Paper 1- Census 2011, 2011 {{citation}}: Text "Author:Ministry of home affairs, Government of India" ignored (help); Text "Census 2011 India:Bharat Ki janganna" ignored (help)Nitish.game (talk) 06:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Fowler (1)It would be less disruptive if you don't allude intentions. Please do not make personal comments about editors, please consider this a formal request, discuss edits and do not make comments about persons making them. (2)Please come up with citations that back up your statement that child marriage is forced or that its consumation is coerced. The report you have quoted states that age at marriage influences marital violence, and not that sex is coerced. Soda(1)The table with statistics informs that the 47% figure for India is of marriage or union - which I interpreted to be sex, correct me if I am wrong (2)86% of British teenagers are reported to have been a part of a sexual relationship, the US figure is 75% (reference given above), why is the 47% Indian figure notable Soda, which is why I removed it and I am doing so again. (3)The problems with teenage pregnancies are universal, UK has a serious problem with them, more so because most of them are out of marriage, and the mothers are single, Indian teenage mothers have the support of the husband and both the families, actually not as much a serious problem as UK teenage pregnancies.[4] Fowler the report stated above carries a statement that, the best the government could do is to stop undermining the family, the problems associated with early motherhood are there without doubt; in UK the mother is left holding the baby, in India the family supports the child mother. (3)Soda Please read about Gillick Fraser carefully, it is not about the age of consent, it states that under sixteen year olds can receive advice and treatment on contraception, please do not misunderstand GF, it says that the Age of Consent is no longer valid, you are wrong in your interpretation of GF competency Soda,there is no lower age limit, Facebook has it, it is 13, British law allows children to solicit advice and treatment about contraception, there is no lower cut off age, it is left to the doctor's judgement of the individual's competence.[5] Having said so, statistics about infant mortality, maternal mortality etc. would be welcome, one notable statistic is that India is one of the 4 countries in the world where polio is endemic[6]. That is a notable statistic child marriage is not as demonstrated above.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Without commenting on anything else, I'd be surprised if union means sex. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Corringendum/ clarification Marriage or union -> Union I interprete as sexual relationship outside marriage.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, that's a weird interpretation of the word. I think it's most likely something to do with Civil union. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
  • That is what I understand man-woman living together as husband and wife, having sex and the women getting pregnant. Where the analogy with children in UK etc. being part of such relationships that end up in pregnancies, how is that any better than child marriages? Which means that while UK has 10-15 times India's per capita GDP, India children when it comes to sexual abuse are about 60% as bad as the UK, so India's child marriage statistics are not notable.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Yogesh Khandke. The info about India being one of the four nations where polio is endemic is more prominent or notable than the child marriage info. Child marriage info seems trivia and need not be mentioned in the article.Pdheeru (talk) 18:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I too have to agree with Yogesh Khandke. The sex couldn't possibly be coerced. The reference I've provided above says, "37.2% of married women report physical or sexual MV (marital violence) in the last year." Since the sex couldn't possibly be coerced, it must mean that 37% of Indian couples go out to see a Kalidasa play in the early evening, discuss the play afterwards over tandoori chicken and lassi and strains of Bismillah Khan, and eventually move on to night of legally watertight consensual unions. Next morning, the husband spots a fly on his wife's unblemished face. Retrieving a Hanuman mace from the corner, he strikes a dozen very justifiable blows. On the fly, that is. Then in an effort to stanch the copious blood flowing from the fly's wounds, he sets his wife on fire. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Fowler (1) That is the problem with not reading carefully, I missed the sexual violence part, well it means some women do face sexual violence, which means that for some women sex is coerced, but the figure 37% includes sexual and physical abuse, compare this with figures in the developed world, this site[7] informs that laws about marital rape exist, but are ineffective, and it refers to the United States and the United Kingdom, the figures are about 20%, so as I repeat child marriage is not a notable attribute, things are only as bad on this count as the other parameters, perhaps like I mentioned earlier, interpreting statistics that you shared a few days ago, India is less corrupt than it is poor, similarly India is less child abusing than it is poor. Fowler please see this paragraph about what consent leads to Figures on teenage girls in danger from boyfriends caused shock in research communities in the 1980's. Teen Dating violence, which often involves rape and sexual assault, continues to be on the rise. Approximately one in ten high school students experiences dating violence - that figure is 22% in college students (Wilson, K.J., When Violence Begins at Home: A Comprehensive Guide to Understanding and Ending Domestic Abuse, Hunter House Inc. Publishers, California, 1997) (same source) (2)Please do not make sarcastic comments about culture, cultural motifs and deities. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

the information is worth including though it needs not be misleading. according to one of the sources, "A total of 44.5% of the women had been wed by the time they were 18, set as the legal age for marriage since 1978. Of these, 22.6% had been married before the age of 16 and 2.6% before the age of 13". the percentage breakdown in different age groups needs to be clarified. i would also advice Fowler to resist the temptation to be sarcastic at every chance he gets. --CarTick (talk) 21:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I've read these figures, the point is that are these stats notable? As I have pointed above, UK is the child sexual relationship capital of the world, in India it is at relatively lower levels. (As above) Another point is that marriage in parts of India is a two stage affair, Stage one is Vivaha and stage two is Gauna[8], another report also mentions the pracitce of Gauna and records that the age at first child birth is 19-20[9]. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
The lancet study is more reliable. it has a larger sample size 22,807 from all over India and women from all walks of life. the report you showed was from a rural area near Delhi. your point about Gauna is valid as the study has apparently included married women who were in gauna. whether it is notable is subjective and i think it is. --CarTick (talk) 22:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Notability is not subjective I have presented my proven arguments above why I consider child marriage to be a non-notable statistic, you have to present yours, or allow deletion of the statement.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 22:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
K. Santhaa Reddy, Member National Commission for women writes on Child marriage "A few months ago, National Commission for Women decided to hold Public Hearings on child marriages. Everything seemed perfectly clear. Custom of child marriages was a problem that had remained in spite of decades of legislation. Out there in wilderness lived some ignorant and backward people who did not understand that child marriages led to early pregnancy and poor health for young mother and offspring."... "A marriage in rural India is not just a relationship between two individuals. Marriages form the backbone of the networking that is essential for survival in a world where the idea of state providing protection seems an alien concept. Urban mind tends to ignore this concept of marriage and looks at marriage in its western form. In Europe and America, marriage is a license to have sex and procreate. In all communities where child marriages are prevalent, the sexual aspect of marriage is absent at the time of marriage.", she adds Fowler this last was for you "In fact a child marriage is so essentially different from a normal marriage, that it should be called an engagement rather than a marriage. After such a marriage, the girl does not go with her husband. She continues to live with her parents. The marriage is not consummated for many years. When the girl and the boy attain maturity, another ceremony (called "Gauna" in North India) is held. It is only after Gauna that the girl can meet her husband. The marriage is consummated only after Gauna." is that clear Cartic? The writer clearly understands that "There is no doubt that early motherhood is most harmful for a girl's long-term health and that this should be discouraged. However, this should be done with empathy and understanding about Indian society, customs and rituals, rather than with arrogance and haughtiness." Do you think this statistic about Child marriage is notable Cartic?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 22:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Santhaa Reddy makes some interesting points. but he is wrong about westerners getting married for sex and procreation. for all i can tell from my many years in western countries (just anecdotal, please dont quote me on this), people (especially men) are pretty tired of sex (especially with their partner) by the time they get married. you know how it is after marriage, it is only downhill from there. Indian media spreads myth about sex in western world same as western media does about many things about India. --CarTick (talk) 23:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

K. Santhaa Reddy is a woman and not a man. I have used the proper pronoun.[10]Yogesh Khandke (talk) 00:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Percentage is not the best characterization when dealing with Indian data. 2% in India means 24 million; 2% in the UK means 1.2 million, 2% in Sri Lanka means 400,000. Numbers are more important when one is dealing with human suffering. India has by far the world's largest number of minor females who are married, with most both illiterate and forced into matrimony. It is both pathetic and shameful that editors here are trying to put a gloss on this horrifying statistic by comparing it with the teenage travails of a developed society. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
what kind of ridiculous logic is that. if you use numbers, you have to provide numbers for both who do and dont practice and that is the whole purpose of using percentage. of course, if you want to mislead the readers and show India in negative light, like you are attempting to do, absolute numbers would do that. what would also be useful is to know the mean age of marriage in India. --CarTick (talk) 11:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
It is not practice, it is human suffering, just as malnutrition is not practice and we don't refer to the well-fed as not practising malnutrition. India has the largest number of underfed children in the world, the largest number of maternal deaths, and the largest number of female minors who have been forced into matrimony. The references I provided above conclude that there are causal links between all three statistics. Whether you still don't get it or are deliberately obfuscating to hide your shame, I have no idea. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Let's all try not to get overly emotional about this. Child marriage is a problem in India and is well recognized as a major health and social issue for women in India. We have a reliable reference that quotes a Lancet study (a reliable study) and statistics from the UN. That's good enough for me. CarTick's statistical detail is also fine. --rgpk (comment) 14:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Obama should be tapping you for mediator on Kashmir, if the Indians finally admit it needs mediation. I see again why you are an admin and I'm not.  :) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

That can be found over at Age at first marriage. And yeah percentages is probably best. The difference between the different "2%"s is just showing India's a highly populated country. I mean on the child marriage you'd put in absolute numbers, where you'd be looking at the question 'to what extent is this prevalent in the world?'. But on this article it's more about India so what you're looking at is more 'to what extent is this prevalent in India?'. Munci (talk) 12:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I feel % is the better way to go here on such a large topic as "India". This is in no way trivializing the problem with minor's in forced matrimony, but perhaps the actual numbers and a more comprehensive discussion could be done in another Wiki article on the topic. --BwB (talk) 14:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
RegentsPark (1)I have demonstrated above that Child marriage is not a notable statistic, compared to other countries, unless you can explain why it is notable it needs to be taken off, additionally as mentioned above it is a cultural issue too, with consummation taking at a higher age than Gauna, so the statistics need to be given some parity. (2)I appeal to you as an administrator to stop editors from insulting deities and cultural icons and also diverting off topic and making casual personal comments, I am considering making a formal complaint on the above and would like India page watchers to share their views on what an editor could do when another insults his deities.? BwB The coercion issue is dealt with above by Ms. Santhaa (and the other sources cited by me) when she explains that Marriage is more like an engagement, and consummation takes later Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, certain statements regarding a Deity made by a certain user ( as pointed out by Yogesh) is really uncalled for and irrelevant to the discussion. Either this user is deliberately trying to hurt the feelings of some people or is deliberately trying to take the discussion off topic. Such user should be warned by the administrators suitably so that this kind of things are not repeated. Regarding the discussion, the reference to child marriage should be deleted from the article since it is not a notable piece of info. There are other more prominent information which can be included (of course after a discussion)Pdheeru (talk) 18:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Yogesh and Pdheeru, I think fowler was being sardonic, imo in a tasteless way. But I'm not sure that the comments rise to an actionable level. Regardless, I've requested that he strike that portion of his remarks as a good faith gesture. About 'child marriage'. It clearly is a social and woman related issue that India is grappling with, a reliable reference calls it a 'peril', so I believe it should stay. It is not for us to compare India's statistics with those of other countries, nor is it our role to debate the semantics of marriage and cohabitation, but rather our job is to report what reliable sources consider important and to include those things. Whether we agree with those reliable sources or not. --rgpk (comment) 18:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
RegentsPark (1)the statistics offered on India should not be considered stand alone but compared with stats in other countries, and the Indian percentage is considerably lower, moreover marriage for many is merely an engagement that is consumated after another ceremony, (2)as for one source that calls it a peril, another study by B. S. Nagi calls the practice prevevalent but sporadic.[11]. (3)An American president once blamed rising prices on the Indians eating too much[12], international reports on India need to be taken with a pinch of salt. (4)Therefore please take the statement off.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Yogesh, even if the percentages of underage women married in another country and India were identical, if reliable sources only single it out as a problem in India, then that's all that we can report. That is the nature of an encyclopedia. BTW, the B. S. Nagi book you quote does state that its incidence is sporadic but it also says that it is a severe problem for India because it directly affects fertility and birth rates and the national population policy of India and that it has more serious repercussions for girls. The writer also says that despite action by central and state governments "the problem of child marriage still persists," and that "urbanization and industrialization" have not resulted "in a significant reduction in child marriages." Later, the author, while comparing the statistical incidence of child marriage in India versus those of other Asian countries writes, "the problem of child marriage is alarming in India among all Asian countries." B. S. Nagi therefore clearly states that this is a significant problem for India. --rgpk (comment) 11:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
It is a matter of interpretation RegentsPark, as I had commented on Fowlers figures on corruption, India as the indices point out is considerably less corrupt than it is poor, but the corruption statistic is mentioned as a notable feature, however I wish others too have a look at this, and I am leaving this point alone for the moment. I wish this article mentions (1)India's affirmative action programmes. (2)Quotes Agnus Maddison on the GDP data 28% in 1700 and ~3% after over of century of being a colony.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm ok with a mention of India's affirmative action program (provided it is appropriately worded and the wording corresponds to what reliable sources say). Which section do you propose to add this in? Not so sure about the GDP data because of the difficulty of ascribing economic consequences unilaterally to British rule and I don't think that has a place in an overview article because we'll have to present all views and there just isn't enough space for that (we have a total of 4 sentences on colonial rule in the article). --rgpk (comment) 15:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Independence Act 1947

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

On 18 July 1947, the UK Parliament passed the Indian Independence Act to make provision for the setting up of two independent Dominions.

Please add this note to the introduction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.99.5.165 (talk) 14:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

An improvement

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, can you please change CE to BC? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.19.14.21 (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Why what is wrong with CE, do you mean change CE to AD?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Citation

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

See wp:Lead, this lead doesn't have a single citation? have enough citations.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

"everything in the lead should be refenced" doesnt mean the reference needs to be in the lead. we should avoid adding references to the lead as much as possible unless it is absolutely required. do you specifically challenge any of the current contents in the lead? --CarTick (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Well not a few days ago wp:Lead read "the lead must be carefully sourced as appropriate.."., see the talk page, there is a discussion on. The issue isn't just citations but in-line citations, many (including myself) would prefer too many citations to too few.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit to lead reg corruption

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Do not revert, my statement is a faithful representation of the source. If you must revert, please provide citation for the statement India has become one of the fastest growing major economies, and is considered a newly industrialized country; however, it continues to face poverty, illiteracy, corruption and inadequate public health challenges, no wp:OR, no wp:SYNTHESIS. Thanks.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Cartic's removal of tags

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The addition of tags was an act of something I cannot use an uncivil word and cannot think of a wikiterm for something, good work that Cartic has removed them or relocated them. Cartic do you know how to link to an article in another language, I mean is an internal link to another language article possible Claude Poussin, this article is available on the Swedish wiki, how to link to it?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

please add [[fr:article name]] at the bottom of the page. "fr" is an abbreviation of French in this case. --CarTick (talk) 20:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
This page or that page, could you do it for me? Actually it is Swedish, how do you do that?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Khandke's statistical edits

Latest comment: 13 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

I'm reverting this again YK. Perhaps you've missed this insight in the various discussions on this talk page (though it should be obvious), but every change to the lead is heavily discussed here before it is made. This was previously discussed Talk:India/Archive_30#Negatives_in_the_lead here and the discussion was inconclusive. Which means that you'll need to get consensus for your edits before you make them. --rgpk (comment) 17:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

(1)I haven't missed any of the subtleties Sir, actually they were not so subtle. (2)Allow me to put a citation required tag. If a citation isn't provided, the said text should go. (3)I also request editors to put their opinion on the issue. What they prefer (a)India has become one of the fastest growing major economies, and is considered a newly industrialized country; however, it continues to face poverty, illiteracy, corruption and inadequate public health challenges. or (b)India has become one of the fastest growing major economies, and is considered a newly industrialized country; however, the per capita GDP of India was 64 times less than that of the United States (2005), USD 720 against USD 43740.. Thanks. Please justify, dont just agree or disagree, please, thanks again.

Agree to (b) This edit informs that though there has been growth and that this growth is manifest in absolute terms, in terms of per person, India is still lags behind by a long shot. This is better than the peacock terms, which are misleading.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

YK, the lead is not meant to contain cited information but it should provide a summary, written in an accessible way, of material that is in the main body of the article. Poverty, illiteracy, and public health are all highlighted and cited in the main body. Raw statistics are meaningless and succeed only in hiding information. For example, reading your proposed statistical statement, a reader would be unaware of India's high poverty rate, poor literacy rate, issues with malnutrition etc. We could, of course, move all this detail from the main article into the lead but then the entire article would be just one big lead section. --rgpk (comment) 18:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
RegentsPark(1)Your statement that Raw statistics are meaningless and succeed only in hiding information is unfounded in this case. A line like India's per capita GDP is 1/64th of the US hides India's poverty, sorry. That is an inaccurate interpretation on your part, perhaps you could add that it has amongst the lowest per capita GDP in the world, but I did not find a source for that. My statement hides poverty??? How does it hide corruption, or literacy or malnutrition etc. On the other hand once you say a country is poor, it means that all its indices are bound to be in the red, that isn't simply notable, it is undue. (2)Your interpretation of wp:lead is incorrect, please check the article and the discussion on talk page. A lead is a mini article, it should summarise the article, a section could be represented by a line or two in the lead, each line in the lead ought to be supported by more content in the article.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
This (India) article informs that the literacy level is 74%, America's National Adult Literacy Survey informs that 21 - 23% American adults possess lowest skills in prose, document and quantitative proficiency[13]], so even though Americans are 64 times richer than Indians they are almost only as literate as Indians, does that come across as a literacy issue as far as India is concerned?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Yogesh, as much as i hate it, India has all these problems and it needs to be there in the lead. illiteracy may not be as big an issue as it used to be. i am just saying this because of the new census. comparing it with America and performing all kind of original research to make it look better is not going to help. the only way we can help is by "educating" people in the real sense and not writing it in a different way in wikipedia. --CarTick (talk) 23:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Cartic: You dont get the point, that India despite all the hype, is a desparately poor country, and all its indices reflect that condition, malnutrition, hunger, health, education, housing, sanitation, inequality for women and children, pollution, cleanliness, defacation on roads, security, openness, good administration. The main issue is poverty, mention that and it covers everything else. You call my previous edit wp:OR, please give the offending statement(s).Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
that is exactly the point that India despite all its hype and real achievements has all these inadequacies. i dont buy your argument that poverty is the root cause of all problems. you could be poor but less corrupt and keep your environement clean. I believe that a lot of the problems in India is a direct consequence of an appalling lack of "civic sense" among its citizens. we dont care as much about our neighbors and community as we care about our family. --CarTick (talk) 11:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
That is original research Cartic, let me start with Child marriages, the UK study I quoted states that there is a direct co-relation between poverty and age at marriage, the poorer the person, the lower the age? Do you wish that I provide similar statements for each of the above, that health care availabliy reduces with reduction in income, or availablity of education is related to income, if you need sources for Paris is the capital of France, I will provide them but it takes time Sir.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Just my 2 cents here: The world community is also to be blamed for this. Swiss banks, in a first world country, are encouraging corruption since how many decades? Then there is case of corruption within that makes less that 50 paise available in the system out of every rupee, God knows where does the rest go. My point is that all the wealth are return of efforts of Indians and not for the corrupt or the Swiss Banks to steal. Swiss Banks are actually to be blamed a lot for this thereby contracting Indian Economy while some Europeans make the most of Indian efforts and then other Europeans bail the banks out. In India the corruption is shockingly part of the system and there is only guarantee that those who stand up will be made fall guys as these days Lokpal Bill mess shows.Thisthat2011 (talk) 17:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

One of Fowler's issues on History page

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

The Bhimbetka etc statements are sourced, what is the issue, another point is that a source informs of farming as old as 13000 BCE in Lahuradewa and Sanai Tar in Uttar Pradesh on the Ganga.[14][15] Apparently Uttar Pradesh and the Ganga bank, was where man took to farming 15000 years ago[16] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

This is NOT the widely accepted view in the world today and I would wait for mainstream scholarly journal refs before acceoting this. AshLin (talk) 02:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
AshLin" Will you please, back up your statement with a citation please, more than one please, as the above citations are good and from different sources.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
You'll need to find scholarly sources for that, right now this is nothing more than one theory that's not yet accepted by the historians/academia or just in general. —SpacemanSpiff 08:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Do you Spaceman state that the above two sources, there are three, one is a newspaper report, are not scholarly? By what yardstick?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Yogesh Khandke: Where did you read anything about farming beginning 15,000 years ago on your third site? Perhaps I missed something, but that source merely says that there was human presence along the Ganges 15,000 years ago and evidence of cultivation 9,000 years ago. As for the first source, it is a newspaper account of a conference in which presentations are typically not peer-reviewed, and therefore not reliable. Notice the Australian expert consulted was non-committal. If and when the findings are accepted and published in a peer-reviewed journal, they will become a reliable source. As for the second source, it is a primary source, a Google document no less. if those were allowed, I'd like to sell a few of my own. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

India that is Bharat

Latest comment: 13 years ago41 comments9 people in discussion

The constitution of India states "India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States....", why doesn't this article inform so? (Constitution of India, Part I, 1.1) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 22:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Please mention it then. It could enhance understanding.Thisthat2011 (talk) 07:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Because Hindi speaking wikipedians try to create a new India here. They want one State, one country, one language. But even Central government institues give priority to State languages over Hindi, eg Railway sign boards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Fraudly (talk • contribs) 08:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
  • What is your point David? I do not understand its relevance, my well quoted statement says that the Indian Constitution, its English version, makes the statement India that is Bharat, where has Hindi come from in the discussion?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I think it is time those who do not understand diversity stop giving wild claims. The constitution of India states this clearly and should be included.Thisthat2011 (talk) 12:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree it could be included. --BweeB (talk) 12:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
it is already there guys. --CarTick (talk) 12:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
It is not there Cartic, and it isn't Hindi, it is English.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
The name is used in English for example Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Bharat Operating System Solutions, Bharat Times , etc.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
The Indian government uses "Government of India" in English and "Bharat Sarkar" in Hindi in all its correspondence. --rgpk (comment) 13:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
My source is the Constitution of India, as found on a government site, it says India that is Bharat, in English, please no original research.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Is there a reliable secondary source that says that Bharat is an English name for India? Your source is primary and does not explicitly state that Bharat is an English term. --rgpk (comment) 14:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Bharat is a Sanskrit name, so eventually it is a name, whichever language it is spelled.Thisthat2011 (talk) 18:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Well bowled RP, now that is a valid point, let me find it?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 00:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

(od)Here it is, it also thinks that there shouldn't have been a dichotomy, that Ceylon was renamed Shri Lanka (sic), and that Bharat is mocked by pseudo-secularists and Macaulian fourth generation intellectuals. I request you to read the text carefully unlike the instance when you deleted without reading on the Ganga page, I'll put a diff later.[17]. May we have it in the article now Sir?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 00:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid the reference is not a good one. It appears to be about the dichotomy between India and Bharat (possibly between secular ideals vs. Hindu ideals) and about an aspiration to rename India Bharat. That, unfortunately, only strengthens the case that India is the accepted English name while Bharat is an aspirational name on the part of nationalists associated with the RSS. Perhaps one day India will rename itself Bharat but, unitl then ... --rgpk (comment) 03:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Agree with RegentsPark. The source is an opinion voiced by someone who belongs to or sympathizes with the Hindu nationalist organization RSS, which, moreover, Yogesh Khandke, Sir, believes, according to the same page, that India is Hindu and the term "Hindu" doesn't connote religion. So should we put that in the first sentence of lead as well and say, "India is a Hindu nation in South Asia?" Anyone can find a source even for the craziest of assertions, you need to show that a preponderance of reliable sources state that India is the same as "Bharat." Moreover, for an FA the bar is set even higher, the sources need to be watertight ones, preferably academic, per Wikipedia policy which states, "Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." In this case, scholarly peer-reviewed sources are available that attest to exactly the opposite, that India's English language name is "India." There is no reason to rely on a polemical tract of an extreme right wing organization, a tract that moreover is ungrammatical and full of spelling mistakes. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Reference here. I don't think anyone has capability to judge this and make comments on this simple assertion against this understanding that is held legally acceptable, it is okay to have divergent views. As it is, people calling India as India or Bharat as Bharat makes no difference to me.
By the way Fowlerx2, what do you mean by extreme right organization? Are you referring to RSS? Have you seen RSS doing Ku Klux Klan anywhere? Have you seen RSS having a political agenda of killing non believers to reach heaven? Who gave you permission to call RSS as an extremely right wing organization?Thisthat2011 (talk) 07:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Why does RSS, Hindi, etc. even figure in this discussion? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
RSS figures at the mention of 'an extreme right wing organization' without giving any references to the source and its extremely right wing activities. Hindi is mentioned here because the name 'Bharat'-a Sanskrit name is mentioned in Hindi as another name of India which is objected to by some editors.Thisthat2011 (talk) 10:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
By the way, Thisthat2011, yes I mean the extreme right wing Hindu nationalist organization RSS whose members were implicated in the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi and which was banned in India in the early years of the Republic. How many water tight reliable sources do you want for any part of the above statement? And how will you eat crow when I produce them? Perhaps at the very least by not making irrelevant comparisons with the Klan on this page? And what is your story, Thisthat2011 (talk · contribs), you appear on Wikipedia a few weeks ago and hit the ground running with Hindu nationalism related edits. How are we to know that you are not a sockpuppet of a dear departed banned Wikipedian? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes please present the sources while ignoring facts like how RSS ban was lifted after trial in courts(which is conveniently ignored, as also stellar work done disregarding religion), please also mention how is entire RSS to blame without any agenda for behavior of a few(even one)(that way a lot can be blamed on say Christianity or British Empire as 'extremely right wing' despite thousands of yours of slavery witchunting and calling others demonic/uncivilized fit to be conquered/vanquished)? I would also like to understand accusations adding to my notoriety as a banned wikipedian free of charge before I signed in or is this just an acceptable behavior to keep on accusing with sharp wits everyone? Is it also acceptable behavior to accuse anyone in RSS who want to preserve culture of motherland as member of "an extreme right wing organization" with frivolous excuses? Or is it considered normal around here to ignore human rights of anyone who wants to preserve culture as far as Hinduism is considered?
I mean how can people ignore Human Rights of RSS members for any excuses for anything? Is a sharp sense in writing English necessary to be called civilized or are there a space for allowance of tiny amount of human rights points for all the work done by RSS? Is ignoring noble work while pointing out something controversial a trait that is allowed and is justified by a sharp intellect? Is it because RSS is an anathema to idea of some Hindus as casteist upper caste(RSS is not for any caste nor it is casteist and therefore leaves hardly any scope for critique as Hindu right wing) or that good work done by RSS is an anathema to this understanding that only some people are entitled to work for good of Humanity and justified to be given charity while not others(work done by RSS somehow decreases scope to ask for charity and work in only certain fashion in India and take credit in a particular manner)? Does RSS present a dilemma to a certain world view against disciplined work done in no grand way and pomp and beliefs while a fact remains that RSS is working in disciplined manner for good of humanity in India and RSS is not giving credit in a particular limits?
OK you asked for it. Apparently, many reliable sources do consider the RSS to be an extreme right wing Hindu organization. Here are a few:
As far as terrorism is concerned, the definition of terrorism (against the crown so Bhagat Singh was hanged but not Gen. Dyer) has changed after Independence (terrorism as an act against anyone in India or the state as a whole etc).Thisthat2011 (talk) 16:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I would also like to know which of my edits are considered nationalists here? My own understanding is that I have not been any way Hindu nationalist. Is this a joke? Are there no Christian nationalists in Europe or Muslim Nationalists in Arab countries? Are their edits called in such a manner as "hit the ground running with ZBCDEFGHIJ religion nationalism related edits" or is this service extended only to Hindus in which case I can not complain being a Hindu!Thisthat2011 (talk) 12:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
it is clear Yogesh's original idea that Bharat is an English name for India has no traction here. Thisthat who originally supported the idea of including Bharat in the article seems to be satisfied with knowing that it is already there. atleast, that is my belief based on my reading of his previous posts. I would like to take this opportunity to warn Fowler not to label everyone that he disagrees with as "Hindu nationalist". it is clear from his comments in various talk pages that he doesnt care so much about "Hinduism" and has some kind of hatred for the religion. please do not use India page as a platform to spew your hatred on Hinduism or any other. i also warn you not to accuse every new user of a sockpuppet of someone as a strategy to weaken, discourage and discredit them. you really need to stop. --CarTick (talk) 12:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Please read carefully what I have written. I have not said that Thisthat2011 is a Hindu nationalist, but only that he has made "Hindu nationalism related" edits, by which is meant "edits in articles related to Hindu nationalism." It is an incontrovertible fact that he has. His first edit was on the Narendra Modi where he added an entire paragraph. He showed knowledge of BLP violations, that newbies rarely do. Since this page has been infested with sockpuppets many many times before, I am only asking that out of concern for the page's integrity. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree that I did edited a few things here and there before I created an account and my newbie writings, as my limited vocabulary, could be here and there and may be so is this, but that should not be taken as some kind of assumed behavior.Thisthat2011 (talk) 15:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
The matter of discussion is India that is Bharat. Now, in many languages, India is called Bharat. Eg- HINDI, KANNADA, MARATHI. Why is India clled Bharat, we have a long history ssession linked in another article. Why is India OFFICIALLY, called Bharat. The constitution of India is a good ref. PERIOD. NOW, can we please get back on topic? One more thing. I am a Hindi speaking, Tamil born Wikipedian. Don't try to make us look bad. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
may be someone should tell us what is the exact sentence they want to add and where. --CarTick (talk) 13:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
My suggestion is "India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States" quoted from source. So lets make the best of it.Thisthat2011 (talk) 13:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec)(od)(I am ignoring everything that Fowler has said, because it is tangential to the issue. RegentsPark, I am afraid you have mis-interpreted the source, as you did before (on the Ganga page), first you have a primary source, the constitution of India, that says India that is Bharat..., then a secondary source says, that it is a pity that India, constitutionally has two names, India and Bharat, what more do you want? Cartic, please show me where information India that is Bharat is there in the article. Friends you may disagree the book's opinion that India represents the English speaking brainwashed self proclaimed elite, and that Bharat represents its poor cousin, mind you there is no Hindu or Jew stuff here it is more have and have not, but it is a fact that there are two English names, Bharat and India, that fact has been represented in primary and secondary sources. Cartic I still don't get your point.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Cartic, do you think the Consititution of India is a fringe source, on what India's official names in English are? Srikanth, what is your point? Mine is that India and Bharat are two English names for India, India is more common in English, so there is no need at the moment to move it to Bharat. But a mention in the lead is warranted. RegentsPark with due respect to you you are making an ad hominem attack on the book, please read carefully, the book is quoting a judge. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
MY POINT: Why is RSS, or Hindi being pulled in? Period. Don't care what Cartick said, or Fowler said. Bharat is ONE of the TWO OFFICIAL names of the country, and therefore MUST BE mentioned. Full Stop. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Srikanth Or glad that Srikanth agrees with my interpretation of the Constitution of India and thinks that the source is good as far as this particular point goes. The point is India has two English official names, the more common India, and the other less commonly used Bharat. English names and not Bhojpuri or Santhali.Yogesh Khandke (talk)


"India" and "Bharat" are two official names in English. No Hindi involved.
The "India, that is Bharat" was a compromise reached after long divisive debates in the constituent assembly. By the time they got around to the "name of the country" debate, they had already settled in which language the constitution would be drafted (English). After this point, whether "bharat" is a hindi word became mute. The official name of india became "India that is Bharat" (not two names, just one clumsy name of four words). They knew it was clumsy and unwieldy. Here is a member ridiculing Ambedkar for brokering the "India that is bharat" compromise. And they had to move an amendment to insert the two commas to make it "India, that is Bharat,". A good secondary source on this would be Granville Austin's Making of the Indian Constitution.
In summary - two names, both in English. This should be mentioned in the article, whether in the lead or in the "names of india" dropdown list in the infobox .--Sodabottle (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Soda, though longwinding. Why is the book I quoted not good enough a source though?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
An ironclad reference is required for issues like this that are confused often. If we use a source that directly deals with the primary issue i.e the country naming debate in the constituent assembly, we can avoid repeated discussions about this in the future. That is why i am suggesting Austin's book, or something similar to it (there are quite a few on the constituent assembly debates), which will put this issue to rest once and for all. Most often, other secondary sources that dont directly deal with the issue, (including GOI websites) propagate urban legends (for instance "hindi is the national language of india") because they haven't done the necessary homework.--Sodabottle (talk) 14:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I think this good work actually matter a lot over a lot of unnecessary discussions above for the topic.Thisthat2011 (talk) 15:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Thisthat2011 reg Soda.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

good job Soda. so now, how and where we are going to mention this. i dont think lead is a good idea. Etymology may be. I propose something in the line, "The country is addressed as "India, that is Bharat" in the Indian constitution which was a compromised reached after....". would that be appropriate? hoping somebody has access to the book you mentioned. --CarTick (talk) 16:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

NVM, I would suggest the word India "bracketed" with Bharat.
From the sources mentioned above, it is understood that the country at about time of Independence and earlier always was called Bharat by countrymen and not much as India at Independence by most; and the name India as much a connection to outside as it is to countrymen, though not Bharat. Though the above sources but just two in numerous reference to name of the country as Bharat and India in discusion.Thisthat2011 (talk) 17:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Disagree, it has been placed in the lead, India also Bharat, the reference given is a newspaper article written by a former Chief Justice of the Punjab.... high court. Indian Express story. It clearly mentions that there are two names, India, that is Bharat. If you find a better source, foreign sounding name author please replace, till then Indian Express should suffice. Every thing in the constitution is placed after debate and compromise, that is why there is a committee, to balance various perspectives.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not a blog

Latest comment: 13 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Gentlemen please keep out general discussion out of this place, please discuss additions or deletions. Please be to the point, please share sources to back your statement, and no wp:OR or wp:SYNTHESIS. Thanks and no hard feelings. I ain't an admin etc., so this is just a humble request.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

RegentsPark (as admin), please control provocative comments from Fowler, he gets away and there is atleast one instance of an editor banned when he ignoring wp:Etiquette, hit back. Please.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Since it is not a blog, fantastical musings, as the ones by your Sir, Yogesh Khandke, about the origins of agriculture on the banks of the Ganges fifteen thousand years ago (sourced to unreliable sources), don't belong here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I think this is more about understanding diversity in India by behavior and not just by concepts is what I would say. To find one meaning for each and everything is somehow not perfect for any diverse culture in general and particularly India. The logic that there is just one understanding as the best and others are not as good should be avoided for diversity, for this attitude will naturally manifest with all its inadequacies when a diverse concept or culture is discussed(Example definition of Hinduism).Thisthat2011 (talk) 14:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Reply to Fowler: The sources are good, prove otherwise (about sources). The rest is wp:OR. Please understand the difference between opinion and quoting sources, of-course, sources have to be good, and not wp:FRINGE, etc., I have quoted a paper presented in an international seminar, by a Sri Lankan archeologist, another is a book, by senior academician and historian (an organisation calls her that) Kapur, and a news story from a Kolkata paperYogesh Khandke (talk) 14:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Thisthat2011: Will you please translate that into English?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
On second thoughts forget it. The point discussed is India and Bharat are two English names for India, it has a primary source, and a secondary source that quotes the primary source. Cartic please put is the way you think works best. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:India/Archive_32&oldid=1142764586"