Talk:India/Archive 33

This is an archive of past discussions about India. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

→

India is in FAR, Please make recommendations there, not here

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The India page is in WP:FAR, please make suggestions for changes (along with your well thought out reasons) there, not here. Could some admin lock down the page to a version of a few weeks ago, so that these changes are not made in the wrong place. FAR is now the proper venue for them, especially since some Wikipedia editors will be working hard there (only to find every now and then that some editors on the Talk:India page have without consensus changed the text.) It is not fair to them. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 08:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

On one page it is Work in Progress template, on this page it is FAR, admin please ban all editors from making changes to user:Fowler&fowler's edits, just as you have done to one, also amend rules so that he may abuse editors, the ED of Wikipedia as a whosie whatsie, religions and what ever he likes. Also change rules so that his opinion may be good enough and he may not be required to reliably source his edits, he may be allowed to violate wp:UNDUE, and other Wikipedia policies. Admin please do the needful at your earliest.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

India is called India and Bharat as well

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

India is called India and Bharat as well..Even though foreign media prefers name 'India' dosent mean Bharat is just used in one language and not the official name..I find you summerising number of times India is mentioned and not bharat as childish and ignorant.Please see the old videos shot during british colonial rule in India that commentator calls India or Bharat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.158.32.162 (talk) 08:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I would say mention of name India does not negate name Bharat if it is assumed so.Thisthat2011 (talk) 08:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Consensus or no consensus for India also Bharat

Hi, just pointing out that the whole exercise looks like an attempt to prove there is no consensus on diverge definition on the name of country i.e. India also Bharat.

I would like to point out that attempt should be made to get a consensus on diverge/unique name, and not to avoid a consensus on varied names of country nor to avoid a consensus on unique(which is not made apparently) name!

The matter therefore should be, according to me, to build a consensus on many diverse names(without uniformity and not against unity) or building consensus on unique name(usually) only(without mutually exclusive fragmentation and not against diversity). Just my 2 cents here.असक्ताह सततम्, कार्यम् कर्म समाच्रर | असक्तॊ ही अचरण कर्म 10:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisthat2011 (talk • contribs)

India flag looks weird to me

Latest comment: 13 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

This is the original image displayed in the page -> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/41/Flag_of_India.svg/125px-Flag_of_India.svg.png —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.204.83.171 (talk) 03:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

http://india.gov.in/knowindia/national_flag.php it looks the same..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 06:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree though the Ashoka Chakra is replaced by something else..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 16:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

http://india.gov.in/myindia/images/flag1.gif from Govt website. Available to download, not sure how to incorporate though..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 16:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Click the image. The full image looks perfect. Though, the smaller version visible on the main page does look weird. Yes Michael? •^Talk 17:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_India.svg Thumbnails are the bottom are all completely messed up. The Ashok Chakra is 'reworked', but the 24 hands are replaced by a design.असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 17:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

nvm, you are right..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 17:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

No consensus in the secondary and tertiary sources for India also Bharat

Latest comment: 13 years ago108 comments11 people in discussion

I'm afraid there is not only no consensus in the secondary sources for "India also Bharat," but the overwhelming consensus is for precisely the opposite, i.e. for mentioning India but not "Bharat." The Bharat page is a dab page that points to many pages, only one of which is this page. It is not enough to find one or two or even ten sources that say that India is also Bharat, you need to show that a preponderance of sources (secondary and tertiary) in the English language mention Bharat with India. Here are the statistics:

Among encyclopedias (ie. books that have "encycloipedia" in their title):
- 880,000 titles have "India" but not "Bharat"
- 5,090 titles have both "India" and "Bharat"
Among all books and magazines (secondary sources) published in the last ten years:
- 3 million 780 thousand titles have India but not "Bharat"
- 41,000 titles have "India" and "Bharat"
Among all scholarly journal publications (Google Scholar)
- 849,000 titles have "India" but no "Bharat."
- 13,900 titles have both "India" and "Bharat"

The evidence is clear. Sorry, but I will be soon reverting this unencyclopedic edit. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 07:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I dont think this is a good comparison as withing India sources call India or Bharat, while outside India the country is called India which is reflected in the comparison here. This understanding that views of non Indians must be considered while ignoring perspective of people within country, as the number of search results indicated, is not correct and ignores rights of people within country. As I mentioned earlier, a single view as the best view and others are not good should be avoided for any diverse culture in particular India.

I would like to add something not directly related, but very similar. I see this behavior in the page on Hinduism(definition) too, and I would say there is a tendency in general to disregard views of people belonging to a culture and only consider views of those outside culture ignoring that the two different views are natural result of being a simple fact that views of observers, as perception for their own, of any culture are different than understanding of people belonging to the culture for the culture itself.Thisthat2011 (talk) 08:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

People who "belong to a culture," I'm sorry to say don't have any special insight into truth as far as Wikipedia is concerned. All too often "natives" of a certain place, certain in the truth of their family myths, insert all kinds of unsubstantiated nonsense in Wikipedia. There is only one way to add encyclopedic edits, and that is to find a preponderance (of preferably scholarly) sources that support the edit. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 08:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The results mentioned above lists thousands of sources for India and Bharat. Just because more people in Global Village write in greater numbers as in English does not negate relatively lesser number of writings by people withing culture. India that is Bharat is accepted fact withing India and Indians have right to state as such. This relativistic number game should be avoided to negate what people in India say about themselves. How is the name of Bharat an unsubstantiated nonsense, please avoid making irrelevant comparisons.Thisthat2011 (talk) 08:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid it is no different in the "Indian village." Among searches in "Times of India" during the last ten years:

There were 1,070 stories with India and Bharat, and
there were 3,600 stories with "Bharat," but without "India," but
there were a whopping 176,000 stories with "India" but without "Bharat"!

Even if I were to restrict the search to English language sources published in India, (in other words against Wikipedia policy), the usage is still overwhelmingly is "India" and not "India with Bharat," or "Bharat" alone. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 11:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Here are some sources for Bharat used as India 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. If I have time I will add to this. I guess this will end the hair splitting on India that is Bharat (in spite of written in constitution) and reliable sources.

I must point out that http://news.google.com/archivesearch with source:"Times" source:"of" source:"India" may not be exhaustive search for English language sources published in India. Incidentally, the news.google.com/archivesearch does not have exhaustive archive of Indian English sources. I tried with source:"Panchajanya", source:"Hindustan" source:"Times" etc. didn't give a lot of results indicating that the archive is not exhaustive.Thisthat2011 (talk) 12:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Fowler, Why do we need usage in preponderance of secondary sources for adding an official name?. Secondary sources will most often use the popular name ("India" in this case). But that doesnt override the fact that there is an alternative name mentioned in the constitution. There was some confusion whether "Bharat" was the Hindi name. But i believe i have cleared it up in my post above. Even if no one ever used the alternative name, we should be mentioning it in the lead. We do this all the time for people. The official name always gets a mention in the first few lines. Why should a country be different? I took a look at Japan whose case is somewhat similar and i find "Nihon" and "Nippon" mentioned next to "Japan"--Sodabottle (talk) 13:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The Republic of India is what the official name applies to, not India, which is a country that goes back to long before the Republic. To say, "India, also Bharat, ..." suggests that Bharat is an alternative name for India, and for that all the guidelines for naming of articles apply. The lead sentence already offers the alternative official name "Bharat Ganarajya" for the republic. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 02:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The lead of the Japan page is not the same thing. It merely offers in parentheses the name in Japanese. You are welcome to do the same, Hindi: Bharat in parentheses, although that would be redundant since "Bharat Ganarajya" already has it. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 02:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Britannica lists "Bharat (Hindi), Republic of India (English)" as the official names of the state, India. [1]

The CIA World Factbook offers the following on the country name:

conventional long form: Republic of India

conventional short form: India

local long form: Republic of India/Bharatiya Ganarajya

local short form: India/Bharat

--JN 466 03:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Also worth looking at: the United Nations' Technical reference manual for the standardization of geographical names (2007): [2] --JN 466 03:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Jayen, the archives of this page are full of pages and pages of discussion about the page name and about India and Bharat. Britannica, CIA factbook and manifold other sources besides, have been looked at. Yes, we already do list the two official names; ours is even more correct that the Britannica version, since it has the full translation of the Republic of India. But if you feel that is not correct, please feel free to change to "Official name: Republic of India, Bharat (Hindi)" (just as in Britannica). But an edit that suggests that Bharat is the alternate name for the country India, needs the weight of all the evidence in the literature which Bharat doesn't have. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 03:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

PS I see the source of the confusion. Someone has quietly changed "a country in South Asia" to "a state in South Asia." That has been changed without any discussion and is a sentence that has been in place for upwards of six years. I have changed it back to "country," and will soon uncover who made that edit. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 03:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Does it really matter much for the point at issue? Some other country FAs:

Germany (currently at FAR]] begins "Germany (i /ˈdʒɜrməni/), officially the Federal Republic of Germany (German: Bundesrepublik Deutschland, pronounced [ˈbʊndəsʁepuˌbliːk ˈdɔʏtʃlant] ( listen)),[3][note 1] is a country in Western and Central Europe. Germany is a federal parliamentary republic ..."
Indonesia: "Indonesia (i /ˌɪndəˈniːʒə/ or /ˌɪndoʊˈniːziə/), officially the Republic of Indonesia (Indonesian: Republik Indonesia), is a country in Southeast Asia and Oceania. Indonesia comprises 17,508 islands ..."
Belgium: "Belgium (i /ˈbɛldʒəm/ BEL-jəm), officially the Kingdom of Belgium, is a federal state in Western Europe. It is a founding member of the European Union ..."
Australia: "Australia ( /əˈstreɪljə/), officially the Commonwealth of Australia, is a country in the Southern Hemisphere comprising the mainland of the Australian continent, the island of Tasmania and numerous smaller islands in the Indian and Pacific Oceans.[N 4] Neighbouring countries include ..."

For each of these countries we give the officlal name of the current state identified with that country. --JN 466 04:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, so the old version, is just fine then: It said, India /ˈɪndiə/ , officially the Republic of India (Hindi: भारत गणराज्य Bhārat Gaṇarājya; see also official names of India), is a country in South Asia. You are welcome to change "Bharat Ganarajya" to "Bharat," but then be prepared for opposition from people (other than me) who remember the old discussions. The other country FAs have that language, in part, because India is an older FA and they used India as the model. I was told this by no less an authority than Nichalp (who was the bureaucrat who supervised the FA drive of this page). Fowler&fowler «Talk» 04:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

PS The change was made by user: Kkm01 in this edit, with not the most accurate edit summary, "Wiki-links"! This is the problem with Wikipedia. One editor makes an innocuous edit and it leads down the road to completely redundant edits and wastes much time. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 04:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Can't we mention both Bharat and Bharat[iya] Ganarajya, like the World Factbook? --JN 466 04:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) OK, I'm happy to change it to: India /ˈɪndiə/ ^ⓘ (Hindi: भारत Bhārat) officially the Republic of India (Hindi: भारत गणराज्य Bhārat Gaṇarājya; see also official names of India), is a country in South Asia. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 04:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Some sources mentioned repeated for reference. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Thisthat2011 (talk) 10:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler's proposal above, i.e.

India /ˈɪndiə/ (Hindi: भारत Bhārat) officially the Republic of India (Hindi: भारत गणराज्य Bhārat Gaṇarājya; see also official names of India), is a country in South Asia.

seems fine to me. Any objections to implementing that? --JN 466 12:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks good and in line with other country articles to me. --rgpk (comment) 13:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

India, that is Bharat looks more correct to meThisthat2011 (talk) 13:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The proposed wording is in line with that, and is a better lead sentence reflecting common linguistic usage. Note that the etymology section explains that Bharat is used as an alternative name in the Constitution; we have all the bases covered. --JN 466 14:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I would say we are back to square one in spite of sources mentioned. That Etymology mentions it is pointless for that was not discussed and can not cover the point mentioned here. We are discussing here Bharat as name in English and not whether Bharat as another official name or in Hindi which are obvious facts.Thisthat2011 (talk) 15:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, what is wrong with the proposed version? --JN 466 16:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Please read my reply. "We are discussing here Bharat as name in English and not whether Bharat as another official name or in Hindi which are obvious facts." The proposed version does not satisfy that.Thisthat2011 (talk) 17:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

My understanding (correct me if I am wrong) is that (1) India is the normal name in English, and the name used throughout the Indian Constitution. (2) Bharat is the Sanskrit/Hindi name, predating the colonial era, and it is mentioned once in the Constitution of India ("India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States"). (3) The Sanskrit/Hindi name, Bharat, is occasionally used in Indian English (and in other languages spoken in India), as everyone in India knows the word. (4) We have to point out in the lead sentence that Bharat is the Hindi name; that is pretty standard for country articles (cf. Spain). (5) The use of Bharat is standard in Hindi writing and speech, and comparatively rare in English writing or speech.

If we want to state in the lead sentence that Bharat may also be used in English, we have to say,

India /ˈɪndiə/ (Hindi: भारत Bhārat), also known as Bharat, officially the Republic of India (Hindi: भारत गणराज्य Bhāratiya Gaṇarājya; see also official names of India), is a country in South Asia.

If that is what editors want, I can live with it, but personally I find it a little awkward, and it may get us readers complaining that we are saying much the same thing twice. It is not unusual for a local name to also occasionally be used in foreign languages. If you look at Japan for example, "Nippon" is used in English as well, but we simply introduce it as the Japanese name of the country: readers quite readily understand that a local name like Nippon or Bharat is also used in English sometimes. So it is not my preference, but I won't stand in the way of it if it's what editors prefer. Thoughts? JN 466 17:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Reasonably well-summed up (re: 1-5 above). I think the previous version is quite fine, and the addition of the (redundant) also known as Bharat, makes the opening sentence unnecessarily clumsy and unwieldy. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 17:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

How about this (using the same example text from your comment)

*India /ˈɪndiə/ , also known as Bharat([ˈbʱaːrət̪] ), officially the Republic of India (Hindi: भारत गणराज्य Bhāratiya Gaṇarājya; see also official names of India), is a country in South Asia. Looks more correct.Thisthat2011 (talk) 18:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Fine, although then we're missing the Hindi spelling. Adding that would give:

India /ˈɪndiə/ , also known as Bharat ([ˈbʱaːrət̪] , Hindi: भारत), officially the Republic of India (Hindi: भारत गणराज्य Bhāratiya Gaṇarājya; see also official names of India), is a country in South Asia.

I'd be happy with that. --JN 466 20:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for hairsplitting but I go for what I think is more correct:

*India /ˈɪndiə/ , that is Bharat ([ˈbʱaːrət̪] , Hindi: भारत), officially the Republic of India (Hindi: भारत गणराज्य Bhāratiya Gaṇarājya; see also official names of India), is a country in South Asia.Thisthat2011 (talk) 08:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The "India, that is Bharat" wording doesn't work for me, sorry. I appreciate you are trying to mirror the wording of the Constitution, but I don't agree that this wording improves our lead sentence; it sounds awkward. I am fine with the "also known as" insertion, per the above, and can also support Fowler&fowler's version. --JN 466 14:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

By the way, what is your view on the point discussed below, at #Bharat or Bharatiya?. --JN 466 17:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) Very sorry, "Bharat" is either the Hindi name or it is the official name of the Republic, but it is not an alternative English name of the country. The version I suggested upstairs that had the support of RegentsPark, and Jayen, is as far as I go. Otherwise, I humbly suggest we go back to the stable version that has been good enough for thousands of editors that have edited this page in the last six years. I also humbly suggest we not waste more time on this topic. The Constitution of India's lead sentence, "India that is Bharat," won't change the English name of the country India on Wikipedia, or indeed anywhere else, as is obvious even in the English language newspapers in India. In other words, I am against, "India that is Bharat," "India aka Bharat," "India alias Bharat," "India or Bharat," and all such formulations. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 08:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

India is an English name. Bharat is an English name as well which is recognized also by constitution. To say that Bharat is not an English name would be as factually incorrect as saying that there is only one best English name of the country when there are more than one and one is not better or worse name and is not of any debate at all in India. More examples here here and here indicating use of word Bharat in English. Thisthat2011 (talk) 12:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

(od) I agree with fowler on this. India is the English name of the country and Bharat is rarely used in common English usage, even by the Government of India which uses "Government of India" in English and "Bharat Sarkar" in Hindi (cf [envfor.nic.in/divisions/administration/induction.pdf]). I think Fowler's compromise text is good enough and my suggestion is that we leave it at that. (BTW, a google search of "Government of Bharat" reveals that the term is used almost exclusively by right wing Hindu groups.) --rgpk (comment) 13:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Fowler and rgpk here. The FA Japan has the opening sentence:

Japan (i /dʒəˈpæn/; Japanese: 日本 Nihon or Nippon, officially 日本国 Nippon-koku or Nihon-koku) is an island nation in East Asia.

I guess a similar situation exists there. Fowler's version seems best. Yes Michael? •^Talk 13:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I would like to point out that Wikipedia is not like a registration service where just one unique name is accepted for convenience. There is enough space in the page to mention: India that is Bharat.. It is strange to discuss here for this assumption that there is just one English name when there are multiple correct English names available and this fact should not be ignored. As for consensus, there are editors like Sodabottle and JN466, may be more who are okay with "India that is Bharat", "India also Bharat" or the like. Considering United Kingdom page, does it look like it has 3 or 4 all English names (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Kingdom, the UK, or Britain)!? There is no hairsplitting discussions going on there, and I would like to see where all the English use the word United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland yet.Thisthat2011 (talk) 14:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Example here, here, here etc. How does it matter when there are more than one name, all in English and though the recognized name is United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.Thisthat2011 (talk) 14:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The fact that Bharat is in the Constitution of India, which is written in English, does make this case slightly different from Japan/Nippon—a good-faith argument can be made that "also known as Bharat" should be in the lead sentence here, especially since some sources actually use it. --JN 466 14:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)See, there are multiple English names; It does not mean that everything should be mentioned. We have seen (through WP:GOOGLE, someone has already posted the results above) that Bharat is not a very common name. People in the Middle east call India as Hindustan. The French refer to it as Inde. Does that imply that all those have to be included? Yes Michael? •^Talk 19:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Please go through my comments on the topics mentioned above, with links and so on. As it appears to me, the viewpoints presented differ. I see India as an English name as well as Bharat as another English name as it is for me (from within India I must say). At the same time, I must point out that most of us, I am assuming, would recognize UK, United Kingdom and Britain as exactly the same in spite of three different English names from same country, without as cultural diversity as India without any dispute and hairsplitting of frequency of use outside and within, in spite of the fact that on the page name United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is prominently displayed - please correct me if I am wrong. This tendency for diversity(plurality, not negativity nor mutual exclusivity) in India that is Bharat should not be taken as novel, strange or unfamiliar or something similar; and plurality should not be looked as incorrect. To mention India that is Bharat is perhaps as common/uncommon as [being culturally plural] in the world. From my viewpoint, mentioning India that is Bharat looks natural and correct, though from other editor's viewpoints it may look very different from usual. As I mentioned, it is my viewpoint here. I have described here in many different ways how this looks to me and I would say it would be the same for editors coming from India.

As about what the French or Arabs say what is not important in this discussion at all mentioning the English name, though it is okay for me if it is mentioned somewhere else on the page.Thisthat2011 (talk) 15:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Mike, the situation is different, simply because Bharat apparently derives some sort of official status as an English word from its mention in the (English-language) Constitution of India, and indeed the very sentence in that Constitution defining the country. This is something that applies neither to Nippon in the case of Japan, nor to Hindustan or Inde. Do you see the point?

Thisthat2011's comparison to "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" is not entirely inappropriate, because that term too has official status, but is almost never used outside of specific contexts. --JN 466 03:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I would like to appreciate your neutrality and enthusiasm for active neutral participation.Thisthat2011 (talk) 05:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Very well, but is Bharat a common usage in English, even in India? How many newspapers, journals or magazines use Bharat? I think we have seen the results from the Google test. Yes Michael? •^Talk 05:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes please go through the discussion again. In India that is Bharat plurality is way of life and also please read by reply to you above and then JN466s reply again.Thisthat2011 (talk) 06:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, "Bharat," has official status in English only as a name for the Republic, not as a name for the country. As a name for the country, it is a Hindi name, not an English one (by usage). The official stuff only applies to the various aka's of the Republic of India. Please change "Bharat Ganarajya" if you'd like to "Bharat," please write "Republic of India that is Bharat" or "Ganarajya of Bharat that is India," or any permutation thereof if you'd like, but as the name of the country, it is "India" in English and "India" alone. No other appellation comes remotely close. The Government of India has no say in what the country is called in English; just as the government of India has no say in what the river Ganges is called in English. In this case, the case is even weaker, because English language media in India don't refer to their country in English as Bharat. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 06:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

How is an editor calling on people to change official India Govt references is beyond me. The Govt India has a say in what the country is called and your assertions are, in my opinions, factually incorrect (considering how Burma is now called Myanmar and same for other countries like may Ghana etc). The Govt is people's representative and the river is called Ganga officially because of historic reasons also. Please come out of the appalling mentality that whatever decided by the British Queen's appointed(not elected) leaders in British empire (the empire itself was not elected by Indians in India or anyone, was it?) is correct and what is Govt of India(elected by the people with culturally diversity in India) is somehow not as correct when a correct behavior would be completely the other way around. Bharat is a name, so is Ganga and river Sindhu. In whichever language it is called as such should not make any difference to how the elected Indian Govt has any right to call what and how. Bharat is an English name of the country as well as India is an English name of the country.Thisthat2011 (talk) 06:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I echo Fowler's opinion. As he says very well: The Government of India has no say in what the country is called in English; just as the government of India has no say in what the river Ganges is called in English. It is plain and simple. Yes Michael? •^Talk 07:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

This is getting viral! An elected Govt as people's representation has now no rights to decide what the country is called. It is indeed news to me. Please elaborate (and if not inconvenient compare to multiple names mentioned in United Kingdom pages as officially decided by the British Govt). Somehow I feel that there is a presence of dislike on deciding things by the elected Indian Govt with only approval of culturally diverse people and not foreigners!! I don't think this is in any way a healthy mentality. Another reference Names_of_India#Bharat Bhārat Thisthat2011 (talk) 07:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I would like to request avoiding anti-native tones or wordings here and like to know if anti-native assertions amount to prejudice against natives described in some words. (I would also like to know what ideas represent anti-native behavior please as a side note)Thisthat2011 (talk) 07:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

*India /ˈɪndiə/ also Bharat ([ˈbʱaːrət̪] ) (Hindi: भारत ; see also official names of India) officially the Republic of India (Hindi: भारत गणराज्य Bhāratiya Gaṇarājya), is a country in South Asia. looks the most correct.Thisthat2011 (talk) 09:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

random break

I feel the discussion has gone way off from where it started. someone wanted to introduce "India that is Bharat" in this article and Sodabottle explained that the akward formulation was a constitutional compromise which nobody knew before and nobody seems to appreciate. I think Sodabottle did an excellent job in explaining this to us. now, like most of the people, i agree "India that is Bharat" is not a common name and including it in the lead or anywhere in the article and inadevertently imply it is a common name is inappropriate. the only way i can see it can be included is as an encyclopedic information of how the name came into existence. whether this can be done or not needs to be disucussed. other than that, i dont see any point in changing the current lead. --CarTick (talk) 11:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I guess that someone who wants to introduce "that is" part is me. Anyways as Yogesh mentioned earlier "also" part i.e. India also Bharat (reference mentioned by Yogesh) looks good to me.Thisthat2011 (talk) 12:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Just pointing out the fact that compromise or that "nobody knew" part is not true. Here are the links:

1. Bharat i.e. India is mentioned explicitly as explanation.

2. realm of Bharat, India

3. Search with name "bhArata"

4. Search with bhArata - "{varSa} n. `" king BhñBharatas's realm "' i.e. India" (Incidentally also gives one amongst many explanation of bharata as Bharata of a Manu (who gave the name to the country Bha1rata) ib. ; of a son of Manu Bhautya Ma1rkP. ;

5. Bharatvarsha i.e. India

All dictionary translations, therefore assuming must be true when dictionaries came out..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 14:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Another bunch of suggestions from following pages:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#India gives idea about pages in India which can be improved also when needed.

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganges_River : The Ganges (English pronunciation: /ˈɡændʒiːz/ GAN-jeez;) or Ganga, (Sanskrit: गङ्गा Hindi: गंगा Urdu: گنگا Ganga IPA: [ˈɡəŋɡaː] ( listen); Bengali: গঙ্গা Gônga), is a.... - Notice the "or" word.

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gangetic_Plains : The Indo-Gangetic Plains also known as the Northern Plains and The North Indian River Plain is a large... - Notice the "also known as part" for different names based on Ganga and Indian words, for the same.

4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aravalli_Range : The Aravalli Range literally meaning 'line of peaks',[1] is a... - Notice the literal meaning explained along with references.

Some other examles:

5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liancourt_Rocks#cite_note-0 : notice The Liancourt Rocks, also known as Dokdo or Tokto (독도/獨島, literally "solitary island") in Korean or Takeshima (たけしま/竹島?, literally "bamboo island") in Japanese,[1] are ... . - Notice the meaning given also along with words, the names are all English and references of sources for explanation).

6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trentino-Alto_Adige/S%C3%BCdtirol : Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol[4] (German: Trentino-Südtirol;[5] Italian: Trentino-Alto Adige .... - Many English names, notice the sites for constitution of Italy, eurostat, and Italian documents referenced for clarity.

7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voblast : - Voblast is a loaned word in English, which means something similar to ... in other words something similar to administrative division but in respective understanding not strictly bound by translation.

8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A3o_Paulo_(state) - notice "ã" in São. I want to say that putting ā in Bhārat should be accepted, and not avoided.

9. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_Manual_of_Style_(regional) - it is possible to have a varied site for India related article in separate category in Manual style region wise, so as to have information adhering incorporating Devanagari script, the tendency to view as as lively and not as "things" and so on, or be incorporated in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#India .असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 19:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I will put a suggestion with all these in mind too and expecting suggestions from editors..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 19:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure you're posting this in the right place? This talk page is meant for discussing improvement to the India article. --rgpk (comment) 19:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes why please read the discussion..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 20:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

OK. If you say so. I did read the discussion but some of what you write is hard to follow. --rgpk (comment) 21:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The whole discussion is about the first line of the article, mentioning India also Bharat as both are English names(which it is), and so on and how it could be mentioned in the article(or not)..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. —Preceding undated comment added 21:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC).

*India /ˈɪndiə/ also^{[. 1]} Bhārat ([ˈbʱaːrət̪] , lit. "land that comprises as Bharata varṣam") (Hindi: भारत; see official names of India) officially the Republic of India (Hindi: भारत गणराज्य Bhāratiya Gaṇarājya), is a country in South Asia.

.असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 20:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

This is regarding this edit by Fawlerx2.

I have pointed out the rules and Wikipedia sites above as reasons and examples that makes this version well.

I would expect editors to come out why this is not good for consensus and expect not to disturb it later, when consensus can be formed now. As I have explained here, lets form a consensus on something (unique name or diverse names) instead of focusing on not making a consensus.

Also give reasons how the following line is not good for WIkipedia standards.

India /ˈɪndiə/ ^ⓘ also^{[≡ 1]} Bhārat̪ ([ˈbʱaːrət̪] ^ⓘ, lit. land that comprises as Bhāratavarsha) (Hindi: भारत; see official names of India) officially the Republic of India (Hindi: भारत गणराज्य Bhāratiya Gaṇarājya), is a country in South Asia.

in section (== Notes ==) -

^ The country has two English names as: * As per Constitution of India [| India, that is Bharat]; * Another reference from [| M. Rama Jois, former Chief Justice of the Punjab & Haryana High Court on ];

Thanks.19:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Apparently you expect a response to your posts so here goes. Neither of the two references above are good enough. The Indian constitution does not explicitly mention that Bharat is an English name and it is a primary source. The Indian Express article is an opinion piece and the opinion expressed is that India should be renamed Bharat. Not that it is already called Bharat in English. Hope this helps. --rgpk (comment) 02:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

"two names for our motherland" - http://www.indianexpress.com/Storyold/10384/ - explicitly mentions two names, your assertions that 'opinion expressed is that India should be renamed Bharat. Not that it is already called Bharat in English.' is factually incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisthat2011 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Please go through the information, and notice what is followed in Wikipedia, so that no one has to keep on explaining everything. If you don't find something in the following links, please point out instead of saying "no consensus".

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#India gives idea about pages in India which can be improved also when needed.

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganges_River : The Ganges (English pronunciation: /ˈɡændʒiːz/ GAN-jeez;) or Ganga, (Sanskrit: गङ्गा Hindi: गंगा Urdu: گنگا Ganga IPA: [ˈɡəŋɡaː] ( listen); Bengali: গঙ্গা Gônga), is a.... - Notice the "or" word.

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gangetic_Plains : The Indo-Gangetic Plains also known as the Northern Plains and The North Indian River Plain is a large... - Notice the "also known as part" for different names based on Ganga and Indian words, for the same.

4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aravalli_Range : The Aravalli Range literally meaning 'line of peaks',[1] is a... - Notice the literal meaning explained along with references.

Some other examles:

5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liancourt_Rocks#cite_note-0 : notice The Liancourt Rocks, also known as Dokdo or Tokto (독도/獨島, literally "solitary island") in Korean or Takeshima (たけしま/竹島?, literally "bamboo island") in Japanese,[1] are ... . - Notice the meaning given also along with words, the names are all English and references of sources for explanation).

6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trentino-Alto_Adige/S%C3%BCdtirol : Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol[4] (German: Trentino-Südtirol;[5] Italian: Trentino-Alto Adige .... - Many English names, notice the sites for constitution of Italy, eurostat, and Italian documents referenced for clarity.

7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voblast : - Voblast is a loaned word in English, which means something similar to ... in other words something similar to administrative division but in respective understanding not strictly bound by translation.

8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A3o_Paulo_(state) - notice "ã" in São. I want to say that putting ā in Bhārat should be accepted, and not avoided.

9. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_Manual_of_Style_(regional) - it is possible to have a varied site for India related article in separate category in Manual style region wise, so as to have information adhering incorporating Devanagari script, the tendency to view as as lively and not as "things" and so on, or be incorporated in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#India

10. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom - This example is mentioned many times above and still people are not able to see reason..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 06:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

What does all this have to do with whether Bharat is another English name for India? No one is denying that Bharat is the official Hindi name for India and Fowler's proposed text makes that fairly clear. --rgpk (comment) 11:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Here are some sources explaining word Bharat:

http://dictionary.babylon.com/bharat/ : n : a republic in the asian subcontinent in southern asia...(synonym) India

http://dictionary.babylon.com/english/german/# : The word bharat maps to Indien in German;

http://dictionary.babylon.com/german/english/# : Bharat, officially, is the Sanskritam term for the Republic of India.

On this page http://www.dicts.info/dictionary.php?l1=English&l2=Sanskrit&word=bharat&Search=Search, search for word bharat. At the left hand bottom of the page a translator (babylon) for translation (it shows up a popup everytime its button is clicked) for following languages in which translation of word "bharat" is presented:

ENGLISH : Bharata or Bharat, officially , is the Sanskritam term for the Republic of India. Under heading Wordnet 2.0; the translation is as follows: Bharat Noun 1. a republic in the Asian subcontinent in southern Asia; second most populous country in the world; achieved independence from the United Kingdom in 1947 (synonym) India, Republic of India

FRENCH: Bharat Bharat est le nom donné à un mélange d'épices dont la base est de la poudre de boutons de roses et de cannelle (avec parfois, adjonction de clous de girofle moulus). La poudre obtenue entre parfois dans la composition du bouillon du couscous et d'autres plats orientaux ou d'Afrique mais elle peut aussi parfumer des desserts.

GERMAN: Indien Indien ist ein Staat in Südasien, der den größten Teil des indischen Subkontinents umfasst. Indien ist eine Bundesrepublik, die von 28 Bundesstaaten gebildet wird und außerdem sieben bundesunmittelbare Gebiete umfasst.

ITALIAN India L' India, ufficialmente Repubblica dell'India è uno stato (3.287.590 km², 1.095.351.995 ab. - stima luglio 2006, capitale Nuova Delhi) dell'Asia e comprende gran parte del subcontinente indiano.

È la seconda nazione più popolosa del mondo dopo la Cina e la più grande democrazia, con più di un miliardo di cittadini che parlano centinaia di lingue.

Confina a nord con Bhutan, Cina, Nepal e Pakistan; ad est con Myanmar e Bangladesh; a sud con l'Oceano Indiano ed il Golfo del Bengala; ad ovest con il Pakistan e il Mare d'Arabia.

DUTCH India | India, officieel de Republiek India is een land in Zuid-Azië. Met inwoners is het na China, het land met de meeste inwoners ter wereld.

India ligt op het Indisch Subcontinent en is voor het grootste deel een schiereiland, dat in het westen en zuiden grenst aan de Indische Oceaan en in het oosten aan de Golf van Bengalen. In het noorden grenst het land (van west naar oost) aan Pakistan, China (Tibet), Nepal, Bhutan, Myanmar en Bangladesh. Ten zuidoosten van India in de Indische Oceaan ligt de eilandstaat Sri Lanka en ten zuidwesten liggen de Maldiven.

SPANISH La India (devanagari: भारत Bhārat), oficialmente la República de la India (devanagari: भारत गणराज्य, Bhārat ), país del sur de Asia que comprende la mayor parte del subcontinente indio. Es el segundo país más poblado del mundo (después de China) y es la democracia más poblada del mundo, con 1.100 millones de habitantes (estimado en 2004) y más de cien lenguas distintas.

PORTUGUESE Índia A Índia ou República da Índia (भारत Bharat, em devanágari; India, em inglês) é um país federal asiático, que ocupa a maior parte do subcontinente indiano e ainda as ilhas Laquedivas e Andamão e Nicobar. Limita ao norte com a República Popular da China, o Nepal e o Butão, a leste com Mianmá, ao sul e a leste com o Bangladesh e a Baía de Bengala, ao sul com o Estreito de Palk, defronte a ilha do Ceilão (Sri Lanka), com o Oceano Índico e o Mar das Laquedivas, a oeste com o Mar Arábico e a oeste e norte com o Paquistão. É o segundo país mais populoso do mundo (depois da China), com mais de um bilhão de habitantes, e o sétimo maior por área. A capital do país é Nova Délhi.

SWEDEN Indien

   Sökordet "indiska" leder hit. För butikskedjan, se Indiska Magasinet.

JAPANESE (after translation in Google translate) India India is located in South Asia, the majority of the Federal Republic of the Indian subcontinent. Pakistan, China, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Maldives, bordering Indonesia.

More than 10 million people are ethnic diversity, ethnicity, language, religion that is composed of. Most Hindus, the impact of the Hindu caste system is a system involving identification has still remained a class (hierarchy) and the income gap is very large. To understand in a lump Indians because there are various people in this way is difficult, differences between rich and poor "India is not a poor country, a country living in many poor" is said to be like.

When independence from British colonialism in 1947, India until it was split into India and Pakistan. Later, Pakistan had become enclaves "East Pakistan" is an independent Bangladesh.

CHINESE (s) (after translation in Google translate) India Republic of India (Roman transliteration,) in the Indian subcontinent in southern Asia, with Bangladesh, Myanmar, China, Bhutan, Nepal and Pakistan and other countries bordering the Maldives and Sri Lanka and other countries across the sea. India and the PRC, Pakistan has a territorial dispute, India claimed that the Indian territory in southern Tibet, and the actual control of the region, namely Arunachal Pradesh; according to the official view of India, Afghanistan is also one of its neighbors, because now Controlled by Pakistan, and Afghanistan connected to the northern region of Kashmir by the Indian government also considered the territory of India; In addition, India claimed that China's control of its territory Ekesaiqin areas. India is the largest country in South Asia, an area of 3,287,590 square kilometers, an area of 3,166,414 square kilometers of actual control, ranking seventh in the world.

India is the world's second most populous country, has a population of 1.103 billion (2005), second only to China. India's national and ethnic diversity, known as "national museum", which accounted for Hindustan family about half of the total population of India is India's largest nation. India's various ethnic groups have their own language, only the official language of the Constitution recognizes there are as many as 22 kinds of which was designated as the national language Hindi and English are very popular in India, especially in South India, status and even higher than that of Hindi . In addition, India is also a multi-religious country, almost all the world religions can be found in India, the faithful, but most Indians are Hindu, Islam in India has a large number of followers in recent years, India's Muslim population has climbed to the world Third, the top two in Indonesia and Pakistan respectively.

India is a famous ancient civilization, the ancient Indians created a splendid ancient civilization, India is also one of three major religions of the world - the birthplace of Buddhism. However, caught in long-term split of modern India, and economic backwardness, the invasion by Western powers, in 1856, in addition to a small part of the territory, the whole territory as a British colony, gained independence in 1947, but split into two countries India and Pakistan.

KOREAN (after translation in Google translate) India Republic of India (印度共和国,,,) in the South Asian countries, India occupies most of the peninsula. Wide area of country in the world to seventh, are second behind China's population.

North China, Nepal, Bhutan, Pakistan, on the east, Myanmar, Bangladesh, Bay of Bengal, Arabian Sea, west, south Indian Ocean, Sri Lanka and is bordered.

HEBREW (after translation in Google translate) Republic of India (Hindi: भारत गणराज्य), country in South Asia dominating the majority of the Indian subcontinent. India is the world's seventh largest state and one territory in the size of its population (after China), numbering over a billion people who speak more than one hundred different languages; derived result, India is the world's largest democracy.

TURKISH "Hindistan Hindistan, (Hintçe: "भारत गणराज्य)") Güney Asya'da, Hint Okyanusu, Umman Denizi ve Bengal Körfezi kıyısında, Pakistan, Çin, Nepal, Butan, Bangladeş ve Myanmar (Burma) ile komşu olan geniş bir ülkedir." (after translation in Google translate) India India (Hindi: भारत गणराज्य) ") in South Asia, Indian Ocean, Arabian Sea and Bay of Bengal coast, Pakistan, China, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh and Myanmar (Burma) and adjacent to a large country

These all are explanations for word "bharat" word; I am not saying India is absent. The word Bharat is present in all these dictionaries; the word Bharat is either explained as Bharat or is mapped to India as synonym. and maps thus.

These are besides the other references mentioned..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 13:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

random break 2

Better for editors to point out issues with above version and avoid complains later.

I am expecting comments here why this is not proper after I have pointed out pages in Wikipedia for acceptable practices..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 08:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Wiki-[ http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/collaborate | collaberate ] is requited, vindicating absence of consensus should be avoided. - lit. "meaning to work, one with another; cooperate"..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 07:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The current Etymology section already includes information on Bharat. Perhaps information there can be expanded? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

This will fork the discussion. Please avoid it here..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 07:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

By the way, would you like to have the other names of "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" in a separate Etymology section on page United Kingdom?.असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 08:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Chipmunkdavis Why are you not averse to first line of United Kingdom page? This change in behavior does not satisfy the The Golden Rule or the Silver rule. Explain this change in behavior..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 08:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, since I've been called out for some inexplicable reason, I'm happy with the suggestions above, "India also known as Bharat" etc., but as other have told you many times, saying "India that is Bharat" or "India also Bharat" is simply terrible grammar. In addition, I would love the UK to have a name section. Please go get consensus for one. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Just want to clarify this. The history section of United Kingdom has a lot of entries with your id, which could mean you are contributing on the page well, and more than me you and other contributors would know this I am sure. That is why the question came forth. Thanks..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 10:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Thisthat, you need to read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Generally, we don't look at what other pages do (and I'm not even going to bother looking at them to see if they do what you say). If you think they're doing the wrong thing, go ahead and attempt to build consensus there. Your Bharat suggestion was more than adequately incorporated by fowler and you're simply repeating all your original arguments (at excessive length if I may say so). Please provide arguments that (a) are supported by reliable sources, which means excluding fringe right wing sources, (b) avoid WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments, (c) don't quote Sanskrit-English dictionaries at length (no one is denying the existence of the term Bharat), (d) construct etymological arguments (since no one is denying the existence of the term, there is no need for that). Thanks. --rgpk (comment) 12:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

What fringe right wing sources are mentioned by me on this topic? Please let me know. About other topic, lets not move away from this discussion please..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 14:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

ThisThat2011: As of today, the editors who have supported my version are: RegentsPark, Jayen466, YesMichael, Myself, and possibly Chimpmunkdavis. That makes at least 4 and possibly 5. You'd have to come up with better arguments and more support to claim any kind of consensus. Since you are a new editor, may I suggest in a friendly manner that it would be better for your own Wikipedia future if you didn't spend so much time fighting ideological battles on high trafficked articles. New editors who do this seldom last long. It would be better if you worked on smaller articles, built some real content that gave you some confidence in your abilities. As it is, you are spending all your time fighting the big battles, in the rightness of whose cause you seem to be utterly convinced, but in support of which you are unable to garner the necessary evidence or argument. Regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 12:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

It is indeed strange that behavior of people change on wikipedia on different pages, for Example Chimpmunkdavis, or for that matter anyone else, are silent on how the page United Kingdom looks. I have mentioned the guidelines for India pages well, which seems to have missed. As it is, India is a diverse culture and one needs to look at various options available all around. For you may be or others, Sanskrit to English translation does not matter. For me and I wold assume anyone who knows two more languages (in India or outside perhaps), it wouldn't perhaps matter dictionary of which language tells what i.e. whether the dictionary is Sanskrit to English or German to Tamil. Here I have given sources that explain the meaning of word Bharat as it is..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 14:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not a fan of how the UK looks, but editing that page is like digging up a mountain with a toothpick. If you want to add Bharat to the introduction, I highly suggest you accept one of the compromises offered by other editors. If you don't accept a compromise, then in the end nothing will change on the article. I know this from experience, strangely enough, on the UK article amongst other things. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The United Kingdom page is mentioned as one amongst many example. I am okay to accept compromise, "India also Bharat" is fine by me. Though I would want to add a little bit here and there, so also removing literal meaning of Bharat etc. I have included acceptable practices around that makes things simple as per context in the changes made.

India /ˈɪndiə/ also^{[≡ 1]} Bharat ([ˈbʱaːrət̪] ) (Hindi: भारत; see official names of India) officially the Republic of India (Hindi: भारत गणराज्य Bhāratiya Gaṇarājya), is a country in South Asia. Something on these lines is fine by me, that can be decided by consensus..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 15:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

PS May I also suggest, in the most friendly manner, that long pseudonyms in the scripts of other languages, as the one you have now adopted, tend to confuse editors, who have to do additional work (move the cursor over the signature), to figure out who you are and how to address you and to be left wondering what it means and why it is there. Best, in my opinion, to keep it simple. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 12:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

PPS It goes without saying that all this is my opinion. You are welcome to take it or leave it. No response is required either way. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I would say that just saying no consensus is aversion to consensus. I have given examples and guidelines for articles on India with relevant sources. If you don't want to give consensus, give reasons why. Just saying that others are also saying the same is not a reason..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 14:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I dont see the need to change the introduction to add Bharat as an alternate name. A look at the official government website shows only one mention in the constitution where it is added as a note in the name section. So the government of India clearly doesnt treat it as an alternate common name for the country. So I dont see anything wrong with the intro as it is today. MilborneOne (talk) 15:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you changing goal post, sir?.असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 15:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry dont undertstand was that a question to me or somebody else? MilborneOne (talk) 15:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, new understanding that Bharat should be used by Govt. of India itself is needed for the change is new in the discussion..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 15:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry it is still not clear what you are trying to say, my opinion is based on the fact the government do NOT use Bharat in English. MilborneOne (talk) 16:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry your idea does not make any sense..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 17:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Anyways, examples are Bharat Ratna, Bharat Petroleum, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Bharat Nirman Schemes, etc..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 18:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

For information of editors, Bharat Ratna is till now awarded to forty one people, a list which includes two non-Indians and a naturalised Indian citizen. This should clear any doubts and settle the issue on a good note I hope..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 18:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Nobody has said that the word Bharat doesnt appear in the English language, the example you give is Bharat Ratna is not English but English users normal just use the native text rather than translating it. Although it is difficult to follow with multiple discussions and random ideas on this page the use of Bharat as a commonly used alternate name for the country named India has not been proven and as such should not be in the lead as an alternate except in Hindi. MilborneOne (talk) 18:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you elaborate what you just mentioned? I have not heard even the most talented Bharat Ratnas like Mother Teresa and Pt. Bhimsen Joshi, there are 41, saying this what you just typed out..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 18:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

What MilborneOne was trying to say is that the Government itself does not use Bharat in English; and this makes sense really. Whether Bharat Ratna is awarded to 41 or 41 thousand people is absolutely immaterial to this discussion. Yes Michael? •^Talk 18:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Well you can take a horse to water, but you can not make it drink..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 19:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

India /ˈɪndiə/ ^ⓘ also^{[≡ 2]} Bharat ([ˈbʱaːrət̪] ^ⓘ) (Hindi: भारत; see official names of India) officially the Republic of India (Hindi: भारत गणराज्य Bhāratiya Gaṇarājya), is a country in South Asia. = looks well balanced and wise to me.

^ The country has two English names as: * As per Constitution of India [| India, that is Bharat]; * Another reference from [| M. Rama Jois, former Chief Justice of the Punjab & Haryana High Court on ];
^ The country has two English names: * As per Constitution of India [| India, that is Bharat]; * Another reference from [| M. Rama Jois, former Chief Justice of the Punjab & Haryana High Court on ];

.असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 19:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

For the last time, "India also Bharat" is simply bad English, and should not make it onto a FA. Take one of the compromises offered, or the stuff below happens. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I would normally assume good faith but this is getting disruptive repeating the same point time after time and we clearly have a language understanding issue. Perhaps it is time to close the discussion and ask User:thisthat2011 to drop the subject. If you think that is unreasonable then I would suggest raising a request for comment on the subject. MilborneOne (talk) 20:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with MilborneOne. I too believe Thisthat2011 (talk · contribs) is being disruptive. He is unable to write clearly, unable to understand the arguments of others, and, consequently, unable to engage in any meaningful debate. He's a new editor who is making only controversial edits (or debating their inclusion) in some highly trafficked articles. He seems to be far too knowledgeable about Wikipedia policy and far too persistent for a newbie. That he has appeared soon after two editors with similar views (Zuggernaut and Yogesh Khandke) have disappeared is cause for further worry. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 00:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Lets see the kind of arguments going around against consensus on this topic:

1) need to show that a preponderance of sources (secondary and tertiary) in the English language mention Bharat

Reliable sources presented.

2) All too often "natives" of a certain place, certain in the truth of their family myths, insert all kinds of unsubstantiated nonsense in Wikipedia.

Bharat is an English word as well. Ignoring rights of natives and biased.

3) Bharat is an alternative name for India, and for that all the guidelines for naming of articles apply.

Reliable Sources presented.

4) But an edit that suggests that Bharat is the alternate name for the country India, needs the weight of all the evidence in the literature which Bharat doesn't have.

Reliable sources presented.

5) The lead sentence already offers the alternative official name "Bharat Ganarajya" for the republic... Note that the etymology section explains that Bharat is used as an alternative name in the Constitution; we have all the bases covered. ... The current Etymology section already includes information on Bharat. Perhaps information there can be expanded ... similar arguments presented repeatatively..

Etymology is no substitute for it. Attempt to avoid consensus.

6) the addition of the (redundant) also known as Bharat, makes the opening sentence unnecessarily clumsy and unwieldy.

By what standard?

7) "Bharat" is either the Hindi name or it is the official name of the Republic, but it is not an alternative English name of the country.

Factually incorrect. Reliable sources provided.

8) The version I suggested upstairs that had the support of RegentsPark, and Jayen

Editors objecting to consent in spite of reliable sources presented. This argument is the only one perhaps, without any reason given, leading to no consensus. Assumption presented that the a reason to not have a consensus is to not have consensus, right from the beginning, is self contradictory.

9) the stable version that has been good enough for thousands of editors that have edited this page in the last six years.

Editors should be good with this version as well. Wikipedia should continue as it has for other pages too.

10) India is the English name of the country and Bharat is rarely used in common English usage, even by the Government of India

Factually incorrect. Reliable sources provided.

11) a google search of "Government of Bharat" reveals that the term is used almost exclusively by right wing Hindu groups

Bharat Petroleum is not a right wing Hindu group nor communal. This has nothing to do with any or all religions. In any case, if Right wing groups use it, it doesn't automatically mean it is incorrect. Also ignores mention of Bharat in presented sources.

12) See, there are multiple English names; It does not mean that everything should be mentioned.

Factually incorrect. Multiple English names should be mentioned.

13) Is Bharat a common usage in English, even in India? How many newspapers, journals or magazines use Bharat? I think we have seen the results from the Google test.

Google test not exhaustive as mentioned with reasons. Other reliable sources, viz. Bharat Petroleum and many more also presented.

14) "Bharat," has official status in English only as a name for the Republic, not as a name for the country. As a name for the country, it is a Hindi name, not an English one (by usage). ... as the name of the country, it is "India" in English and "India" alone. ... government of India has no say in what the river Ganges is called in English... English language media in India don't refer to their country in English as Bharat.

Factually incorrect. Reliable sources presented. Also amongst others, page for Ganga has the name mentioned as Ganga along with the Ganges.

15) The Indian constitution does not explicitly mention that Bharat is an English name ... The Indian Express article is an opinion piece and the opinion expressed is that India should be renamed Bharat. Not that it is already called Bharat in English.

Factually incorrect. Links presented.

16) we don't look at what other pages do (and I'm not even going to bother looking at them to see if they do what you say)...

Wikipedia is collaborative. This would be unreasonable.

17) you're simply repeating all your original arguments (at excessive length if I may say so). Please provide arguments that (a) are supported by reliable sources, which means excluding fringe right wing sources, (b) avoid WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments, (c) don't quote Sanskrit-English dictionaries at length..

one has to deal with own understanding and skills. When clarity is needed, giving short or lengthy replies has no consequence for this consesnsus. (a) Reliable sources presented(excluding right wing sources, but what is this new rule); (b) avoid WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments - This part I don't understand though I have mentioned reliable sources and Wikipages pages(like Ganga, Aravalli and so on, along with a lot of pages from outside India.) (c) don't quote Sanskrit-English dictionaries at length - English sources presented. The word Bharat is mentioned in dictionaries in other languages too, it is a name after all. (though I am confused why English did not recognize the word Bharat after all the time spent here and people shouting 'Bharatamata ki Jai'.)

18) hisThat2011: As of today, the editors who have supported my version are: RegentsPark, Jayen466, YesMichael, Myself, and possibly Chimpmunkdavis.

All doubts have been responded to, information presented. See the Golden Rule and the silver Rule, avoiding consensus should not be unreasonable.

19) You'd have to come up with better arguments and more support to claim any kind of consensus.

Bharat Pertoleum is good enough too, amongst other sources.

20) it would be better for your own Wikipedia future if you didn't spend so much time fighting ideological battles on high trafficked articles... As it is, you are spending all your time fighting the big battles, in the rightness of whose cause you seem to be utterly convinced, but in support of which you are unable to garner the necessary evidence or argument.

As I mentioned earlier, one has to work with available skills and resources, however limited. Reliable sources presented.

21) I highly suggest you accept one of the compromises offered by other editors.

Compromise from my side as well.

22) A look at the official government website shows only one mention in the constitution where it is added as a note in the name section... Government itself does not use Bharat in English

Factually incorrect. Many pages for information on Bharat Petroleum, etc pointed out.

23) the use of Bharat as a commonly used alternate name for the country named India has not been proven and as such should not be in the lead as an alternate except in Hindi.

Reliable sources presented. Bharat is also the name used in Hindi and all Indian languages.

24) Whether Bharat Ratna is awarded to 41 or 41 thousand people is absolutely immaterial to this discussion...

I think it is very important. It is the best award in India. Ignoring this will be trivializing and discouraging.

25) ..being disruptive. He is unable to write clearly, unable to understand the arguments of others, and, consequently, unable to engage in any meaningful debate. He's a new editor who is making only controversial edits (or debating their inclusion) in some highly trafficked articles. He seems to be far too knowledgeable about Wikipedia policy and far too persistent for a newbie. That he has appeared soon after two editors with similar views (Zuggernaut and Yogesh Khandke) have disappeared is cause for further worry...

Ignores presented resources. doubts newbie status; I don't know what that means.

I think there is enough information provided for consensus. Suggestions are welcome..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 04:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Can some admin step in here? Thisthat2011 clearly doesn't get it. He needs some kind of warning. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 06:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't expect admins to discourage collaboration, and would expect to see the reliable sources presented. The response from your side is not reasonable. Please give reasons for the response..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 06:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Since no admins have put up a warning, and there are no doubts remaining for consensus, Bharat name shall be considered in the article as discussed above. Inviting suggestion..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 08:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I think my comment about disruptive editing and a request that you go to RFC was a polite warning. So really unless you have a "request for comment" then to keep repeating your comment will be considered disruptive. MilborneOne (talk) 08:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Please resolve this at location http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Dispute_resolution#Dispute_on_consensus_at_page_India. Thanks..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 11:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid you haven't understood what that talk page is about. It is about discussing changes to Wikipedia policy as enunciated on the Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution page. The page loudly proclaims at the top:

NOTE: This is not the place to post notices of disputes, questions about particular articles, or requests for assistance. Posts that are not a discussion of the project page Wikipedia:Dispute resolution will simply be removed. Please follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

Besides, you have to understand, there is no dispute here. We have only the case of an editor, namely you, Thisthat2011 (talk · contribs), who is refusing to recognize consensus, refusing even to acknowledge the points made by other people, and (whether by accident or design) not making his own points clearly. In other words, he (ie. you) is being disruptive. Being disruptive is not one side of a dispute that can be resolved at WP:Dispute resolution. You simply need to back off, i.e. stop being disruptive. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 12:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I can not reply to your frivolous charges for the request for comment notice is already posted. Please read the whole discussion again, with all assertions, assumptions, points, reliable sources, examples etc. provided on either side, is all I can say..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 15:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Bharat or Bharatiya?

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Another matter: why do the CIA and UN (see links above) use the form "Bharatiya Ganarajya", while we use "Bharat Ganarajya"? --JN 466 04:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

"Bharatiya" is I remember correctly from past discussions is the possessive form "India's." So, in Hindi one would say, "India's Republic" not "India Republic." Fowler&fowler «Talk» 04:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't read your post correctly. It should be Bharatiya Ganarajya. Someone has changed that too! Fowler&fowler «Talk» 04:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

What I said isn't true. Apparently, the page has always had "Bharat Ganarajya," but I do remember discussion about this. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 05:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I've changed the name to भारतीय गणराज्य / Bhāratiya Gaṇarājya per the CIA Factbook and UN. --JN 466 21:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

About Federal part

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Since out gov is Federal government and its separated into three parts Executive, Legislature and Judiciary. That, what i had mentioned. I don't thinks there is nothing wrong in that.--Kkm010 | Talk with me 06:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

India is not federal .It is quasi-federal.States in Indian Union don't have autonomy even in cultural and linguistic domain.Even Kashmir's autonomy was revoked some decades ago. (Arun1paladin (talk) 05:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)arun1paladin)

India or Bharat

Latest comment: 13 years ago11 comments7 people in discussion

Hi, like India, I believe 'Bharat' is also another name for the country irrespective of whether or not it is widely used. I also agree with the analogy of various names of UK discussed above. It is a proper noun and it (Bharat) must be referred by this name no matter what the language is. That means it is (should be) called (pronounced) as 'Bharat' in English, Hindi, Odia, Bengali, Marathi, Punjabi, etc. Of course, these languages use their own script when they write it. I see one confusion in above discussion is that many people think Bharat is related to Hindi ONLY. No, it is not. It is perfectly OK to have the name of county cited in Hindi ( as a widely spoken language in India) in bracket, but its intention is different. Just because we write Bharat in Hindi, that does not mean the word 'Bharat' (native name ) is specific to Hindi language or a translation, it is a proper noun, and just to re-iterate it's just another name of the country ( other being English variant 'India' - the other proper noun ).

So coming to the point discussed above "India, that is Bharat" phrase - as described in our Constitution - in my view, emphasizes both the names of the country- India AND Bharat. However, the phrase it self is not a name for the country. So the lead page in wikipedia, we should not use the phrase as described. I would rather, for the article, consider the text format ( as also suggested before) like this: "India(< pronunciation follows here>), also Bharat (< pronunciation follows here>), (Hindi: भारत), [<optional other language link>], officially Republic of India (Hindi: भारत गणराज्य ......rest of the text we all agree...

So in my view both India and Bharat should be present in the lead section! (-- Bpradhan001 (talk) 10:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC), next time I will remember to sign my post :))

Upon further research, I tend to agree. I am easily able to find uses of Bharat in English-language books:

India shining, Bharat drowning, by the World Bank, calls 'Bharat' the "vernacular for India".
Similarly, "Although today the term India is commonly used outside the country, in English-language publications in the subcontinent, and by some of the elite when they speak in English, it remains a foreign word largely replaced by "Bharat" in common parlance." (The making of India: a historical survey, 2001)
This source points out that the word Bharat gained political recognition as an English-language term in 1949.

This being so, alerting readers that they may encounter the term 'Bharat' in English-language publications from the subcontinent would seem to present a definite educational advantage. I can't see a similar advantage in omitting the information. --JN 466 03:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Fowler's suggestion takes care of that adequately. Readers are unlikely to find the word Bharat used (without context) for India in most English language publications. --rgpk (comment) 19:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Consider the Wikipedia pages on Japan, Liancourt Rocks & United Kingdom are but a few examples, where different english names are specifically mentioned in the first line, without hairline discussions on words like "Nippon", "the UK" and so on.

The word Bharat is not only an English name but also regarded as the name of the country by many other languages, as pointed out in the 25-page-length long discussion above here. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 20:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I am suggesting following from discussion aboe at [consensus or not]

*India /ˈɪndiə/ also^{[= 1]} Bhārat ([ˈbʱaːrət̪] , lit. "land that comprises as Bharata varṣam") (Hindi: भारत; see official names of India) officially the Republic of India (Hindi: भारत गणराज्य Bhāratiya Gaṇarājya), is a country in South Asia.

Requesting suggestions from editors..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 09:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

*India /ˈɪndiə/ also^{[≡ 1]} Bhārat ([ˈbʱaːrət̪] , lit. "land that comprises as Bharata regulate") (Hindi: भारत; see official names of India) officially the Republic of India (Hindi: भारत गणराज्य Bhāratiya Gaṇarājya), is a country in South Asia.

(Regulate as a compromise word for varṣam division of earth).असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 10:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Children are do named as "Bhārata" or "Gangā" or with names with these words forming a part of name, which are names after all. I am yet to come across anyone as "GAN-jee", and very few as "Indira" or another words forming part of the same..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 07:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't find any reason to give undue importance to the Hindi term Bharat that is derived from Sanskrit name called Bharat which was the name of a MYTHOLOGICAL Hindu king who is believed to have ruled the Indian sub-continent by considerable amount of Hindus.The Sanskrit word Bharat is used in various languages with various phonetic difference,grammar alterations.So Bharat is a pure Hindi usage.If India is referred as Bharat Gnanarajya in the Indian constitution then it's enough to mention Bharath Gnanrajya.I think no Hindi or Hindu appeasement by using just 'Bharat'(Arun1paladin (talk) 08:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)Arun1paladin)

If you are so much anti-Hindi, please go and change your name Arun (which is Hindi/Sanskrit) first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.193.164.9 (talk) 03:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

If we have reliable sources which say that Bharat is used to refer to India in the English language, then it should be included in the article. --Joshua Issac (talk) 00:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Some information about this - 1.- discussion on no consensus. 2.-Names of India - Official names. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 05:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Demographics: North India and South India - Different races and different Culture

Latest comment: 13 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

Extended content

North Indian races are known as decendants of Aryans . They share same genes as in Pakistan and Iran whereas South Indian races are decendants of Dravidians . They share same genes as of Sri Lankan People . Culturally both North Indian and South Indian races are very different . Apart from culture both races can be differentiated from the colour of their skins . South Indians are darker in colour and North Inidians are fairer in colour . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.136.162.226 (talk) 03:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

That theory, which otherwise would be worthy of immediate implementation on Wikipedia, is now seriously compromised by the discovery that all human beings originated in Africa and by the advent of Skin lightening creams, whose use was so widespread before the 2011 Census of India that a full 30% of the Indian population was counted among the expatriate Scandinavians. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 04:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

'Production of melanin is stimulated by DNA damage induced by UVB-radiation,[1] and it leads to a delayed development of a tan. This melanogenesis-based tan takes more time to develop, but it is long lasting." This natural phenomena has thrown some light on boundaries of knowledge. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 05:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

While there are general trends such as Southerners having darker skin, similar trends can also be seen between different castes. In general, however, all Indians are closer to each other (and most of Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal as well as Sri Lanka and the Maldives) genetically than even northern Brahmins are to Persians. You can see more about these differences at Y-DNA haplogroups in South Asian populations. CAVEAT: not that genes and culture are actually the same of course. Or that jokes is appropriate response to this comment.. Munci (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Though the Indian languages are divided into Indo-European and Dravidian, such a difference is not there in the genes of Indians (which is evident from DNA haplogroup mappings). The definition of Dravidian people is not a racial one; but linguistic one. Similarly people speaking Indo-Aryan languages are not necessarily genetically different the people speaking Dravidian languages. Also, caste-wise genetical closeness is more than regionwise(may be because of the fact that the percentage of inter-caste marriages are still very small in India).

For instance, Dravidian people like Aishwarya Rai (Tulu speaker) is very fair, and Indo-Aryan people like Rajni Kanth (Marathi speaker) is very dark. Similarly Mammootty(South Indian, Dravidian speaker) is fair and Irfan Khan(Pathan Nawab from Northern India, Indo-Aryan speaker) is dark. Likewise A. P. J. Abdul Kalam (South) is dark whereas Varun Gandhi(North) is fair.

From these examples you can observe that dark or fair people are scattered through out India irrespective of the language they speak or the region they are from. They are all genetically close to each other than to any foreigner.

Tail piece: Sinhalese or Srilankans belongs to Indo-Aryan family, not Dravidian.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.193.164.9 (talk) 11:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

What have Sinhalese go to do with India other than the fact they are the descendants of Pali speakers who settled in Eezham[name of Sri Lanka at that time] some 2000 years ago! (Arun1paladin (talk) 12:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)Arun1paladin)

I was just answering to the first comment. Please read fully before commenting. Moreover, Sinhalese also carries the same genes with Indian people. Infact, whole South Asia is very much closer in their genetic traits. --192.193.164.9 (talk) 03:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

What difference does it make if different people of different races have different skin color. It is very clear that most of the people of north india have fair skin & most of the people of central & south india(including maharashtra & tamilnadu) have brown or dark skin. This is mainly due to the difference in climate from one region to another. I don't think this space should be used for discussing such topics which is quite common. (talk) 8:14 AM , 11 May 2011 (UTC))

Wikipedia naming style for the first line of the page on India i.e. Bharat

Latest comment: 13 years ago64 comments11 people in discussion

Extended content

Hi, I would like to know how could I end the 'no consensus' impasse at the above talk page i.e. [[3]]. It appears to me that all the (Ebglish)names of India should be present in the first line. Therefore I have presented the case and cleared doubts with information. I would like to know how to better this approach, so that presenting all sources should make the consensus straightforward and not avoidable. Thanks. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 09:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Is the issue whether or not "Bharat" is an English name for India? Reading through this talk page as best I can, it looks like Thisthat says it is English and nearly everyone else disagrees. Maybe I'm wrong—the threads here are long and repetitive, so please correct me if this isn't a fair overview. All the sources I have found so far say that "Bharat" is Sanskrit. Reading this talk page I see the Indian constitution repeatedly cited as demonstrating "Bharat" is English. But as far as I can tell the constitution does not explicitly say "Bharat is the English name of the country" or words to that effect. There is a rather vague mention of Bharat in the opening sentence, yes? But no explicit statement about official names in English? If not, are there other sources that explicitly say "Bharat" is the official English name? Because there seem to be plenty that explicitly say "Bharat" is Sanskrit, not English. Have I gotten the basic idea of the problem here right? Finally, it looks to me as if Thisthat is seeking a consensus that follows his or her position, but my impression of this talk page is that there is practically a consensus on the opposite position—that "Bharat", while yes an official name of India, is not English. Again, am I wrong? The request for comments cannot proceed meaningfully without a short overview on these points. I mean, if the request for comments question is how consensus can be achieved on the position Thisthat holds, the simple answer is it may or may not be achievable. Pfly (talk) 22:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

That is fairly accurate. The constitution, the only reference provided, is not explicit (and it is a primary document so it should be treated with care anyway). I am unable to find any reliable secondary source that explicitly says that Bharat is an official name of India in any language. However, that does appear to be the case by usage so is, perhaps, acceptable as the Hindi name of India. --rgpk (comment) 22:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Very well put Pfly and RegentsPark! I can't add much except than to say that when something is official, you don't just get one primary source (the constitution of India), you get dozens of sources attesting to it. See for example my subpage User:Fowler&fowler/Official language(s) of India, which I made four years ago at the time of a similar discussion on the official languages of India. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 23:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

PS The usual Ebglish name for India is Ibdia. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 23:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out grammar mistake. Your skills at pointing these out is becoming legendary and will be remembered forever. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 08:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's kill this once and for all - as per national web site, Bharat is not mentioned at all. AshLin (talk) 04:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Is there a timeline for this discussion? Let me know please. For the starters, here is one link from the former Chief justice of India, Y.K. Sabharwal mentioning explicit word Bharat Rights of Indigenous people. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 08:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Well about official name of India there are several links that can present Bharat as English name(somehow an important point that name is a name in ANY language is missed though)- Indian Embassy website; www.cia.gov; The CIA World Factbook 2010, Book 2010; California Univ. Middle East studies site; populstat.info; nationsonline.org. Also some information on ancient source of name Bharat Vishnu Purana (2.3.1). ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 09:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

On the website india.gov.in, there are many pages that explicitely mention Bharat - "India, also known as Bharat or Hindustan"; "Contribution to Bharat Varsha"; ""India, that is Bharat" is not only a vast and diversified country..."; "Bharat Ganrajya"; "name Bharat". ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 09:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

More on India, that is Bharat -General Knowledge Digest 2010; India that is Bharat; [India, that is Bharat]. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 10:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict, I didn't see your second post) You've listed a lot of links, but none of them say that Bharat is the English name of India. Most say "Bharat" is a "local usage", which strikes me as rather vague and not clear about whether this is an English name of not. http://www.populstat.info/Asia/indiag.htm does not strikes me as a reliable source at all. The main page, http://www.populstat.info/, seems to clearly say this website is a personal project by someone named Jan Lahmeyer. General Knowledge Digest 2010 does not appear to say anywhere that Bharat is the English name for India. None of the other sources you cite say "Bharat is the English name of India", or anything close to that. Some say "India, that is Bharat", or "India, also known as Bharat or Hindustan", or that "Bharat" is a "local form". In short, although I have had not even heard of "Bharat" until recent and have no preset opinion about it, and am open to being convinced, none of these sources strikes me as convincing in the least. Pfly (talk) 10:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, but having looked now, none of those second post sources say Bharat is the English name of India. They say either "India, that is Bharat", or "Country Name: Republic of India; Bharat Ganrajya", or makes referenece to the Mahabharata. In short, none of these even mention the word "English". Pfly (talk) 10:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, I don't think there is a strict timeline of RFC, but I could be wrong. Nevertheless, it seems to me you are fighting a hopeless battle here. I know there are thousands of important Indian topics with scant if any coverage in Wikipedia. Wouldn't your hard work be more profitably spent on such things? Whether India is also called Bharat in English seems, to me, relatively unimportant. Surely in a ancient culture as complex as rich as India there must be a near infinite number of ways to contribute to Wikipedia in ways that will actually have an effect? I don't mean to sound harsh, but it truly seems to me that you are expending a lot of energy on a dead-end. India is a vital nation rapidly growing in global importance. It's Wikipedia coverage is spotty at best. Weren't there recently elections in Assam? There's no page about it, is there? It seems to me the potential to contribute in meaningful long-lasting ways is wide open for Indian editors. But this bickering over the first sentence of the India page seems like such a loss, when so much else of value could be done. Surely you know a great deal of information about India that is lacking in Wikipedia? For the good of the project I again encourage you to pursuit things that will actually result in something tangible and useful! Pfly (talk) 11:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that there are two mutually exclusive set of names for the country - Bharat on one side and India on the other side. It means the same and either way, in any language, Bharat is a name, like how India is a name in any language. The links also indicate explicitly that "India, that is Bharat ...", "political Bharat", and so on, just so that such a confusion does not arise. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 10:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Let us the go by what the Constitution of India states for our secular nation state, which replaced the Government of India Act 1935. Let us not waste time in raking up a subject which is controversial. It would be a futile exercise of renaming the page or introducing the word Bharat. Let all of us Users from India concentrate on contributing more articles on India related subjects on Wikipedia in English, Hindi and other regional languages. I wish the discussion is closed on this subject. --Nvvchar. 12:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Frankly I don't see this as secular/communal issue at all, which is perhaps an undercurrent here, perhaps not. For example, sometime back an MLA from congress made a motion to pass a bill to remove the name India and retain just Bharat, though I can't find the link. As I mentioned, Bharat is just a name - India, Sindu, Bharat are all names, and would be names in any language. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 12:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The point of this RfC is to discuss whether Bharat is an alternative English name for India. In that case, we need to have a look at how many reliable sources use Bharat in place of India, regularly. The constitution of India is a primary source. We have to see the usage of the term by sources like reputed Newspapers or journals. Yes Michael? •^Talk 10:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The normal usage of Bharat as English name the country can be easily pointed out even by Govt. of India website and schemes - [| Bharat Nirman]; [| Bharat Ratna awards]; [| Bharat Petroleum]; [| Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited]; [| Bharat Bandh]; [| Bharatiya Vayu Sena i.e. Indian Air Force]; [| Bharat Stage norms for pollution] etc. are all used everyday all the time. I hope this does not get lost in incorrect phonetics. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 12:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Thisthat, most of the example you just gave use Bharat with other hindustani words. It doesn't even seem to be a commonly used loanword, let alone a word fully accepted into the english language. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

In India, these words are used interchangeably, like Bharat for India. For example these names: [| Bharat Scouts and Guides]; [| Bharat Petroleum]; [| BHARAT ELECTRONICS LIMITED]; [| Bharat Earth Movers Limited]; [| Bharat Dynamics limited]; etc. - the point is it is not a 'Hindustani' name - it is just a name. Tomorrow if Ahmedia Muslims or Syrian Christians in India, for example, start speaking this nomenclature, one can not just claim that "these people are also apparently extremely right wing fascist (I ran out of adjectives).. Hindus" etc. when the names are alike for people within(you can get this confirmed).

Bharat or India in any language will be [ˈbʱaːrət̪] or /ˈɪndiə/ - for example English,Sanskrit,French,German,Latin,Chinese,Arab,Hebrew.. anyways. On this page on India(which as per me should be more phonetic - like Indiā now that alphabets like 'ā' are available, people in India like to read phonetic you see), if people don't see Bhārat̪ then perhaps it may not click (doesn't for me, though may be it is just me) and move on. One should not shy away from this. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 17:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

that the word "Bharat" is used in English language is not enough to prove that it is the English name. we need references that explicitly states it is an English name for India. i havent seen that yet. instead, i see an overwhelming consensus against this RFC. I recommend Thisthat give up on this and channel his energy, time and effort on other useful things. for example, Assam legislative assembly election, 2011 can get some help from you and some others. --CarTick (talk) 17:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

There are two conflicting views here - whether Bharat is English name for India or whether Bharat are commonly used, am I reading this correct? ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 17:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

By the way, CarTick go ahead give information about Assam Elections, and if I dont got time then include the info yourself. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 17:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

No, the question is whether Bharat is a widely used alternative name for India. Yes Michael? •^Talk 17:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Just presented a few examples, where company names have Bharat word. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 17:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, everyone in India, i.e. more than 1 billion people, use 'Bharat' as the name of the country (including in English usage). It is puzzling why the name does not figure on the top of the page. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 17:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

It is puzzling how you are able to speak for the 1 billion people. If it is so commonly used, then newspapers, magazines, journals should also use the term, which they do not.

First of all, estimated 4% of people speak in India English(all multilingual), the rest speak regional languages - see Official names of India. Now that those who speak English are multilingual, these people also use Bharat and India interchangeably(consider this also - [| Bharat Church], etc.). I have also given examples of companies that use Bharat in day to day use. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 18:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe it is time we closed this RfC. Yes Michael? •^Talk 18:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that this should be open for about 3 months. Hopefully some more Wikipedians, who are busy these days apparently, will have a chance to give comments. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 18:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The crux of the argument seems to be based on Article 1 of the Constitution: "India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of states..." It would be good to bear in mind that the Constituent Assembly also had heated debates on most of these issues, and often could not find consensus, only majority. "India, that is Bharat.." has a certain sanctity because of its mention in the founding Constitution of the Union, but it is a legal formulation, not naturally suited to everyday use, and nor, perhaps, intended. The Constituent Assembly has in fact been criticized for being too lawyer-heavy and thus favouring abstruse and long-winded language.

I have a book on Polity lying handy, so let me quote a few bits that appear applicable here (Indian Polity by M. Laxmikanth, 3rd ed., Tata McGraw-Hill; Chapter 2 (Making of the Constitution) ):

Criticism of the Constituent Assembly:

1. Not a Representative Body: ...its members were not directly elected by the people of India on the basis of universal adult franchise.

...

5. Lawyer-Politician Domination: ...was dominated by lawyers and politicians...other sections of the society were not sufficiently represented...main reason for the bulkiness and complicated language of the Constitution.

This is not an isolated view, but well-shared by various legal commentators. But this is not intended to belittle any of the members of the Constituent Assembly, who were moral and intellectual giants; titans, in fact, compared to today's "leaders."VishalB (talk) (original comment continues after Thisthat's comment immediately following)

'Titans - compared to today's leaders' - a very apt description. In fact the sheer talent & enthusiasm, absolute devotion & good-work for the nation and their vast knowledge & productivity by these titans is worth remembering and celebrating. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 20:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Considering this is an encyclopedia in English primarily intended for the global audience, we ought to favor lucidity over legal exactness. Since "Bharat" is being mentioned in both the Roman and Devanagari scripts in the very first sentence, using "India, that is Bharat.." as the opening phrase seems unnecessary.

I think the following (copied from above discussion) captures all flavors without overwhelming the palate:

India (Listen /ˈɪndiə/, Hindi: भारत Bhārat) officially the Republic of India (Hindi: भारत गणराज्य Bhārat Gaṇarājya; see also official names of India)

VishalB (talk) 19:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Is Bharat an English name of the country or not - that is the main issue here. Could you comment on the main issue from your side please? ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 19:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

It is one of the English names of the country, used much lesser than the other name in English usage, both within the country and outside. India is the primary name known to the world, at least since the time of Megasthenes. We should give primacy to the primary name and give Bharat in the brackets in both English & Devanagari, in my view. All the official names are also given in the linked page, so linguistic concerns appear to be addressed. VishalB (talk)

I agree with what you have said, as also that 'India, that is Bharat' does look like an exercise in legality. Though, on Wikipedia, alternate English names are mentioned(there are many examples), as I have mentioned earlier. Anyways, as someone within India - considering how Wikipedia is also for Indians, would you say that the english name Bharat is different from the english name India? Also, please clarify from your side how much is the english name 'Bharat' should be considered as a symbol of something that is right wing hinduism or similar. I think it is needed here(considering this discussion). ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 19:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

In reply to the first question, yes, Bharat is different from India, because even in India we use "India" when talking in English to each other, and often even when talking in Hindi. "India mein bahut corruption hai," "India match jeet gayi" etc. Our sports teams are almost overwhelmingly called Indian Cricket team or Indian Hockey team in everyday discussions, not Bharatiya Cricket team. We should go by the language of daily use, the language of the people. In fact, I find it somewhat disturbing that the name "Hindustan" is not mentioned anywhere in the lead section, despite it being an important name for our country both within and outside for nearly a millennium. It continues to be used by the Hindi-speaking populace (and very likely some others), and there are major companies using it (e.g. Hindustan Petroleum, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Hindustan Zinc and so on). But there have been enough linguistic arguments for now. The right-wing question is a matter of perception. Advocating "Bharat" per se cannot be construed as right-wingism, unless it's taken too far. I feel that right-wingers have done a disservice to normal patriotic Indians by hijacking debates and showing Hinduism as an intolerant faith (just like radical Islamists do an injustice to moderate Muslims). I must leave now, will see further discussions later. Good night. VishalB (talk) 20:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

That's why I said, it is interchangeable. Like how we say 'Jana Gana Mana Adhinayaka Jaya he, Bharat Bhagya Widhata;...'; 'Mera Bharat mahan'; 'Jahaa daal daal par sone ki chidiya karati he basera; wo Bharat desh he mera, wo Bharat desh he mera!', ; 'Bharat Scouts and Guides' and so on. About Hindustan also, what you mentioned is a fact that the name is another name, and so is that in all Arab countries the most common usage is 'Hindustan', which is again not right-wing/left-wing number game. About intolerance, I think Indic religions are perhaps the least prone to intolerance though I may be biased in saying so, but that is the perception I have. Saying Bharat does not make anyone 'right-winger' when everyone says it regardless of anything else. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 20:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what were we discussing again? Keep the discussions to the point please. Please make one point clear (this is probably the fourth time I am asking for this). Please show reliable third party publications, which frequently use Bharat as an alternative for India. I am not talking about proper nouns, about organisations, or about government schemes. I am talking about normal newspaper reports, and journals. Yes Michael? •^Talk 07:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

To User:MikeLynch for notability these 5 sources are good enough - [| from CIA Factbook 2007]; [| from CIA Factbook 2008]; [| from CIA factbook 2009]; [| from CIA factbook 2010]; [| from CIA factbook 2011 - current, in the Govt. tab]. Which part of this is not notable and how is this not following standards? ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 15:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I think we have come a long way from all the time wasted to prove that Bharat is not an English name, in all achieves and similar discussions, discouraging people who are baffled to find no mention of Bharat or Hindustan. Lets not rush into things anymore. I have to go through the maze of standards everytime I discuss this which makes this not any quicker. I need some help here but I would manage otherwise if not available. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 09:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I am glad now that we know that Bharat is also an English name of India, lets not rush into things. I am slow with Wikipedia and trying to find out by what standards this query "...about normal newspaper reports, and journals" is relevant. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 09:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

By the way, Thisthat, you've repeatedly cited the names of companies based in India that use the word "Bharat" in their names. That doesn't demonstrate anything. There's a major US company called Del Monte Foods, but "del monte" is not English. And there's an Irish company called Élan, but that doesn't make the word "élan" English. Pfly (talk) 07:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Please lets not diverge from the topic. The company names mentioned from my side, named Bharat in it, has significance by company naming standards equal to India. It is the same with Hindustan. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 09:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Equal to India, sure, but an English name for India? I see no reason why the fact that some companies use "Bharat" demonstrate such a thing. Pfly (talk) 10:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

"It is one of the English names of the country.."(from VishalB above]]) - which part of this is not understood, please clarify. It is simply incorrect to state otherwise. Please don't be disruptive. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 15:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

ThisThat2011, I suggest you drop this and move on. You've expended a lot of words on this issue and no one appears to be convinced. You're reaching, if not have already reached, the point where all this is becoming tendentious and disruptive and you are headed toward a block or a ban. You are welcome to continue on this theme if you like but be aware that you have been warned. Regards. --rgpk (comment) 10:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

User talk:RegentsPark please go through the discussion, and then the earlier one here. I have said many time that I am ready to compromise, but there are certain factually incorrect assertions that are going on since last so many years and just can't go on and on.

To say that no one is convinced, in the light of "It is one of the English names of the country.."(from User:VishalB above) would be incorrect. Anyway it is not my personal ego issue here - the matter is that Bharat is another English name of India which is a fact. To ban someone on stating a fact when others are giving incorrect statements is biased against truth, not me for truth is not my personal property.

It is indeed discouraging to see that anyone who says things like "Bharat is not English name for India" do not get any warning & not called disruptive in spite of repeating incorrect assumptions, while those who give proofs and state facts are given ample warnings/bans and called 'disruptive'. Such a biased behavior is discouraging, especially from editors who themselves have limited knowledge of the topic and therefore appear only for giving warnings to those whose views are in disagreement in spite of presented links, or to give factually incorrect statements themselves and declare others as 'disruptive'. In particular the statement above "..unable to find any reliable secondary source that explicitly says that Bharat is an official name of India.." is plainly incorrect & therefore disruptive, and I am not doing any favor to anyone when I point it a fact.

If you noticed, the users to whom I requested for commenting here, and who replied i.e. User:nvvchar & User:VishalB whose own views are not exactly congruent to mine, in fact the views should be welcomed considering their brilliant contributions. I would want to include 'Bharat' as the English name is what I am trying to do and what is so disruptive in it when it is true? I have given ample proofs for consensus too. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 15:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:CONSENSUS, it is not what you think it is. If you remember the above conversations, plenty of users offered you compromises which included Bharat in the lead. I warned you then to accept one or nothing would change. You chose to continue to WP:BLUDGEON your specific wording in this talkpage. As I forewarned, absolutely nothing has changed and consensus has completely stacked against you, even though earlier others offered to compromise. You've lost your chance, drop the stick. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Precisely. Compromises were offered, but Thisthat2011 chose to reject them. He has lost his chance. And he is suggesting that this RfC be open for 3 months. I think that we should use our time more constructively. I think we have all made a waste of our time. It is quite impossible for all users to comment on this, and I think this "issue" has got all the attention that it merited. I appeal to Thisthat2011 to stop pursuing this matter, lest the community become more irritated. Yes Michael? •^Talk 15:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

And just to clarify to Thisthat2011, you keep saying that there is no consensus, but in fact, there is consensus, and it appears to be against your proposal. Yes Michael? •^Talk 15:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Just because people chose to not read this much part - i.e. "It is one of the English names of the country.."(from VishalB above]]) - does not mean that it is so. Considering how Indian users, starting from the first achieve onwards I observe, have been discouraged just because people lacking this understanding refuse to make a consensus (consensus is not my personal property anyway) and therefore questioning this again and again to disrupt efforts to generate consensus - makes no sense to me. Just go through the discussions and see how people just say that "Bharat is not an English name for the country" which disrupts the discussion. Now there are enough sources given so why hold back on consensus? ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 16:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Read the first line of this discussion - Bharat is an English name therefore should be mentioned in the first line is all this is about. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 16:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Now there are enough sources given. I have yet to see a convincing source. It may be true that Bharat is an English name for India, as you keep saying, but "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" (WP:V). Pfly (talk) 16:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

As mentioned above (don't blame me for repeating now, people hold different position at different times so I have to present sources repetitively) :

Let us include the name 'Bharat' or 'Bhārat' someway please. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 16:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thatthat2011, I think we're all in agreement that Bharat and Bharatiya Ganarajya are used as local short and long forms for the name of India. If you cannot provide a reference that explicitly says that these names are alternative English names for the country, please stop posting on this page. Repeatedly posting the same sources that don't say what you want them to say has become disruptive. Please consider this a second warning. Thanks --rgpk (comment) 18:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

"It is one of the English names of the country.."(from VishalB above]]) - which part of this is not understood, please clarify. It is simply incorrect to state otherwise.(This part is also repeating from my side because admins don't read discussions perhaps.)

It is an unpleasant experience to see a senior admin not reading the discussion, then pushing earlier unchanged views disregarding the discussion itself, and then call others disruptive repeatedly(& so when pointed out again, call it disruptive again thus generating a cycle leading to bans and general ignorance of facts). This is not too neutral at all.

Henceforth, anyone who says that Bharat is not an English name of the country should be called disruptive(which should have been a practice from first day of Wikipedia itself.) ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 06:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

So, according to you, anyone who disagrees with you is disruptive, but posting long and repetitive arguments by you is not disruptive. If you will kindly make time and go to the top of the RfC and notice, RegentsPark has been involved in the discussion right from the beginning. VishalB has stated his opinion that it is one of the English names for India, but even he has not discussed a proper criterion for its inclusion. I respect his views, but if you will notice, the consensus is stacked against you. Even after you have been given two warnings, you choose to provoke further. Yes Michael? •^Talk 07:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Stop misinterpreting please. "anyone who says that Bharat is not an English name of the country should be called disruptive" does not mean that "anyone who disagrees with you". Please note the difference.

"VishalB has stated his opinion that it is one of the English names for India, but even he has not discussed a proper criterion for its inclusion." - what does this mean exactly? If you do not see what he says as it is then it does not mean that it is so. I will notify User:VishalB about this too.

I suggest not get provoked on personal misinterpretations like "anyone who disagrees with you" and so on and henceforth. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 08:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

VishalB's opinion does not matter in the least. What we need is a source that explicitly backs up your claims. The opinion of Wikipedia editors carries no weight. Not VishalB's, not yours, not mine. We need a source that says what you claim. You've cited many sources, but none that say what you claim. I came here when I saw your RFC. I've made my comments. It looks like you will continue to berate this point no matter what anyone says. This is no fun and a waste of time. I only got involved here a few days ago, but already "disruptive" seems an apt term. Time to take this page off my watchlist and go do something actually productive elsewhere. Best of luck to you, I think you'll need it. Pfly (talk) 09:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I did not follow this RfC for the past 2-odd days, because it seemed all arguments had been repeated at least thrice already, and I was involved with other work. But I should have seen it. It is disoncerting to find that a fragment of my previous comment "Bharat is one of the English names of India..." has been repeatedly used without proper context to indicate my support for a point that I haven't supported. The original comment went "It is one of the English names of the country, used much lesser than the other name in English usage, both within the country and outside. India is the primary name known to the world..." I had italicized one precisely to indicate that there can be many names (including Hindustan, as mentioned earlier), but India is the primary name, and we have to give "primacy to the primary name." I also said, "Considering this is an encyclopedia in English primarily intended for the global audience, we ought to favor lucidity over legal exactness." Let me say it again and clearly now, so there's less chance for misunderstanding: The Constitution of India, in Article 1(1), says "India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States." This is the only reputable source I have, and I fully agree that it's not enough to claim any sort of equal status between "India" and "Bharat" as English names for India/Bharat/Hindustan/Bharath/Hindusthan (as the Dravidian Romanization for Bharat & Hindustan would be). As I said earlier, "Bharat" has a certain legal sanctity because it's given in the Constitution, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a Court of Law. After this cursory formality, the Constitution itself goes on to use "India" throughout, not mentioning Bharat again even once. In a quick search in the Constitution PDF at the Indian Law Ministry's site here, "India" was mentioned 23 times in the Table of Contents alone, and likely hundreds of times in the main text. Those familiar with India's political history would know that the sole occurrence of "Bharat," and the decision to make Hindi the national language, came about only after much heated and fractious debate. India has been the primary Greek/Latin/English name for 2000+ years, it is now, and is likely to remain so in the immediate future at least. 'Bharat Ganarajya' in Hindi & English is currently mentioned in the opening line as an official name for India. This is good enough for me. Also, irrespective of my or anyone else's views, this is (the English) Wikipedia, and Wikipedia standards of broad consensus and authoritative citations must be followed no matter how strongly any editors feel about any issue. It is better to devote our energies to constructive article creation/expansion rather than continuous and circular debate. Phew. Nice day to you all. VishalB (talk) 09:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Errata in previous: "..decision to make Hindi the national language.." It should be "official" language, not "national" language. My mistake.VishalB (talk) 09:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is another document from Govt. of India website [| the Ministry of Corporate Affairs], saying words like India, Bharat, Hindustan or similar to these, are recognized as [| "country's name"]. Here is another document where same consideration is given to words India, Bharat, Hindustan.[| here] Anyone who owns a company in India knows this, but not foreigners; I think this should be a good enough 'proof'(indicative of the name Bharat).

There are many sources that refer to word Bharat as India - [| another], not to mention earlier links provided on the same topic("India, also known as Bharat or Hindustan"; "Contribution to Bharat Varsha"; ""India, that is Bharat" is not only a vast and diversified country..."; "Bharat Ganrajya"; "name Bharat"; General Knowledge Digest 2010; India that is Bharat; [India, that is Bharat]).

I am glad discussion moved from 'Bharat is not an English name' to 'Bharat is an English name though "there can be many names" and "it's not enough to claim any sort of equal status between "India" and "Bharat" as English names for India/Bharat/Hindustan/Bharath/Hindusthan". I think Cylone has also changed its name to Shri Lanks without such doubts. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 11:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

To Thisthat2011 (talk · contribs): Please don't be delusional. The discussion hasn't moved anywhere. It has ended. user:VishalB is not supporting you. Let me quote him again. He has said:

"India has been the primary Greek/Latin/English name for 2000+ years, it is now, and is likely to remain so in the immediate future at least. 'Bharat Ganarajya' in Hindi & English is currently mentioned in the opening line as an official name for India. This is good enough for me. Also, irrespective of my or anyone else's views, this is (the English) Wikipedia, and Wikipedia standards of broad consensus and authoritative citations must be followed no matter how strongly any editors feel about any issue. It is better to devote our energies to constructive article creation/expansion rather than continuous and circular debate."

That means he is happy with the current lead sentence. He doesn't want it changed. He doesn't want you to either quote him falsely or to misinterpret him and count him on your team. You don't have a team. You are alone. You have requested comment. The other editors have commented. You have to listen to them now, not to your own thoughts and compulsions. You have exhausted the patience of every one on this page. Editors on this page have accorded you an extraordinarily astounding engagement. Please stop. Let this be a third warning. You risk your editing privileges being restricted. That means you will be blocked and won't be able to edit Wikipedia if you keep posting irrelevant posts here and keep wasting the valuable time of other editors. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 03:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I did not say I counted him in 'a team' nor that it is a 'compulsion'(?!?!) and 'delusion' as you are making it out of this. I warn you not to pass dozens of voluntary judgments that you you often do, without quoting standards on how it is allowed to and disrupt discussions(Anyone can but people may consider judging others not amongst the better attitudes, except of course judges!). Please present standards on judging others before brush it off as usual because Wikipedia is not a personal property of senior editors as far as I understand. Whether am I 'alone' here- I guess that depends on the context on whether 'Bharat as an English name but that is not notable'(on which I am presenting the sources) or whether 'Bharat is NOT AN ENGLISH NAME of India(this context is plain incorrect).

As far as blocking is concerned, it is not my job so I don't worry about it. Those foreigners who are not in Bharat and want to block, after falsely accepting that 'Bharat is not an English name' from those who are not even in Bharat, will anyway ban regardless of context, that we all will see I understand.

How do you explain your assertions that sources I have presented are 'irrelevant' without even commenting on them? Let other editors talk how the sources are 'irrelevant' for notability first, before value judgments are passed. Indeed foreign companies are unaware of the significance of the name 'Bharat' when firms are set up in the same country and registered - that behavior is ignorant of rules linked.

By the way, have you realized that Bharat is an English name of India yet, though with 'not enough notability' as per Wikipedia standards? Because this may happen again where you keep on pushing your views that it is not, which may perplex new editors on how truths are set on Wikipedia.

Other editors please link the standards of notability as per their understanding, which I have requested and requesting again. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 05:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussion has come to an end with no consensus to change the lead, thanks for inputs. MilborneOne (talk) 11:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=.> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=.}} template (see the help page).
Cite error: There are <ref group==> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group==}} template (see the help page).
Cite error: There are <ref group=≡> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=≡}} template (see the help page).

[3] The country has two English names as: * As per Constitution of India [| India, that is Bharat]; * Another reference from [| M. Rama Jois, former Chief Justice of the Punjab & Haryana High Court on ];

[4] The country has two English names: * As per Constitution of India [| India, that is Bharat]; * Another reference from [| M. Rama Jois, former Chief Justice of the Punjab & Haryana High Court on ];

[. 1]

[≡ 1]

[≡ 1]

[≡ 2]

[= 1]

[≡ 1]