Talk:India/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Official languages

This link talks about only two official languages according to the constitutional provisions. Unless anybody knows otherwise, I will change the no. of official languagues to two. Lost 05:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually it is truely two. But some non-Hindi speakers challenge this and claim that all the Scheduled languages are natioanl and official languages.Cygnus_hansa 23:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Ancient civilizations

Home to one of the four major ancient civilisations

The above sentence in the second paragraph needs corroboration. Is there a list that catalogoues the other three major civilizations? Can something be cited to support this? I have requested citation in the article Chancemill 12:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

According to my best knowledge the other three are Chinese, Mesoptamian and Egyptian civilizations. I will try to find citations and add to the article. --Bharat 12:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Plz comment

Your comments are welcome on this article, re-written by me: Hindustan. Basic refs are from Webster's New World dictionary.Cygnus_hansa 00:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

SVG map

There seems to be a debate about the usage of svg maps as i noticed that the one on this page has been reverted to the old png one. Now if some good soul can tell me where all the action is taking place, id like to add to the discussion -- ^{PlaneMad|YakYak} 09:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Adding Ayyavazhi

In the introduction area " Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, and Sikhism–all have their origins in India," was placed in the sense that All this highly potential and complex religions took their origins in India and by which meriting India. They were not placed in accordance to the number of followers antience etc.. So Iam placing Ayyavazhi here in the introduction area because it too took birth in India and was complex

London Missionary Society report (LMS Report) for the year 1843 describes it as one that created "so much excitement" in the contry

G.Patrick's Religion and Subaltern Agency, Published from University of Madras, Chapter 5, page 92"The religious experience of AV (Ayyavazhi) found expression in many ways as in the type of relegiosity, the rituals, and beliefs, the festivals, the ritual symbols, etc."

And many more - Vaikunda Raja

And what about the hundreds of other religious movements that also originated here such as Arya Samaj, etc? I don't think Ayyavazhi is notable enough to warrent mention in the intro. It is still not very widely known in India apart from its few followers. In a summary article it is not appropriate to insert this. - Parthi 02:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Ayyavazhi is not notable enough. I think it's more than evident that Vaikunda Raja (please sign your posts properly, with ~~~~) has made a persistent campaign to insert Ayyavazhi into every nook and cranny that exists on Wikipedia (it borders of proselytism if you ask me). Google Books has zero hits [1], which shows that Ayyavazhi has a limited presence in literature. There are just over [2] 9,000 hits on the web excluding Wikipedia, and many of those are Wikipedia duplicate sites. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 12:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Compare with other religions listed:

• Buddhism: [3] 77 million hits, [4] 700,000 pages in books.
• Hinduism: [5] 44 million hits, [6] 600,000 pages in books.
• Jainism: [7] 16.5 million hits, [8] 144,000 pages in books.
• Sikhism: [9] 11.4 million hits, [10] 69,000 pages in books.

Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 12:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Do Arya Samaj claim them outside Hinduism? But Ayyavazhi do. Also Arya Samaj A religioous movement, but ayyavazhi a religions (on their own views). See more about this discussion in the Talk:Ayyavazhi.Answer and remove. Iam reverting. Also I earlier placed the reason that here all (all religions) were placed not due to the wide acceptance but complexity on ideas. - Vaikunda Raja

Aayyaavaazhi is not a religion. In India there are more than 3000 caste and this Aayyaavaazhi might be one of them.

vkvora 16:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all I had a problem in my computer in editing with sing up. More over, Iam mentioning my name in every of my edited. So I think no problem.

Then (what nook and cranny). If for example in the article Dharma, If a new religion says something new about dharma it was usually placed with proper citation. That is what I've done here after in WP. But you can't question any body editing on behalf of particular religion and all. Any one who is familier with Hinduism do so and if with (some knowledge in Christianity) he write the Christian view. That's what I've done with Ayyavazhi. Also what (proselytism). Writing an article regarding a religious system or placing other views on a general topic means proselytism?!!! Then all the users edited religious views will be proselyti(sors).

Then if Google books have very few on a particular category how can you declare that, that Category have limited Literature. Akilam the holy book of Ayyavazhi is supposed to be the longest ballad in the world with more than 15000 verses.

Then the google hit. I completely agree with the view that Ayyavazhi is too, too bad informative in web. That's really a pity. The main reasonis that it had no as much followers that other religions do. But it doesn't mean that Ayyavazhi is neglegeble.

Then in this article I've already mentioned that Ayyavazhi is placed here because it was substential. It was with the same view other religions were placed there and by meriting India(article) as saying "the birth place of all such sustential religious systems are in India". No because of a large number of followers. Why every body is marching against me? Please understand the view in which I've done that. On other user saying right now Ayyavazhi as a caste, one among some 3000. Then some one in a discussion before in this page (talk:India) says Ayyavazhi as a herostone worship. Was Ayyavazhi a herostone worship or a caste? What does this word "Aayyaavaazhi" means dear friends?

This religion had a large scripture. A set of Holy Places (not of hinduism). A large amount of worship centers. Please friends, try to understand what Iam telling. I placed Ayyavazhi in the introduction only due to its substantial nature( as others are placed). - Vaikunda Raja .

Is there any place for this Ayyavazhi in India A Reference Annual or any other Central Government publication? vkvora 18:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

You must understand that Ayyavazhi is not a well known religion (I consider at a sect of Hinduism, the claim in the article "Ayyavazhi is not officially recognised, but its followers consider it an autonomous religion." has no citation; I'm not sure that Ayyavazhi followers do not consider themselves Hindus) even by Tamils in India.

Ayyavazhi certainly deserves its own article, but it is certainly not notable to the extent it is given on Wikipedia. You cite two books, and I'm sure there are more, but they pale in comparison to the number of books published on the other religions.

I mean no disrespect to your religious beliefs but Ayyavazhi appears as little more than a minute sect. Searching the British library for literature on Ayyavazhi or Ayyāvaḻi results in zero results. That is zero results in the largest library in the world (with over 150 million items [11]). The British Library receives a copy of all books sold or published in the UK and as a result includes most English-language publications. The Library of Congress, also results in zero hits (on both title, and topic). It may be that I'm using inappropriate search parameters (for example, Akilam does result in a hit) - but I believe my argument still stands.

If all religiousgroups (of a similar size, and with a similar amount of literature) were given as much exposure as Ayyavazhi seems to be getting on Wikipedia, we would end up with literally thousands of different opinions in the articles about Dharma, Monotheism, Evil, Faith, etc.

On a side note, are you the only main contributor to artciles on Ayyavazhi? Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 18:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The religiou sbook is Akilattirattu Ammanai and abbrivated as Akilam. Any way not published in any other languages than Tamil. See the discussion page on Ayyavazhi. Also A boo published by the University of Madras confirmed a new religion. You asked citations for that nad the reply is in the talk page of Ayyavazhi. Also as from the biggining I started editing on wikipedia, I am telling the ideological, mythical, philosophical, ritual, deviation of Ayyavazhi from Hinduism. Then you say about Dharma, allmost from all different views on Dharma focus to the concept of moksha but Ayyavazhi not. Then the dharma for the present society "To uplift the lowly is dharma" There are many more deviation in central themes (between ayyavazhi and Hinduism) And for citations about Ayyavazhi's autonomous nature see the discussion. Also there it was cited. But not officially.

And searchingf for the scripture in international sources will not benifit. Beacause the entry of yyavazhi works on net is unconditionabily too bad. Still now I was not away from my stand that Ayyavazhi is vast Sustantial but Unknown(especially on net). - User:Vaikunda Raja

If Ayyavazhi is "officially" (whatever that means) a sect of Hinduism, then the mainstream beliefs of Hinduism should portrayed in most articles. The specific Ayyavazhi articles should detail differences. If we were to mention the differing beliefs of every Hindu sect everytime Hinduism was mentioned, we would have quite a large and unmanageable list.

Ayyavazhi may have a vast holybook, but it (the book and the religion) is not especially notable and hence why it shouldn't appear here in the introduction. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Ayyavazhi is official a off shoot of Hinduism but not religiously. So it doesn't need any mantion of mainstreame beleifs. Also there are no reference that it was an offshoot. But it was not officially recognised and so it noted as offshoot.

Then how can you ask "why it shouldn't appear here". Then I will ask "May Hinduism have a great philosophy why it souldn't be appear here?" Also other religions have a long tradition ,why it shoudn't appear here? And so on.

And how you think Ayyavazhi is not notable? - Vaikunda Raja

I'm not trying to be deliberately offensive (and I realise English isn't your native language), but apart from the last line, I'm not sure I understand what you have written. Please repeat it for me. Thanks. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 21:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Ayyavazhi is notNotable because it is unknown beyond a small group of followers. There are hardly any' independent sources (apart from the one book cited in the articles). All the google hits are either WP page created by Vaikunda Raja or mirrors of WP. By WP definition it makes Ayyavazhi not notable. - Parthi 21:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Two observations: Arya Samajis don't consider them Hindus. They consider nobody as "Hindus". Brahmo Samajis, OTOH, admit that "Hinduism" exists, but they don't consider themselves Hindus either. Brahmo Samaj is definitely well known, so even if Ayyavazhi was well known, it would have exactly as much of a chance of appearing in the lead as, for example, Brahmo Samaj. My second observation is that I have never heard of Ayyavazhi outside of wikipedia. deeptrivia (talk) 03:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Does the Indian Census Commission have a headcount of the number of followers of the Ayyavazhi 'religion'? If not, I would say we don't add it on the main page. Let's keep official government parameters as our inclusion criteria. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I got frustrated with this difficult user that I need to seek administrative action against him. He continues to push his POV single-mindedly and exploits the schizophrenism and flat memory of the collective editorship here by bringing up his POV at different places or at different points in time. See how he has initiated this discussion as if nothing has happened already here. His edits create a colossal wate of time for the few editors working on Tamil-related articles. See this discussion and the section before that and the number of reverts Parthi had to do in very many places (grep for Ayyavazhi). -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 05:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

(a clarification) I don't say that Ayyavazhi is not notable enough to have an article on its own. But, just that it doesn't belong in summary articles like this. Going by Talk:Thoothukudi, I understand that it has some following with a mention in a non-wikipedia source. If someone has the energy to explain why it's not appropriate to mention it in many articles where it's currently mentioned, please do that to him. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 06:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Ayyavazhi article has been linked in over 500 pages here. I hail from Tamil Nadu. Have ancestry in Kerala. Grew up in Andhra Pradesh. Never heard of this religion in all these states. :) - Ganeshk (talk) 05:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Also look for words like Swamithoppe, Ayya Vaikundar etc. They can turn up in unexpected places like the intro of Thoothukudi or in the definition of Western Ghats *sigh* Tintin (talk) 06:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I've been looking into these pages, which seem amazing, but also shows how one motivated person can inflate a non-notable topic into a major phenomenon, and flood the Internet with that. To show an example of how this inflated information creeps everywhere, I was today looking into a news story about 10 greatest nations on earth. Under the India entry, the author somewhat copied content from the lead of this page, when it was stuffed with Ayyavazhi inflation. So, it cited India as the birthplace of major religions such as ... you can guess Ayyavazhi appeared there.

I have full respect for Vaikund Raja's religious beliefs. However, when people from the same region express total ignorance of the phenomenon, questions are raised about the strength of assertions. The proselytizing nature of these pages are inherently non-encyclopedic, and the constant attempt to insert it as a major religion makes the editors intent seem dubious.

Anyway, since I'm not from the area, I'd request the south indian wikipedians to look into the vast array of articles and take proper actions under the policies of notability, verifiability, and references. Thanks. --Ragib 07:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I have been following the Ayyavazhi debate for a long time and have also removed the mention from the summary articles a few times. However, since I have no idea about the existence of this religion or otherwise, I would tend to agree with Nichalp's suggestion that if the religion is recognised by Govt. of India/ census of India, then a mention should be included, else not. Perhaps Vaikunda Raja can throw some light on this -- Lost 08:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiments of Sundar, Ganeshk, Tintin and Ragib - all of whom are established editors on the Wikipedia. It's more than evident that Vaikund Raja has made a systematic attempt to insert references to Ayyavazhi EVERYWHERE! I think we should make a systematic attempt to remove such references apart from where they are needed. Ayyavazhi is completely un-notable (as is evidenced by Tamil editors who have never even heard of it).

I think everyone here who knows India knows that there are probably countless sects and groups that have as much notability as Ayyavazhi and if they were to be given as much presence as it seems to get on Wikipedia then we would be swamped! What's everyone's take on this?

On a side note, I've just noted the religious stub icon has the Ayyavazhi lotus symbol :) Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 15:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Not surprising. See [12] and [13] -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}15:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

IMO, it is OK for Ayyavazhi to have not one but many pages, a whole category to itself, so long as it does not spill over hundreds of other pages. Trouble is that all possible pages concerning Ayyavazhi have already been assiduously created, and these pages are now being linked, cross-referenced into every imaginable nook n cranny on Wikipedia. It is this insistant, clamouring ubiquity that is distrubing, because it simply is not representative of ground reality. This amounts to using Wikipedia as the medium for propogation of a new and otherwise entirely unknown denomination. The fact that these efforts are essayed by civil and apparently good-faith editors only makes it the more difficult to contain, but this is something that needs to be done in the interests of sheer veracity, which is what an encyclopaedia is about.

Unfortunately, this tendency to "use" Wikipedia is not confined to Ayyavazhi. All the Gods know that I don't wanna get into further issues, but the cult-propoganda business is quite out of hand on WP's India-related pages. A rare "Hindu" page is it which lacks a distinctly ISKCON snap and write-up from their perspective, which is that Krishna is Godhead, Chaitanya was his 8th avatar, and Balarama the 9th. Not even the non-Gaudiya subsects of the Madhvas (a Vaishnava sect) subscribe to this, but it rules. Then there is Akshardham, refer this discussion. All this only serves to undermine WP's credibility. Something must be done on a defined, concerted basis. ImpuMozhi 22:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Good observation.. Maybe an essay/policy proposal needs to be initiated for a hot topic such as religion, as faith generally transcends reason when it comes to such a sensitive topic. I am sure, this problem exists even in the non Indian religion articles. -- Lost 06:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with the first para of Impumozhi. (I've noticed the issues mentioned in the second para as well.) Perhaps, an article like religion in Tamil Nadu can include the major religions, Ayyavazhi, and the rural "traditional" religious practices which sadly are summarily labeled "Hinduism". Let me try to get some pictures of the rural gods and godesses - Ayyanar, Vandimalaichchiyamman, etc., -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 06:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Plz comment

Your comments are welcome on this article, re-written by me: Hindustan. Basic refs are from Webster's New World dictionary.Vaikunda Raja 00:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks I mentioned it earlier because Ayyavazhi is quite commonly rejected and deleted by saying this was unknown or too small to note unaware about its complexity. - Vaikunda Raja 00:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Citations in external links

Any particular reason why citation templates are used in the external links section? -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}05:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps to increase the cost of adding a link (for obvious reasons)? -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 06:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Why wont you let me put down that INdia is ancient?

This is wikipedia...You are supposed to let people add things that are factual. I keep trying to add that India is one of the oldes countries in the world and u keep deleting it....why? 71.107.54.199 01:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

the fact that Wikipedia is open does not mean that anything and eveything can be added. To answer your question: a) India as a country existed only since 1947. b) To add text to an article, please cite credible sources. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 01:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

No your going by a technicality and your basicall insulting me because im Indian. India became Independant in 1947....INDEPENDANT...that does not mean it didnt exist before....It was called INDIA by the Greeks....Hindustan by the Persians....Land of the Aryans in Veic times....These are not opinions these are facts....IM dying to see your response to this because I really dont think u have any idea how uneducated u are on this matter 71.107.54.199 05:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

This article is about India, the country. If you want to talk about the geographic region called India by the Greeks, please feel free to discuss at Talk:History of India about starting a separate article about that. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 06:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. According to [this, the anon user is our old friend ARYAN818 (talk · contribs), who has previously vandalized this page. ARYAN, why don't you log in under your user name? You've been unblocked according to the logs. --Ragib 06:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, then let's not feed the troll. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 06:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur. Let's ignore people who don't have the decency to reply in a civil manner, and do not cite credible sources to support their arguments. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

India is one of the oldest countries

Im not sure why you guys are picking on this Aryan fellow but he is right. India is one of the oldest countries , or at least oldest civilazations in the world. Yes I agree the country became offical in 1947...but so what?.....India was recgonized by the Greeks, Muslim invaders, the British, and even the local people....I mean read up on any history book and I cant think of one that says India is not one of the oldest countries in the world....Somebody wrote down that they wanted a link. Well look on the CIA world factook website for the country India....The first sentence says that it is one of the oldest civalizations in the world 204.102.210.1 19:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Indian National Army

According to me, this addition seems out of place. Though I have immense respect for Subhas Chandra Bose, these comments seem highly exaggerated. I have left a message at Soman's talk page, but would also like to hear others' views as the additions may soon be lost after other edits. -- Lost 13:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not happy with either version. The copy without SCB makes it sound like the struggle was entirely non-violent. Introducing Netaji's name will open a Pandora's box. I think we should mention that the freedom struggle, even in the 20th century did not start with Gandhiji and was not always non-violent. — Ravikiran 14:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. The struggle may have been largely peaceful but there were definitely people like Bhagat Singh, Bose and others. The additions however make it sound like Mahatma Gandhi and Bose were the only two leaders of that time. If there is to be any name, I feel it should be Gandhi's only with a passing mention of the more aggressive leaders/ revolutionaries. Putting in Netaji's name will see many other names creeping in. -- Lost 14:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Blatant contradiction

The first paragraph of the economy section reads:

The economy of India is the fourth largest in the world as measured by purchasing power parity (PPP), with a GDP of US $3.63 trillion. However when it comes to PPP—GDP per capita figures—India's economy is ranked 152nd in the world.

How did something like this ever become a featured article? Unbelievable. – Timwi 12:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The addition must have come after the FA. I also see that the last sentence of the para is redundant. Also, the table in the beginning states India's per capita rank as 122. I am not very knowledgeable on this subject. Would request somebody with more knowledge to rectify. -- Lost 12:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not a contradiction if one understands the difference between ranking based on absolute figures and that which is based on per capita figures. But, there was an inconsistency between 152 mentioned here and in the now-linked list. I've changed the figure here to 122. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 13:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed ... Please notice that India happens to have 1 billion+ people. So, even though the economy may be 4th largest or whatever, when you reduce it to per capita, any stat is going to go way low in rankings. --Ragib 14:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Q to Timwi: What is unbelievable? =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Languages of India

Trying to remove the "citation needed" for the 23 languages recognized by the constitution, I managed to track down the 8th schedule of the constitution which lists the recognized languages and I found a copy here [14]. It mentions only 18. But it might be out of date and stuff. If someone can track down the up to date copy, correct the number of languages and cite it, I will be much gratified. — Ravikiran 14:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Link it to the Manorama Yearbook 2006. Some careless nut has gone and removed my reference prompting someone to add a {cite} to it. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

British Crown

I have removed the term British Crown, as India was not colonialised by the crown but by British East India Company. I have also removed phrases trying to highlight that British meerly served India in its unification.

~rAGU

Selection of images

Please see: /Picture selection to select images for the India page. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

International Ties to India

The South Asia Free Trade Agreement should be added to this box, I would've done it myself but I don't know how to. If you look at the International Ties to Pakistan on the Pakistan page you will see what I'm talking about. Gsingh 16:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

oldest living city

According to this, Varanasi is not the oldest continuously inhabited city. Rather it comes out as 8th. Damascus is the oldest continuously-lived city. --Ragib 17:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Oldest city in the world - HighBeam Research

One of the Oldest continuously inhabited cities in the world. - Encyclopedia Britannica

That article is not verified and complete and it is also lacking sources. - Holy Ganga ^talk 20:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Images

I've noticed 3 images have been put up in the recent past with unacceptable/dubious copyright statuses.

• Akshardam temple: deemed a copyvio and removed last month

Yes, someone had uploaded that image by claiming it his own work but later it was found that it was copyvio. Many people reverted it back because of false information provided by that user. - Holy Ganga ^talk 18:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Image:India INC.jpg which is the cover of a magazine. Such images will never be free, and user:150.101.102.188 was quite justified in removing it, when ample free images are available. The very fact that his edits were reverted by three users points to a lack of verification of an IPs edit.

Image is a Time magazine cover with proper licencing. Time magazine covers always carry weight and are considered among very reputed coverage, and economic issues related with modern face of Indian economy on a cover of Time magazine is directly representing future of Indian economy and it's presence on a global scale.- Holy Ganga ^talk 18:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the image is fair use and can only be used on the article for the magazine, or for an article on that specific issue of the magazine. I am also one of those that previously reverted the removal of the image, but it was a mistake for me to do so. --GraemeL ^(talk) 18:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, i think that image which talks about Indian Economic Power is related with Indian economy. Also, it is representing outsourcing and customer care aspects of New Indian economy and that again are directly related with issues present in Indian economy section. - Holy Ganga ^talk 18:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

No, that's not how we put up a fair use image. We are allowed to comment on the picture, not the subject of the picture. And the cover does not mention anything about outsourcing. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

But it directly deals with Indian economy, it's strength, it's future, it's global affects.- Holy Ganga ^talk 19:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

You missunderstand the word "issue" in the context of the license. It doesn't mean the issue of the economy of India, it means that particular issue of the magazine. The image cannot be used in any article that is not directly about Time. Sorry, I should clarify that. If you want to add a section to this article specifically about the Time report on the economy of India, then the image could be used here. --GraemeL ^(talk) 19:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

No, i didn't misunderstand. What would you say about these some 400 Time magazine covers used in various articles of wikipedia? Also, as per Time magazine licence.."It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of TIME magazine covers used...

to illustrate an article, or part of an article, which specifically describes the issue IN QUESTION OR ITS COVER." What is the issue pic is talking about?... Indian Economy? Well, Indian Economy of largest democracy are also the issue in question here. Yes, we can also add latest Time magazine report on the Indian economy. Regards, - Holy Ganga ^talk 19:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

That's going a bit too far to defend a copyrighted image. Why are you averse to having free images? Two years we struggled to have a decent picture on this page. A lot has changed since then, and freer images are available now. I suggest that you be patient and look for images that are free and represent the economy. And besides, the Indian economy does not need a thumbs up from a foreign magazine to show that it is on the rise. Let statistics do the talking. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

No, you are going to far against that (red dot) image, Nicholas. Where does it says Time magazine images are not allowed? There is a separate licence specifically for Time magazine even today. It deals with Indian economy, latest issue and furture based on it's strength. Your comments on edit page points that you Didn't you even read the cover page article before removing the link of latest cover page issue of one of the most reputed Magazines? - Holy Ganga ^talk 08:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see the fair use policy statement below. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes dear, i undestand as i already explained below. There is no free alternative equivalent of this image right now. That building pic is definately not an equivalent replacement for an image which covers so many latest issues of Indian economy. Well, i will not revert it back incase you as an admin decided to neglect these easy to understand logical points for your one way approach. Thanks and Regards, - Holy Ganga ^talk 09:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

To represent the Indian economy, you're commenting on the subject of the image, not the article. If it is put up, won't remove the image in my capacity as admin, but as an editor. I'm sure we can find free images to put up – flickr, and commons may have something useful. Our foremost goal is to keep wikipedia free. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Time may be a reputed magazine but official policy states that: Always use a more free alternative if one is available. Such images can often be used more readily outside the U.S. If you see a fair use image and know of an alternative more free equivalent, please replace it, so the Wikipedia can become as free as possible. (Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy #1). =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any latest equivalent for that image right now which can present Indian economy on a global scale, shows the popular aspects of outsourcing and customer care (which are face of India on a global scale right now) and at the same deals with future face of India as economic superpower. I will definately replace that Image if and whenever i found better than that. Promise! Regards, - Holy Ganga ^talk 18:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you can list your image here: /Picture selection? =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

East, west , North or south...North eastern or central? - Holy Ganga ^talk 19:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

None. It's not free. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, None...east, west south, north, central catagories are useless for most of the images that will be used on India article. - Holy Ganga ^talk 08:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, we should strive for a freer Wikipedia. That is, we should prefer a free image over a non-free one unless the non-free is critical for commentary. Summing up the debate here, I think we should debate on whether the Time Magazine's image is overwhelmingly more informative, useful and critical than the other one. Personally, I am not convinced that the Time Magazine's image is critical for the article. It is an asset, but not critical. Opinions? -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 15:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe it is definately much more critical, more informative and covers larger issue of Indian economy and it's emergence as a global power than any building pic.(both issues are present in this article). My opinion is it should be here till we find freer image equivalent to Time magazine. Afterall, there is a separate licence provided for Time magazine and there are about 400 time magazine covers present in many important and reputed articles all over Wikipedia. - Holy Ganga ^talk 15:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't buy the arguments in the second half of your reply. The fair-use template is present, but that's because Time magazine is a reputed and popular magazine. Wikipedia's policies are separate and they require us to prefer free over fair use images unless critical. The issue of criticality is definitely debatable and I think we should ask other editors what they think. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 15:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Image:Parliament building New Delhi.jpg -- uploaded as a cc-by-sa image but is infact a cc-by--nc-sa image, which is not acceptable in WP.

Thanks for pointing it out, i have replaced it now. Regards, - Holy Ganga ^talk 18:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

=Nichalp «Talk»= 18:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry guys, I reverted the Time image back without looking at the lengthy discussion here. I only saw that the anon user had received some warnings and therefore reverted his change. Please feel free to remove if the image is a copy-vio. -- Lost 11:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I just want to point out that the insertion/removal of the Times cover is causing some possible WP:3RR violations. So, let's resolve the issue in the talk page. Personally, I think it is better NOT to use such Times covers, as the justification for fair use is a bit far fetched. As pointed out by Ambuj, the image is not critical, and there are free alternatives. --Ragib 15:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, my baarah anna - Insertion of the pic in the way it has been done is patently wrong and more importantly, violates the spirit of WP. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Ta_bu_shi_da_yu 2. Of course, I may have appeared to be on the opposing side then, however, I insisted on following propriety and being courteous, but did not oppose the actions Per se. --Gurubrahma 06:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Economy

I have strong objections to this statement: According to "Time magazine", India is now becoming a global power. Why is only one magazine singled out? Global power in what sense? If it is economic, then why not use the official credit ratings like the World Bank and IMF? Yes, Time is a reputed magazine, but does the emergence Indian economy need to be attested by a single American magazine? Why can't statistics do the talking? =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

1. Time magazine is one of the most reputed magazines which carry a strong weight.
2. It's LATEST issue (with a cover page on Indian economy) discusses indepth about present state and future of Indian economy.
3. Global power means Economic OR Military power. As per cover page it directly talks about India becoming an economic power.
4. Statistics are OK but latest reputed indepth analysis (as a ref. link) should also be there.

I don't think one short line with a ref. which can provide so much reputed indepth analysis of latest issues of Indian economy should create any problem.- Holy Ganga ^talk 10:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with Nichalp. The reference to time magazine is too light in the context of the country. I am also surprised at the sentence: India's large English middle-class has contributed to the country's growth in Business Process Outsourcing (BPO). The editor means “English Speaking” Middle Class hopefully. --Bmanisk 09:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm also with Nichalp on this because the statement, in its current form doesn't give any context. Say something like "Time" in its cover story opined that India is now becoming a global power due to ......... and then it would be relevant. Filling those blanks gives some perspective rather than saying that some mag said something. --Gurubrahma 06:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Map of India

Hi, is there an official (Government of India) site which states that it is illegal in India to publish the India map with the PoK as not belonging to India? Thanks for the help -- Wikicheng 06:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This page merely points out the disputed territories. It doesn't give any judgement. Is is wrong to tell what is the dispute? I don't think so. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The GoI position is that there's no "Kashmir dispute", but a "Kashmir situation" caused by illegal occupation by Pakistan and terrorism. Looking at it this way, calling Kashmir a dispute is not neutral enough for the Indian government, and showing Kashmir as disputed on a map is indeed illegal in India. deeptrivia (talk) 05:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not disputing the dispute :-). I wanted this info for some other purpose. I am looking for the the statement by the India government that it is illegal to publish such maps in India. -- Wikicheng 07:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes. As far as I know, it is illegal. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 07:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's the official map. It does acknowledge POK. -- Lost 07:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It acknowledges the existence of a LoC different from the de jure border, but does not accept it as legitimate (or de jure). Within India, it is indeed illegal to publish a map showing the PoK as being distinct from India. Maps printed in foreigh publications that enter the country (TIME, National Geographic) are stamped with a notice which reads something like "The borders of India as depicted in this map are neither true nor accurate." ImpuMozhi 22:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Why does this matter? Wikimedia's servers are not located in India, they are so in Florida, and hence do not fall under Indian jurisdiction. Also, like ImpuMozhi said above, foreign publications are allowed in India with that note, I think most of the location maps showing kashmir/India/Pakistan, by now, have that note added. --Ragib 02:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course it doesn't matter for Wikipedia. I was (and am still) looking for an official statement by the govt of India stating that it is illegal. I have googles enough but couldn't locate the statement. I wanted this for a totally different purpose, not even remotely connected to my favourite Wikipedia. -- Wikicheng 05:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[15], [16], and [17] seem to be the closest resources to what you're asking for though an official statement by GoI is still elusive. --

Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 05:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

MEh, they don't want to seem too rigid, they aren't going around banning everything with PoK as part of Pakistan (Although, pakistan calls it Azad (free) even though it's in thier control, odd). Anyway, I doubt you'll find such a statement, its more about patriotic nationalist rhetoric more than anything. -XK

As and independent observer, I believe its necessary that the disputed regions of Kashmir be clearly demarcated as such. This has no regard to either India's or Pakistan's claim to the territory but rather should be done in regard to maintaining impartiality. Also as regard to Azad Kashmir (which was also shown in the map displayed as part of India),it is a autonomous region with its own government, thus can not be stated as being apart of either India or Pakistan.

Emerging superpower

I strongly object to the opening statement of this article "India, officially the Republic of India, is a country and emerging superpower located in South Asia". By merging fact with what is at best opinion, we oversimplifying issues. I don't mind if it says a ways down in the article that according to whatever magazine/experts that India is an emerging superpower, but the inclusion of that phrase in the context that it's presented in will just not do. AreJay 00:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

True, it shouldn't be on the intro, there are a number of sources present on India as an emerging superpower that can be used though. It is commonly accepted that India is an emerging superpower. Nobleeagle (Talk) 00:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The intro paragraph needs to be a summary of the whole article, and some magazine's terming India as an emerging superpower is not really what is representative of the whole article. --Ragib 00:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Note that "officially the Republic of India" is not fact; fact would be "officially the UNION of India." ImpuMozhi 02:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Let statistics and growth rates do the talking rather than speculating if it is an emerging superpower or not. This "superpower" bit is a quite a POV despite having references. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I know your attitude towards it Nichalp :) I remember you nominated India as an emerging superpower for deletion...I must thank-you though, the AfD forced us to cite sources more effectively. Nobleeagle (Talk) 23:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Blog Mav Rick (talk · contribs) reverted my edit, requesting me to take a look at Emerging superpower. I did, and found the article to be an example of original research. Who decides which country is a superpower or not? Who terms some countries "emerging superpower"? The article you referred has no references (the link is just an equally uncited list from a Harvard Magazine).

Of course, India as an emerging superpower has better references, but still I find it POV to stamp that label at the intro paragraph.

Thanks. --Ragib 23:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no users work on the emerging superpower article, its the three articles within that that have the references. Basically the media decides who is and who isn't an emerging superpower. But still, it shouldn't be in the intro, its in the Politics and History section as far as I know and that is neough. Nobleeagle (Talk) 23:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevent edits

Vkvora keeps adding a report on a hunger report in the Economy section. Such items need to be kept off the main economy section as it is too vague to merit it's inclusion in the summary of the economy section.

Secondly, India border's the nation-state of the PRC. Mainland China is the incorrect term as we are listing the nation-states, not geographical entities.

=Nichalp «Talk»= 05:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Hunger in the world

Number of undernourished people (million) in 2001-2003, according to the FAO, the following countries had 10 million or more undernourished people:

Country	Number of Undernourished (million)
India	212.0
China	150.0
Bangladesh	43.1
Democratic Republic of Congo	37.0
Pakistan	35.2
Ethiopia	31.5
Tanzania	16.1
Philippines	15.2
Brazil	14.4
Indonesia	13.8
Vietnam	13.8
Thailand	13.4
Nigeria	11.5

vkvora 15:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, but it is not relavent here.

=Nichalp «Talk»= 15:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

why is this not relevant?- if you're going to boast about India's economy using PPP and discuss it's spending power- surely the number of undernourished is important. If you're going to compare the welath of the US to India, you should compare the poverty. I did a search on the web-page for "poor" "hungry" and "poverty" (shall we try "aids") and got no hits- these are subjects in which India is a true world leader (and newsmaker). Unless you're trying to stroke your egoes by making a tourist brochure, perhaps you should talk at least for a few sentences about the much larger "other" India. Regards, Hari

There's nothing to boast about PPP and nominal values. Let statistics do the speaking for themselves. Hunger has very little to do with Economy. I've not said to exclude it off wikipedia, I've said it is irrelavent and too specific to add in the economy section. This sort of data goes into Demographics of India article.

=Nichalp «Talk»= 16:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Infact that section does not gloat about India's sucesses, instead it presents pure statistics, for the reader to gain inference that it is ranked 122nd in the world by per capita income.

=Nichalp «Talk»= 16:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Poverty in India and World

Reduce by half the proportion of people living on less than a dollar a day

Reduce by half the proportion of people who suffer from hunger

http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/#

http://www.millenniumcampaign.org/site/pp.asp?c=grKVL2NLE&b=185518

One third of deaths - some 18 million people a year or 50,000 per day - are due to poverty-related causes. That's 270 million people since 1990, the majority women and children, roughly equal to the population of the US.

Over 1 billion people live on less than $1 a day with nearly half the world's population (2.8 billion) living on less than $2 a day. (UN HDR, 2003)

vkvora 16:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, now you are getting to the closer topic on the economy and people. Why don't you add this fact i.e. <1$ in article?

=Nichalp «Talk»= 17:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Poverty in India is waiting for your edits. Go ahead.

Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

"coglionazzi"

Don't let someone put that word back into the article. Its not English and, according to someone on the Italian wikipedia IRC channel, means something along the lines of 'dickheads' or 'dumbheads'. As such, its almost certainly a form of vandalism. Kevin_b_er 22:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Why is their no mention of India being one of the oldest?

Their is no mention of India being one of the oldest countries in the world or one of the oldest civilazations in the world. I understand that it gained independance in 1947, but India existed well before 1947, and well before the British came. It was known as Bharat, Hindustan, or Land of the Aryans. It is mentioned in the Vedas and other Indian text books. Even the CIA world factbook website says that India is one of the oldest civalaztions in the world. I dont know how mu ch more evidence you want from me. Are you open minded or does this page belong to you only? ARYAN818 01:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I quote : "India has long played a major role in human history". More specific information can be found on the relevant pages or sections.--Grammatical error 20:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Grammatical error: The above rants should be ignored. =Nichalp «Talk»= 20:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The above rants??? Im not giving any rants my friend...I am giving fact after fact after fact on how India is one of the oldest countries in the world...And all u guys are doing is telling me that im wrong & that im making rants....If India isn't one of the oldest countries in the world, then what country is??? ARYAN818 20:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you referring to India as a culture, or as an independent state? Important distinction to make, one way or the other. Luna Santin 21:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is an edit introduced by ARYAN818 (talk · contribs)

'India, officially the Republic of India, is a country in South Asia. It is one of the oldest countries in the world, t

Now, let's see why this sentence is extremely misleading. Here, you are saying that "Republic of India" (the subject of the page), is a very old country. That, technically is not correct. What you may be implying is that the civilization in the region is one of the oldest. The country itself is 59 years old. Under your logic, every country that is part of the Indian subcontinent can claim to be so (there is no reason why we can't write "Pakistan is one of the oldest countries in the world", under your logic). As Luna above wrote, you are confusing the Civilization with the country. *This* article is about the country, not the civilization or the region. Thank you. --Ragib 05:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Going by the repetitive queries, we could have an FAQ section here. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 06:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Format Issue

I'm unsure of whether this is a problem for other users, but for me, the sections from 12 onward don't appear as distinct from the table. i.e. they seem to be part of the table format and thereby get extended in their length. Does this seem to occur for anyone else?--Kaushik twin 19:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem was caused by the "International ties" template not being closed properly. I've edited the same, and it seems to be normal now. Could somebody check why the interlanguage link to the Gothic wikipedia appears as normal text at the bottom of the page rather than on the sidebar?-- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}04:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

got iw link fixed now. Possibly problems with unicode text --Ragib 04:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Second paragraph, second sentence

I think this sentence is bad. "Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism and Jainism all have their origins in India, while Islam and Christianity enjoy a strong cultural heritage."

Why? Because the sentece before that is, "Home to the Indus Valley Civilization, a centre of important trade routes and vast empires, India has long played a major role in human history." Taken together, these sentences say (at least until the final phrase), "India is a really old and important place. For example, major/influential religions like blah, blah, and blah, started here." But what does it mean to say, "while Islam and Christianity enjoy a strong cultural heritage"? I know there are lots of Muslims and Christians in India, but I am pretty sure that India's influence on these religions (especially Christainity) is minimal-- certainly not of the same magnitude as the other religions mentioned in the same sentence.

Therefore, I propose we delete that last phrase from that sentence. Rangek 18:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the intended meaning of the sentence was that, both Islam and Christianity have influenced Indian culture, not the other way around. --Ragib 18:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, then we should make it say that. Right now it is unclear. Rangek 02:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. --Ragib 06:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Just as a sidenote: It is not incorrect to say that India had a strong impact on Christianity. Christianity has existed in India since the time of the disciples, and has developed almost independently. Many traditions, especially those followed by the Nasranis are exclusive to India. -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}15:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)~

But that is my point. The influence of India on Christianity at large is small. I know of no theological or liturgical Christian practice that has direct roots in India. This is a much different situation tnhan that of Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism and Jainism. Rangek 15:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Majority of the original traditions and Christian theological practices that originated in India died with the Portuguese invasion. -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}13:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Labour Laws applicable in Gujarat??

If anyone knows.. please provide a link...PLEASE..........

A S

India's name when it was a british colony

What was the exact, formal name given to India when it was a British colony? For example, Palestine was "The British Mandate of Palestine". Many thanks. --A Sunshade Lust 03:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

British India, I think -- Lost 13:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Disputed map is used

The maps of India in this article are not consistent. Pakistani administered Kashmir is shown as a part of India. In case of map of India, line of control is shown as boundary. Following explanation is provided at note 4 for the map of India:

“^ The black line is the boundary as recognised by the government of India. The northern region of Kashmir is currently administered by India, Pakistan, and China (and coloured in as such). The delimiting of the three administered regions is not the international boundary but a ceasefire line demarcated in red. The boundary separating India and Pakistan is known as the Line of Control, that separating India and China as the 'Line of Actual Control'. Most of the state of Arunachal Pradesh is still claimed by China.”

However, in case of States and territories of India, Pakistani administered Kashmir is shown as a part of India.

Why this inconsistency exists?

There is pro-Indian bias in case of map used to show “States and territories of India”. —Preceding unsigned comment added by maakhter (talk • contribs)

Your claim doesn't match Image:India-states-numbered.svg, which clearly marks the disputed territories. --Ragib 20:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

In the newspaper I have just read that the UN has agreed over debate Kashmir and all of its territory is a part of the Indian Union. I think the Indian map with all of Kashmir is appropraite now

Poverty reason for India's rank

• http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1822829.cms

Seven of the top 10 happiest countries, according to the first 'World Map of Happiness', are from western democracies, while countries in Asia, known for their strong cultural values, family ties and collective identities surprisingly scored low — China (82), Japan (90) and Thailand (76).

While Denmark's satisfaction with life index was placed at 273.33, India's was at 180. The map, claiming to be the first to illustrate international differences in happiness, placed US at 23, UK at 41 and France at 62.

vkvora 06:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello Everybody

Hi everyone, I am new to this site. Can anyone just tell me more about this site

User:Bhagubhai Bhadwani 03:11, 29 July 2006 (IST)

Bhagubhai pahelan sing in to karo

vkvora 13:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Frivolous "dispute" from maakhter (talk · contribs)

Just wanted to note the frivolous "dispute" as noted by Maakhter (talk · contribs), a one time commenter on this talk page, who has found it better to go straight to Requests for mediation (with me) regarding this page. (see Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/India). Since there doesn't seem to be any discussion, let alone a dispute, I've rejected the frivolous RFM. I suggest other users advise Maakhter (talk · contribs) on abuse of wikipedia's processes, and request him to voice his comments/opinions here first. Thanks. --Ragib 18:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Facts about "Frivolous "dispute" from maakhter (talk · contribs)"

Here are more links to show that inconsistent approach is used to show Indian and Pakistani maps. It is the case with other issues as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pakistan#Pro-Indian_Bias

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pakistan#Tagging_of_Articles_by_Maakhter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pakistan#United_Nations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pakistan#Repetition_of_Same_Mistakes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pakistan#Map_of_Pakistan

Maakhter 19:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for *ultimately* adding at least a single thread to the discussion. Now, if your discussion starts a "dispute", THEN you go for mediation. Being insensitive to a single answer to your lone comment doesn't imply you file a mediation request. Thank you. --Ragib 19:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

---

You can see that this is not just one example.

I have given you numerous instances in favour of my arguments. Please see above links.

Maakhter 19:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

"Discuss". THEN find a dispute big enough to find mediation. Thank you. --Ragib 19:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Image of Wikipedia as an impartial organization

What is the standard practice of Wikipedia to show maps of countries? How it handles the maps of countries where there is a disputed territory? For example, Kashmir is a disputed territory among Pakistan, India, and China.

In case of Pakistan, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan) the Line of Control (LoC) is shown as a boundary. Here is the URL for the map used:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PakistanNumbered.png

However, in case of India, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India) (map used for States and territories of India) Line of Control is not used as a boundary and Pakistani Administered Kashmir is also shown as a part of India. Here is the URL for the map used:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:India-states-numbered.svg

Please correct above anomalies to improve the image of Wikipedia as an impartial organization.

Maakhter 19:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Maakhter, this issue may be better raised here. These guys have done a lot of hard work in creating the maps and can probably answer your queries better. -- Lost^(talk) 19:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It is a matter of consistency

It is a matter of consistency.

There is no need to confuse this issue with the formalities and procedures. The issue is how the reputation of Wikipedia as an unbiased source can be preserved.

The above links show that inconsistent approach is used to show Indian and Pakistani maps. It is the case with other issues as well.

Maakhter 20:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Please dont misunderstand me. I am not talking about formalities and procedures. What I meant was that the people in the above linked project have referred to a lot of resources while creating these maps. They will be better equipped to answer your queries. -- Lost^(talk) 20:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion its really not possible to make a map of Kashmir that everyone is going to agree to, so a comprimise is needed. As far as NPOV is concerned, even if the disputed areas are not shown on a map, there must be:

• A note which says disputed areas havent been clearly marked
• A link to a map in which the omitted disputed regions are indicated in detail and explanations provided.

For an example see Image:India map blank.svg and Image:India_disputed_areas_map.svg. This arrangement can resolve confusions that may be created when different maps represent disputed areas incorrectly or inconsistently. Right now im trying to upgarde all previous maps to this standard, but its progress is dependant on my free time. ^{PlaneMad|YakYak} 09:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

disputed area in Orissa

I found an area marked as disputed between Orissa and Andhra, between Koraput and Vishakapatnam (Screenshot) from the Survey of India map server. Anyone have anymore info on this? -- ^{PlaneMad|YakYak} 10:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hunger in Superpower

• http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IndianJustice/message/4968

Please forward the following message nationwide. Against per capita food intake of 700 kg or more in USA, 500 kg in EU, 300 kg in China but is only 148kg in India. The figure 212 MT I gave in the message was for best year average is around 195 MT and losses are at least 10% to 15%. The real per capita food consumption could be even less than 148 kg. This is average, poor may be getting much less than 100kg. – Ravinder Singh

vkvora 17:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Anon at 59.184.131.141, you are not User:Vkvora2001, and if you are, you are not signed in. So don't add user signatures unless you are the user in signed in mode. Thanks. --Ragib 17:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I have signed it now. Thanks...vkvora 17:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Extreme Poverty

Majority of Indians live in poverty and a big segment(35%) live in extreme poverty. After all poverty in India does not have the same meaning poverty in say the UK. I think that needs to be included in this article as well as some pictures. Currently the article presents too pretty a picture of India, and I think that is deceitful. According to the new World Bank figures, India's poverty rate is exactly at 35% which is more than what piety Indian politicians claim. Thank you very much. Here is the link: Economic Report Card- Advil 1:52 am, 04 August 2006

Why are you replicating what User:Dargay said in Pakistan talk page here and stating India instead? If you have an issue, then check out HDI of Pakistan vis-a-vis India since 1988 that the HDI rank was initiated. Pakistan was streets ahead of India then but now is progressively slipping further down. --Idleguy 06:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL, the way the Pakistani economy is running with the help of Middle East and US investments surely, Pakistan will overtake India in per capita income as well. God willing! --Advil 2:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Just curious, was that meant to be sarcastic? -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 07:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

If it wasn't. Note India is an emerging superpower, with the 2nd/3rd (debatable) largest military in the world, the 4th highest GDP (PPP) in the world and a number of other statistics in its favour. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh and keep your inshallah mentality out of this. jai mata ki india has cracked pakistan in all the wars causing economical crashes which you just get out of because of the middle east and the US. Indian made it on their own, and unlike Pakistan India has balls so keep your mouth shut. you Pakistanis talk big but when you have to do something you cant do it for shyt

O and dont forget to add that the US is currently a failing superpower & the middle east is running out of oil hahahaha pakistan overtake India....what a fucking crackhead you are

Bollywood

India actually is second in movie production behind Nigeria's Nollywood (so I made the appropriate changes). I didn't believe it too but its true, Nigeria produces on the order of 3000 movies a year.

Can you back this up with proof? Where did you hear this? Hammer Raccoon 22:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I reverted your edits. [18] [19] [20] suggest otherwise. Hammer Raccoon 22:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't have the journal with me but here is another source, http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7226009

...which requires a subscription to read. The article should remain as it was until you can provide a source that says otherwise. And remember to sign your posts. Hammer Raccoon 23:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

My gut reaction was to agree with you, Hammer. What if the source was a book? Not every fact is on the interweb, you know. Seems like someone should make a trip to the library.... Maybe my school has a subscription. I'll check it out.... Rangek 05:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The Economist article in question does indeed state, "Nollywood, as Nigeria's film industry is known, now makes over 2,000 low-budget films a year, about two-thirds of them in English. That is more than either Hollywood or India's Bollywood." Rangek 17:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Its not my fault you don't have the subscription, but the article clearly states Nigeria's as number one. But I'm not going to get into an idiotic war with you. You think India makes more films based on a half year old article in the Guardian (which is a far less reputable source in this area then the Economist) so be it, just one more wrong fact on wikipedia --Hokiefan 04:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, lets remain civil here. I personally didn't want the status quo of the article to be changed without a source to back it up. Seeing as I couldn't read your source, I couldn't verify your claims. And besides, I figured Nollywood couldn't possibly have overtaken Bollywood in such a short period of time. As it turns out, my bad. Some Google trawling has led me to several figures that put India's output at around 1000 a year - [21], [22], [23] - more than Hollywood, but seemingly less than Nollywood. I'm not sure how you cite newspaper articles, but it would be good if someone could in case someone disputes this again. Hammer Raccoon 21:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and you might want to bring this up on the Cinema of India page. Hammer Raccoon 21:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Hindi rendering/translation of the name ‘India’

In the introductory sentence, India is rendered as ‘इंडिया’ in Hindi. Wouldn't the Hindi name of the country, ‘भारत’ be a better choice?

Hi, I wrote that previous comment, but forgot to sign it. I just noticed that the Hindi word ‘इंडिया’ has been removed from the lead-in without replacement. Searching through the page history revealed that the Tamil rendering of ‘India’ had replaced the Hindi one for a brief period, and was removed recently. I personally prefer inclusion of the Hindi name ‘भारत’, (and only the name in Hindi) other than the English name in the lead-in. Hindi is the primary official language of India, and is most suitable for a rendering of the name in a language local to the country. Having the name in all official languages may clutter the lead-in too much (although, notably, Spain is spelt in a number of regional languages). Let us please discuss this. I suggest we leave this as is till we reach a conclusion here. Gajamukhu 19:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I removed both of them. Originally both Bharat and Hindustan were written in the body of the article. I'm not sure who removed them. Bharat Ganarjya is written at the top in Devanagari.

I removed the Hindi and Tamil because otherwise we would've eventually ended up with list of 21 renditions of the the word 'India' in other languages! Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 19:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Translating India into any language will just open up a hornet's nest. Let's just leave it as is. AreJay 20:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

India has been judged as the sixth most dangerous country

In New Delhi, a woman wields a pickaxe on a footpath maintenance project while her husband rests and her baby sleeps

• http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=72099

India 6th most dangerous country for kids: Poll

Poverty-stricken people washing their clothes by a road in Mumbai, India. by Antônio Milena/ABr

vkvora 14:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Note that, I've commented out the verbatim content of the news as the news item is copyrighted, and hence can't just be pasted here. --Ragib 17:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Secularity and India.

Home to the Indus Valley Civilization, a centre of important trade routes and vast empires, India has long played a major role in human history. Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism and Jainism all have their origins in India, while Islam and Christianity enjoy a strong cultural heritage having arrived through trade even before foreign invasions.

Secularity is the state of being free from religious or spiritual qualities. For instance, eating a meal, playing a game, or bathing are examples of secular activities, because there is nothing inherently religious about them. Saying a prayer or visiting a place of worship are examples of non-secular activities. An approximate synonym for secular is worldly.

vkvora 06:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

population of muslims in india

from the time of independence of india to the current day the indian leaders have said that the muslim population of india is greater than that of pakistan. we should remember that bangladesh was also a part of pakistn before 1971.and in that year the population of west pakistan (that is the current day pakistan) was 80 milliom and that of east pakistan (that is the current day bangladesh) was 90 million if we add that we get apopulation of 170 million in 1971 of which 90% were muslim or 153 million . so how many muslims are today in india ?

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Islam_by_country" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.29.194.169 (talk • contribs)

At least, the population figure for East Pakistan (1971) stated above is wrong. The population of independent Bangladesh, according to the 1974 census, was 71.3 million [24]. The population of west pakistan was lower than this, as Bengalis were 56% of the population of united pakistan. --Ragib 20:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Kamal Haasan

Please vote for the Kamal Haasan article to become an article to be improved to be featured here, Wikipedia:Article Creation and Improvement Drive#Kamal Haasan Thamizhan 14:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Secularism has two distinct meanings and Indian secularim is third.

It asserts the freedom of religion, and freedom from religion, within a state that is neutral on matters of belief, and gives no state privileges or subsidies to religions.

It refers to a belief that human activities and decisions should be based on evidence and fact, and not superstitious beliefs, however devoutly held, and that policy should be free from religious domination. For example, a society deciding whether to promote condom use might consider the issues of disease prevention, family planning, and women's rights. A secularist would argue that such issues are relevant to public policy-making, whereas Biblical interpretation or church doctrine should not be considered and are irrelevant. vkvora 16:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Vkvora I don't see what you intend to get out of posting such comments on the India talk page. Please avoid posting messages which has no bearing on the article in question. Please note: you could be blocked from trolling. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

If I may, Vkvora, I think your efforts, whatever they are, would be better served if you contributed to an internet forum or to a blog. Know that Wikipedia is neither of these. The purpose of the "Talk" section of the articles here on Wikipedia is meant to discuss the article only and to allow editors to collaborate on improving the article. If you feel that your particular point of view is something that you would like to share with the world, I would suggest that you join the blogging community and use that as your platform rather than Wikipedia talk pages. Thanks AreJay 22:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I request the reader to read the articles on preamble, secularity and constitution of India on Wikipedia the Free Encyclopedia. vkvora 04:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I read them. What was your point? I never said the "discussion" threads you have created here lack credence. I am however saying that your "discussions" are misplaced. For starters, you're not "discussing" anything; you're opining and making statements on things that have little to do with this article. You seem like a person with a lot to say on certain issues; I am suggesting that you do so in a blog and not here. AreJay 19:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Vkvora. India is not a truly secular nation considering the religous sanctions & holidays observed by the government itself. However this issue of official policy vs practice should be handled as criticism - as it is. Vkvora has has brought to wikipedia valid criticism. This is being censored by users with extreme nationalism for India from within the wikipedia community. India's Secularism has been debated by minorities for years now. If only some of you (presumably hindu's) could wear the shoes of a person of religious minority in India. Nack75 16:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms of peer review

One of the most common complaints about the peer review process is that it is slow, and that it typically takes several months or even several years in some fields for a submitted paper to appear in print. In practice, much of the communication about new results in some fields such as astronomy no longer takes place through peer reviewed papers, but rather through preprints submitted onto electronic servers such as arXiv.org.

Article India and Constitution of India : From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

An interesting side note concerns the words "SOCIALIST" and "SECULAR" in the preamble.

um hi

Religious Poverty in India

Among some groups, in particular religious groups, poverty is considered a necessary or desriable condition, which must be embraced in order to reach certain spiritual, moral, or intellectual states. Poverty is often understood to be an essential element of renunciation among Buddhists and Jains.

Official languages

How many does India have? The info table states "Hindi, English, and 21 other languages" where as the number rises to 24 at List_of_national_languages_of_India#Recognized_national_languages_of_India_.28Scheduled_list_for_official_use.29 --Wotan 05:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

French is not an official language of the Indian Union. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

it is in pondicherry Bijun 10:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)user talk:bijun

Wondering what are the official languages of India? How many are there, and which ones? Are all state recog off languages also off languages of the Republic of India. What about Part XVII of the Indian constitution? Any pointers to sites outside wikipedia which point to the exact number of official (not recognized) languahes? Pizzadeliveryboy 00:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

22: Assamese, Bengali, Gujarati, Hindi, Kannada, Kashmiri, Malayalam, Marathi, Oriya, Punjabi, Sanskrit, Tamil, Telugu, Urdu, Sindhi, Konkani, Manipuri, Nepali, Bodo, Maithili, Dogri and Santhali. English enjoys associate official status.

--source; Manorama Yearbook 2006, pg 507, ISBN 8189004077 =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

This link talks about only two official languages according to the constitutional provisions. Unless anybody knows otherwise, I will change the no. of official languagues to two. Lost 05:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually it is truely two. But some non-Hindi speakers challenge this and claim that all the Scheduled languages are natioanl and official languages.Cygnus_hansa 23:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Trying to remove the "citation needed" for the 23 languages recognized by the constitution, I managed to track down the 8th schedule of the constitution which lists the recognized languages and I found a copy here [14]. It mentions only 18. But it might be out of date and stuff. If someone can track down the up to date copy, correct the number of languages and cite it, I will be much gratified. — Ravikiran 14:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Link it to the Manorama Yearbook 2006. Some careless nut has gone and removed my reference prompting someone to add a {cite} to it. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

User: Sukh removed the names of the languages in non-roman script. There seems to be no authority for that removal. I have restored them. How do people feel? Signed: Bejnar 21:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I fully endorse Sukh's actions. The addition of scripts for all 22 or so languages is not necessary. Furthermore, the re-insertion of the names have lengthened the infobox, and distorted the layout of the rest of the page components. --Ragib 22:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Ragib. My rationale for removing them is that they're completely redundant and misleading. The native-script versions of each language are written in their appropriate articles. If we were to write the native script version of every foreign term wherever it is used on Wikipedia, it'd be ridiculous! They also ruin the spacing and the section on languages EVEN LARGER! Finally, there are (or were before) multiple scripts for some languages, when only one script is recognised in India. For example, for Punjabi only the Gurmukhi script is considered official in India. I'm not sure about Kashmiri or Sindhi, but I'm sure a similar situation pertains. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 22:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it lengthens the infobox, but not that it distorts "the layout of the rest of the page components". The infobox goes to the middle of the History section regardless. If a script is incorrect then let us fix it, not delete it. How are the scripts misleading? They are no more redundant than giving the various forms of town names. Fleet Command said "Please allow correct contents to co-exist and do not engage in editing campaign over small matters like this." Bejnar 20:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The scripts are ugly and serve absolutely no purpose, and I've removed them. The purpose the information is to let readers know what languages are official in India, not mention the transliteration of of the language in it's native script. Besides some of the languages lack a script making it look really inconsistent. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Ethnologue lists 415 living languages for India, along with estimated populations for each of these languages. I personally have found that Ethnologue has a tendency to use inflated numbers when counting speakers, but that they are nonetheless very reliable in terms of counting numbers of languages. It seems that it would be good to have a number between 1,652 "dialects" (the 1961 census actually uses the term "mother tongues" which could mean languages or dialects) and 22 official languages. I would recommend listing the ethnologue number as well as the number of languages with over a million speakers (a little over 50). kerim 07:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

British Crown

I have removed the term British Crown, as India was not colonialised by the crown but by British East India Company. I have also removed phrases trying to highlight that British meerly served India in its unification.

~rAGU

Muslim Population of India

Muslim population of india is given incorrectly ( i can't login to correct it at the moment).

It is 13.43% according to 2001 census. 16% is incorrect. you can confirm it by adding the numbers given for different deographic groups.

Percentages given are

80.5% 16.2% 2% 2.43% 0.76% 0.4%

which sum up to 102.29% !

(census figures also include those people in addition to these who didn't state their religion in the census). So please correct these figures immediately.

Thanks

India Has Worlds (Second?) Largest HIV/AIDS Population

India with world's second largest HIV/AIDS patients surely this deserves mention in the main page! I remember that it used to include it in the article and obviously some people removed it.

India has announced that it will verify UN estimations that it has overtaken South Africa as the country with the highest population living with HIV/AIDS in the world.

So India is either number 1 or number 2 with regard to largest HIV/Aids Population.

Source and evidence:

http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/3753.asp http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3886883.stm http://www.kaisernetwork.org/health_cast/hcast_index.cfm?display=detail&hc=919 http://www.christiantoday.com/news/south-asia/india.to.verify.uns.hiv.aids.figures/361.htm http://www.health-now.org/site/article.php?articleId=412&menuId=12 http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/fromthefield/216872/16a04d769c9c08a0ff5ecbbae83e4062.htm

I have listed half a dozen links and sources to back up this fact. I will take wikipedians into condfidence before making any changes in the article.

thanks

read IndophobiaHkelkar 05:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Formation Of India? Indus Valley? Surely Not!

Formation 3300 BCE

Indus Valley Civilization

---

How can Indus valley have been indian civilization when the entire Indus valley lies in pakistan not India, Its like Sudan claiming the Egyptian civilization as its own despite the fact that the pyramids, the nile, the pharoes are all located in egypt.

there is a real flaw in the article here. Please correct this error. because pakistan was in india first so people still call it indian

thanks. The preceding was an unsigned comment left by an anonymous user

I don't think that's really the case. The land that was known as India was named after the Indus, it was always based on the Indus Valley, which along with the Gangetic Plains made up much of the fertile soil in India. Pakistan was only formed in 1947, for historians of ancient history that's practically nothing. So I believe there is no flaw. Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ, both India and Pakistan were "only" formed in 1947, Afterall both countries got independence from the UK. Therefore for India to lay claim to the indus valley civilization is like I mentioned Sudan claiming the phaoroes of egypt, the pyramids, and the entire egyptian civilization is sudanese despite the fact that none of the pyramids, most of the nile valley is not even located in sudan. For instance if Egypt changed its name to Arabistan, the name only changed of the country but the history of the land before Arabistan is still part of this new Arabistan, not any other country.

Take Iran for example, It was known as persia for thousands of years and is now called Iran, this does not mean that persian civilization now belongs to Iraq or that persian civilization is not part of the history of Iran , its still Iranian history by all means.

Indian civilization like you mentioned is based along the banks of the Ganges, Egpyt the nile, Pakistan the Indus, Also note that the river indus originates in Tibet not India.

thanksThe preceding was an unsigned comment left by an anonymous user

The culture of the Indus Valley was Vedic (on OIT basis). Vedic culture is the primary culture in most of India in the following years. It's simple, although the Republic of India was formed in 1947. A land known as India or more accurately Bharatvarsh, was in existence for many years before Independence. This Bharatvarsh was originally formed on the banks of the Indus. The question is on formation, Vedic civilization began on the Indus, not the Ganges, and it is Vedic civilization that has formed India. Both India and Pakistan can lay claim to the IVC. Hope you understand. Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

While I think the anonymous poster is a bit off in (apparently) insisting that no culture on the banks of the Indus could be described as Indian since it's presently in Pakistan, I don't think it's helpful to defend this on the basis of the OIT, which AFAIK has essentially no support among modern Indo-Europeanists. Even proponents of the AIT would admit the existence of a culture describable as "Indian" on the Indus Valley in ancient times (just after the arrival of the Aryans). --saforrest 20:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Well we all have our views...It has little support amongst linguists outside India but is not generally based on linguistics in any case. Nobleeagle (Talk) 01:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, I think you have made a mistake because some people forgot to sign. In case you didn't notice, I believe that the culture existing in the subcontinent prior to 1947 could be described as Indian culture, as there was no Pakistan existing before 1947. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 11:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, im sorry noble eagle, that comment wasnt directed at you, it was the directed at the pussy who refuses to sign. Perhaps he actually believes the bullshit that he is saying, or he is just trying to escalate things. I am also surprised that he is an indian - more like an muslim pakistani trying to get credit for a country ( pakistan) which has to leech of others hsitory, religion, culture, food and name- India. By the way, i am Kumarnator.

I cant believe what im reading here....This guy is going by a technicallity....Ya INdia was technically "formed" in 1947....But so what?.....The greeks recognized a land called India....The persians recognized a land called Hindustan.....And INDIAN HISTORY always called the whole area land of the "Aryans" or "BHarat"....India is an ancient civilazation that existed well before 1947, it exisisted well before the "Indus Valley Civilazation" and if you dont believe me....all u have to do....is read Indian scripture like the Vedas, UPanishads, and a bunch of other books.....I mean this guy is going by a technicallity and i think thats a joke ARYAN818 05:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

This article deals with the Republic of India that was created in 1947. The information about ancient civilizations should go to other articles such as History of India, not here. -- Ganeshk (talk) 05:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

There was certainly an "India" before 1947. It was an Empire ruled by Britain (I'm not sure of the precise status - as I understand, it was not technically colony, and even had membership in the League of Nations, despite a nearly complete lack of self-government). Before the formation of British India in 1858, there was a region called India. This region, and the British Empire "India," included more or less the modern countries of India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. The Republic of India has only existed since 1947, but "India" has existed for millennia. And the "history" section of this article is meant to be an epitome of History of India - are you suggesting that the history section of this article should begin with 1947? john k 12:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The above message was illegally removed by user user:Nadirali and is now being restored.

My cheers to the guy who stood up and defended our Pakistani heritage.You are absoloutely right.We dont call our land what foriegners call it and never did.INDUS IS PAKISTANI HISTROY.Pakistan zindabad!!!!!! This unsigned message was left by user user:Nadirali.

Corrected by: Fowler&fowler 01:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Although both India and Pakistan were created at the same time out of British Raj, Indians desperately try to steal Pakistan's heritage, particularly the Indus Valley Civilization! This Indian hegemonic agenda is based on myths and false propaganda for religious and nationalistic imperialism. Also, there are some Pakistanis, particularly Islamists, who narrow-mindedly deny/ignore Pakistan's glorious pre-Islamic past. Harappans were certainly the ancestors of most Pakistanis, who absorbed or adopted the many waves of invaders/migrants through out the centuries.

Indus Valley Civilization was mostly based in the region of Pakistan. The names used for the Civilization are "Indus Valley" or "Harappan", both in Pakistan. The most largest and important cities are Harappa and Mohenjodaro, both in Pakistan. Even in the case of Hakra/Ghaggar river (extinct), a tributary of Indus itself, it has far more mature Harappan sites on the Pakistani side than on the Indian side. The proto-Indus site is also located at Mehrgarh in Pakistan. Indus Valley Civilization, at its peak, had colonies stretching from Turkmenistan to northern Maharashta, and from southeast Iran to western UP. About 85% of Indians (i.e. outside of northwest India) have nothing to do with Indus Valley Civilization, where their ancestors were nomadic forest-dwelling hunters and gatherers at a time period when the sophisticated Indus Valley Civilization was flourishing.

Indus/Harappan religion was not Hinduism. Not a single Hindu temple, idol, or statue has been found at excavated Indus sites. Harappans buried their dead, ate beef, and were not Vedic.The "Great Bath" was common in many civilizations such as among the Graeco-Romans and Mesopotamians. Depicted on some Indus seals, the "deity" wearing the horned head-dress looks nothing like Hinduism's Shiva, and similar deities were common in other civilizations like the Celtic "Cernunnos". Bull seemed to be sacred among Harappans similar to Mesopotamians and Minoans, but not the cow.

A people may evolve by adopting new ideas/beliefs, change with political environment, and racially get mixed with other peoples, but that does not erase their history. Pakistan -- the land and people of Indus directly inherits one of the greatest ancient civilizations of the world, just the same way present-day Iraq, Greece, and Egypt (all three countries and names also recent in origin) inherits their own great ancient civilizations. It is irrelevant that the descendents of Harappans are now mostly Muslims (Pakistanis). Descendents of ancient Mesopotamians and Egyptians are also now mostly Muslims, descendents of ancients Greeks and Romans are now mostly Christians. It is time that all Pakistanis take pride in their past, and protect it from thievery of other countries like India. The preceding message was illegally inserted in another message above in the talk page by an anonymous user from IP address 74.98.240.170 Corrected by Fowler&fowler 01:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Corruption and Indian Corruption

In India Government gives food grains at subsidised rate through rationing shop on ration card. It appers that all most all the industrialist are having ration card means they are poor and nothing else but poor. Will any reader on this discussion will give opinion about difference in corruption and Indian corruption. vkvora 17:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Please move any such talks to blogs or forums, and stop discussing irreleevant things here. This talk page is about the India article. As a suggestion, Wordpress and Blogger provide good blogging services to discuss such issues. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

We need people like you in parliament or something Vkvora, so that we can fix some of the problems with India, then we'll write an article on you. But for now, it's just not for Wikipedia. Alright? Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

After 60 years Indian Parliament discussing SC/ST reservation in IITs, IIMs and residential Doctors are doing their job to oppose the Parliament discussion. All these educated youths having ration cards blaiming politicians.

I request the readers to surrender Ration Card to demolish the Buidling of Corruption. The Artilce India on Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia gives information of RBI, Taj Mahal, BSE and Bollywood and no information of Ration Card.

vkvora 06:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you do what anyone else does when they feel something is lacking in an article? Come up with the appropriately cited text and discuss it in the Talk pages. If everyone agrees, then add it to the article. I don't see what you gain by these discourses in this page. Your output in these pages do not add any value IMO. If you feel information on the Ration Card is lacking, then add it. I am sorry, but this continuous whining is getting a bit annoying. - Parthi 06:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy Disputed tag

The racial statistics from the CIA World Factbook are in disagreement with the numbers given on the article Historically-defined racial groups in India, so I added the accuracy disputed tag. Currently the statistics do not represent all points of view, so I added the NPOV tag.--Dark Tichondrias 06:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Both the CIA World Factbook and LOC's Country Studies [25] agree with the numbers given in both articles — 72% Aryan, 25% Dravidian and 3% Mongoloid/Other. I'm going to remove the accuracy disputed tag. Also, can you please be specific as to the NPOV tag. AreJay 14:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

But the Historically-defined racial groups in India disagrees, so I will added the accuracy tag again.--Dark Tichondrias 15:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I've checked the sources for Historically-defined racial groups in India:

1. http://www.culturopedia.com/Tribes/tribesintro.html -- No claim to be a reputed source
2. http://www.geocities.com/pak_history/differences.html -- a geocities site (certainly not notable) Infact the "historian" Hayat Khan does not even appear in the top google searches
3. http://www.dalitstan.org/books/mohr/mohr3.html -- dead link

I am removing the tag, as there is nothing to dispute about. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The Dr. BS Guhu is a reputable source in the Culturopedia study.

Wikipedia:Notability is not an official policy. Hayat Khan is a verifiable source

Dalitstan link has been fixed.--Dark Tichondrias 15:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[reindenting]Hi! You've mentioned that BS Guhu is a reputable source. If so, he must have published some of his works on the subject. To ascertain credibility, you need to cite his works along with the ISBN numbers. Notability may not be official policy, but Wikipedia:Reliable sources is considered to be an official guideline. There it mentions primary sources and the fact that We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a reliable publisher. hence I am removing the NPOV tag as the sources which you cite the dispute arising from have no means of ascertaing notability or credibility as prior published peer reviewed work. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

This is what the policy says, "Scientific journals are the best place to find primary source articles about experiments". It does not say scientific information has to come from a peer-reviewed journal.--Dark Tichondrias 16:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but for a dispute of this magnitude, we should strive to obtain the most credible references. Even if it is not peer-reviewed, can you obtain published sources for the above authors? We need such kind of sources to maintain our credibility. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Thomas Huxley also agrees that India is mostly Australoid.--Dark Tichondrias 16:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

New American Media link agrees that their is a large "African precense in India".--Dark Tichondrias 16:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not disputing the content on % of races etc, but one the quality of references. If you can get the page number and published source of the text, feel free to add it to the page. Keep in mind that his findings might well be outdated. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

In Huxley's Journal of the Ethnological Society of London (1870) Scientific Memoirs III he said the the Australoid physical type is one of the "best marked" (distinct) of all types. Since their physical type is "best marked", it is doubtful that when he claimed that the "East-Indiaman" from "Hidostan" was Australoid in link that he was mistaken.--Dark Tichondrias 16:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Ideas about race have changed quite a bit since 1870 - we are probably better off to stick with more recent sources (roughly, post-WWII?). If we cite something over a century old on this, it might be best to frame it as of "historical" (rather than currently-accepted) interest. -- Writtenonsand 06:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

India's Population vs. Southeast Asia's Population

Southeast Asia's landmass is approximately the same as India's landmass. Why is India's population is so much bigger than the whole population of Southeast Asia? Sonic99 13:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

THis is because there is more population growth in India more than the population growth of the Southeast Asian countries combined—Preceding unsigned comment added by Manav 95 (talk • contribs)

What Manav was saying is that population growth=too much sex. Indians like having sex. They are too horny. 69.159.203.22 00:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

India, with its vast Indo-Gangetic plains, and the plateaus is geographically too conducive to population growth. Over half of India's land is arable, which is more land area than any other country except USA (India comes a close second, with 160 million hectares.) OTOH, large parts of SE Asia are covered with dense forests. deeptrivia (talk) 22:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The People of India

I am rather surprised that I could not find a section on the Indian people, or on the people of India. On the other hand, I suspect this subject could be rather extensive, and may deserve a Wiki article of its own. Or, perhaps, none at all, to be safe. Splashprince 06:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The reason is very clear ... India is a very diverse country, and unlike European countries, no single "Indian people" exists per se, rather you can look into the extensive articles like Tamil people, Bengali people, Marathi people, Punjabi people and others to get more information. Thank you. --Ragib 06:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Map of India is not correct

Map of India used in this page is not correct. If Wikipedia fails to post correct map published by government of India, we Indians are going to protest and will pursuade Indian governoment to block wikipedia. The territory of Kashmir is not shown as part of India, though it is disputed by terrorist stare of Pakistan, wikipedia needs to be nuetral on this issue and should not support illegal occupants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abnaren (talk • contribs)

You are entitled to your opinion, up to certain limits. Wikipedia is not under the jurisdiction of the Indian govt, such that it has to comply with Indian government, or any other such entities. Neutral point of view is one of the basic policies of Wikipedia. You can refer to that. Thank you. --Ragib 06:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia represents both (ie all) points of views: The administrated and claimed territories. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You gotta be kidding me, if you have any complain, well... fix it yourself, if you're saying that the map is wrong, then get the proper one, but please stop saying that you will persuade the Indian government to block Wikipedia. that just made me laugh. hahaha

Watch who you call "terrorist state".That was a personal attack on us and directly violates wekipedia's rules.The guy who wrote that can be blocked easily.

FAQ

This page needs a FAQ section on top. It's getting a bit annoying replying the same things over and over again. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You stole the words right out of my mouth! I think this page could use a general FAQ that highlights consensus that has been reached thus far over contentious issues. AreJay 18:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I think such lists of consensuses are a good idea for most Wikipedia projects and large Wikipedia pages. I suggested the same thing a few weeks back at WP:PIIR but haven't been able to work on it.Nobleeagle (Talk) 01:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Numbering on map incorrect

Delhi is listed as 6 under states when it should be listed as G under Union Territories. This is throwing all later states off by 1. I'd edit it, but was unable to determine how. Samadhi69 00:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

infobox messed up

Someone's messed up with the 'formation' field in the infobox. I'm hard pressed for time, so could it be fixed ASAP?

Racial Conflicts in Northeast India

Northeast India is troubled by violences and insurgent groups. The locals and the migrants from Western India are killing each other. It can even get worst like the Rwandan Genocide. Western media should go and cover a story about the trouble in Northeast India, but they don't. I wonder why. 72.140.235.202 00:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not the appropriate forum to discuss media relate issues. 00:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Area

This article states India is 3,287,590 km² in size. This article states it's 3,287,2632 km² (inc. disputed areas) in size. Which is correct? Lugnuts 07:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

From what I can currently see (and that is all I can go on as a first order approximation to 'truth'), it appears to me that the 2 numbers gives are out by a factor of 10 (so it shouldn't be too difficult to see which one is correct.....Though, on the internet, you never know.....).

Nukemason 10:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that second figure should be 3,287,263 and not 3,287,2632! Lugnuts 13:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Indian Union Redirect

The Indian Union redirect should point to the Political Integration of India article. rohith 20:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

mistake

Billions of blue blistering barnacles! What reasoning is responsible for calling Thailand an island nation? That thundering nation is lodged firmly in a peninsula in South East Asia! Rama's arrow 02:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Thundering typhoons! To crown it all, Maldives is not mentioned! Rama's arrow 02:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You going through a Tintin phase, or what? :) Tpth 06:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Great Snakes, I think he is! Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 07:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Seven thousand suffering samurais! I am the greatest Tintin fan ever! (no offense, Tintin) Rama's arrow 13:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I am Captain Haddock. I share his affinity for whiskey, bungles and accidents. Rama's arrow 13:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Introduction biased

I was thinking of reading up on India, but after reading the introduction, it occurred to me that the rest of the article may be biased too. The introduction uses a lot of adjectives that I think do not belong in an encyclopedia. For example: "advanced civilization", "major role in human history", "Indian culture and society has been so resilient", "in an intense movement of social reforms", "restoring the glory of the past Indian empires", "among the most diverse in the world" and finally "be an emerging superpower". This all seems a little too subjective. Vince 09:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree - those sentences must be toned down, but I doubt that there is an extensive problem. Rama's arrow 13:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I have made the introduction more balanced. I've also copy edited the first three paragraphs to conform to an encyclopedia style. Fowler&fowler 05:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Second Largest Muslim population

In this Article is says that India has the secodn largest muslim population in the World. The population of India is stated as 1.1 billion with 12.2 % muslims.

However, in the wikipedia article for Pakistan, it states that Pakistan has a population of 185 million with 96% muslims.

96% of 185 million is greater than 12.2% of 1.1 billion. There is an inconsistency, can someone ex[plain which source is to be believed?

India has the third largest Muslim population in the world and the largest Muslim minority population. As you state above, India as approximately 140 million Muslims. Pakistan has many more, no matter which way one interprets the numbers. Fowler&fowler 14:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Poverty?

Surely it is only pragmatic and proper for some of the extreme levels of poverty within India to gain a mention? Would it not be a good idea to create a link to such pages for statistical information? Perhaps it would also be a good idea to avoid political bias on these issues? User:Nukemason 18:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Have been addressed in the introduction (3rd paragraph). Fowler&fowler 05:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

REDIRECT Request

Is it not a good idea to have the South India article re-directed to the India article? The last thing that we would want anyone to think about is that there are 2 separate countries within that part of the world. User:Nukemason 18:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Edits

somehow my edits were reverted, I added them again.Digitalfunda 06:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the map of south asia in local languages is suitable

why delete this map?!--Apengu 16:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

First, you had added it to the geography section where it is not suitable. The map was naming the states in the local language scripts. This is the English wikipedia, that map is of no use for the English reader. I have rolled-back your addition. Please do not add the image until consensus is reached here. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 16:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with you. first, many English user also want to know how to write the state's name in local language scripts like many foreigners want to know chinese province in Chinese. second, this map show that there many different languages in india and other south asian countries. so i think this map are suitable.--Apengu 16:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Mmmm....I have posted on the Indian noticeboard to see what others feel. Thanks for explaining your position and not putting back the map again. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 17:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Why not put the map in another article, perhaps List of national languages of India or States and territories of India and link to it from India? --BostonMA ^talk 17:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I would oppose adding the local language map. Only the map that has text in English should be allowed. If someone wants to know how a state's name is written in local language, he/she can visit the corresponding Wikipedia article and look it up. Often, this information is present in the first sentence of the article. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ambuj and Ganesh. The map is not suitable for the geography section and maps as such should only be in English at enwiki. I would object to the map being put even on the other articles like List of national languages of India or States and territories of India. - Aksi_great (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not seek any problem with this image on english wikipedia. But it could be placed at suitable places like List of national languages of India as BostonMA also mentioned. We have local language context to introduce a peson or a place name associated with an article, which is not undestandable to an english reader, but local language readers also visit to English wikipedia, specially people from south asia. Shyam ^(T/C) 19:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

This comment is on the content of the map, not it's placement. This is a nice and informative map. However, all scripts would look the same to someone seeing them for the first time, so it will have little value for him/her. If it is felt that such a map is required anywhere on wikipedia, maybe it could be made more informative by writing something about the script (at least its name in the Roman script) besides the Indian script. deeptrivia (talk) 21:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Another question is, is this map representing official languages of states, or really the local languages? Although states were created roughly on linguistic basis, linguistic borders can be very different from the state borders. See this map for example. I just forgot this map was about scripts. deeptrivia (talk) 21:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

(crossposted to Noticeboard for India related topics) Wouldn't that be a big mess? Also, if an area has two or three different languages spoken by the people, does it mean all 2 or 3 scripts will be used? Who decides which script gets chosen at the expense of which other script? This is, after all, the *English* wikipedia, and maps, images, etc. needs to be in English. Having 4 or 5 names for each small chunk will be a horrible mess. Besides, I don't see any real purpose of such a map. People coming to this wikipedia are looking for English articles, and a map is supposed to convey information, not to cater to each and every language group. --Ragib 22:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I know I am late to this discussion, but why not include this map in the Wikipage on South Asia? Fowler&fowler 12:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see, it has already been done. Fowler&fowler 12:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Image for the demographics section

I am listing some images that I found:

• 
  City market in Bangalore
• Ranganathan street in Chennai
  Ranganathan street in Chennai
• Coffee house in Kolkata
  Coffee house in Kolkata
• Map showing population density
  Map showing population density
• Naga people of Assam
  Naga people of Assam
• 
  Apatani tribal women
• 
  Naga girls in traditional attire - Added by Chanakyathegreat
• Naga people dancing - Added by Chanakyathegreat
  Naga people dancing - Added by Chanakyathegreat
• 
  Labelled
• 
  Plain
• 
  labelled
• 
  Plain
• 
  labelled
• 
  Plain
• Indian Jews in Mumbai - Added by Hkelkar
  Indian Jews in Mumbai - Added by Hkelkar

Any more suggestions? I recently reverted several good faith edits to add a picture in the section. I thought might as well get a consensus. I like the Bangalore one, would rather not add a map since the article already has plenty of them. Naga one is of poor quality. Please comment. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 23:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I hope everyone will like this.

Pics moved to the gallery above.

The caption can be anything that is interesting. Chanakyathegreat 11:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Bot the pics are of poor quality. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 15:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Just uploaded svg versions of my pop density map pick one -- ^{PlaneMad|YakYak} 10:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I like the non-labelled one. Still feel we have too many maps on the article. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 16:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to swamp the place with maps, but im feeling a little map horny lately, added sex ratio map to the gal - ^{PlaneMad|YakYak} 18:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Show some pictures of the Bodo people in India too. The World needs to know about them like the Nagas. 72.140.235.202 03:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

No one is preventing you from adding images of Bodo people. Just add good images to the list (don't worry about community caste or creed) and at last, we will collectively select one to put it in the demographic section. If you want you can also add the images in the Bodo article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodo_people

Chanakyathegreat 16:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Afghanistan and Thailand as neighbours

Afghanistan is a neighbours of India because India has never recognised the occupation of Kashmir by Pakistan. Hence it need to be added in the list. For NPOV the information that the area bordering Afghanistan is under the administration of Pakistan can be added. Also there is another historical reason to add afghanistan as a neighbour. It is the cultural link that exist from the very historical times that is still relavant in recent times. http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/archives_roll/2001_10-12/cotter_mideast/cotter_mideast.html

Another neighbour is Thailand. It is an island nation and the distance between India and Thailand is only a few miles (distance between phuket and Nicobar islands). http://go.hrw.com/atlas/norm_map/thailand.gif

Chanakyathegreat 12:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thailand is not an island nation. Never has been, and never will, barring a major cataclysm. The Andamans are closer to Indonesia than they are to the mainland of India, so perhaps one could include Indonesia as well. Fowler&fowler 14:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Country infobox

the independence of the Republic of India doesn't date to 3300 BC, any more than the independence of the Republic of Turkey dates to 1800 BC or 7000 BC [26], the independence of Iraq to 4000 BC or the independence of Peru to 3000 BC. dab (ᛏ) 06:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Dab, That formation information is constantly vandalized. I have restored it few times already. - Ganeshk (talk) 06:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

right, sorry, this page isn't on my watchlist, I was made aware of the problem on my talkpage. The "establishment" field isn't a vandal-magnet just on this article, things are similar on the articles on Turkey, Russia, Germany, and probably many others. Why, I even had to fix the Swiss entry, although the exaggeration wasn't quite so bad there. We should simplify the field to a single entry, "establishment of contemporary state, period", otherwise this is simply an invitation for mysticist vandals to add their fantastic continuity hypotheses :) dab (ᛏ) 08:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The vandal is at it again. Will some admin please do something about it. Apparently, he has been blocked a few times already. Fowler&fowler 10:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Religions mentioned in the second paragraph

• I have changed the link Islam in the second paragraph to Islam in India, and, similarly, Christianity to Christianity in India, since the new links are more relevant for the India page.
• I am also adding Zoroastrianism (link Parsi) and Judaism (link Indian Jews)) to the second paragraph, since they have had a long history on the subcontinent. While they may not be large in numbers, they have certainly been influential. They are also a reminder (sorely needed in intolerant times) that India was once a land of refuge.

Fowler&fowler 22:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Largest democracy in the world

I think this is POV as Russia, China, United States, Brasil and Australia have larger area.--Nixer 10:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

China is not a Democracy. Neither is Russia. Anyway its understood that worlds largest means largest by population ARYAN818 00:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Being a Chinese, I don't think China is not a democracy. Is the Western style ONLY ONE style of democraty?--Apengu 15:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You don't judge the size of a democracy by the area of the country, but rather by the size of the demos — the people. There is a participatory population of 1.2 billion in India, which makes it the world's largest democracy. AreJay 14:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

(To: Nixer):You are right—a more accurate choice of words would be "the world's most populous democracy," since China (the most populous country of the world) is not a democracy. However, since the term "democracy" is about people (recall Lincoln: "government of the people, by the people, and for the people") and not land area, "largest democracy" has come to mean "most populous democracy." And that usage is now commonly accepted the world over. Here are three examples from Time magazine, the BBC, and the UN: India Awakens Time magazine, 2006. Gearing up for India's electronic election, BBC, 2004. India becomes a billionaire: World's largest democracy to reach one billion persons on independence day United Nations Population Division. Glad you wrote, since that usage is often a point of confusion. I will add a footnote with those references and a word of explanation. Fowler&fowler 14:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Still I think it is POV to say China is undemocratic.--Nixer 15:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by POV, but what is meant here is that China is not a Western style parliamentary democracy i.e. a multi-party system of political participation and with free elections, where all parties are allowed to run for elected office and where all citizens are allowed to vote. This is certainly the consensus view, witness: Encyclopaedia Britannica on China and Encarta Encyclopedia on China. If your objection is about that particular definition of democracy, you should really take it up on the Wikipedia page on democracy. But the short response to your comment is: The CCP (Communist Party of China) has ruled China since 1949. What is the name of the opposition party? Fowler&fowler 18:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

And why it should have? In the USA there are two parties with the same ideology and program. What is the name of a party with different ideology?--Nixer 19:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

As I had said above, your complaint seems to be with what a democracy should or shouldn't be and properly belongs to the Democracy page. I agree with you that if a country has 15 parties and they all think alike, then it is not much of a choice (or as Karl Marx said, "Universal suffrage (i.e. parliamentary elections) is an opportunity citizens of a country get every four years to decide who among the ruling classes will misrepresent them in parliament.") But these are loaded questions (with long history of debate) and their discussion belongs elsewhere. As for China itself, it not clear if it has lived up to Mao's idealistic call, "Let a hundred flowers bloom. A hundred schools of thought contend." As far as I can tell, all hundred schools of thought are thinking a lot about Walmart thesedays. Thanks, BTW, for changing it to "most populous liberal democracy," it is less confusing and sounds better too. Fowler&fowler 20:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

To user ARYAN818 above: Please be aware that comments on a talk page are posted at the end of an ongoing discussion. Inserting comments in the middle (especially when they are redundant and have already been covered by other respondents) is considered bad Wikietiquette and, if persisted in, can be considered vandalism Fowler&fowler 00:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

To User: Apengu Please be aware that comments on a talk page are posted at the end of an ongoing discussion. Inserting comments in the middle (especially when they are redundant and have already been covered by other respondents) is considered bad Wikitiquette and, if persisted in, can be considered vandalism. If you read the discussion, you will realize that the change in terminology from "largest democracy" to "most populous liberal democracy" was driven by the same concerns you voice in your message. Fowler&fowler 16:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Worlds largest Democracy

THe article used to say worlds largest Democracy....NOw it has been changed to worlds most populous liberal Democracy.....I think thats a joke....I mean why do people on wikipedia insist on making things sound so complicated....When people read an article, its much more easier to understand "WORLDS LARGEST DEMOCRACY" instead of writing "WORLDS LARGEST POPULOUS LIBERAL DEMOCRACY"....I mean come one the latter version is longer, and many people dont even know what POPULOUS means or LIBERAL DEMOCRACY means.......Just keep it simple.....Worlds largest Democracy ARYAN818 05:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't have strong feeling either way about this matter, so I won't belabour the point. (But since these issues are not as simple as they sound, please read this message completely before responding.) I agree that "world's largest democracy" is short and snappy; unfortunately, it sometimes causes confusion since the usage is not obvious. Here are some examples of "largest." Thus when people say, "world's largest country," they mean "by area" (and are likely referring to Russia), but when they say "world's largest city," they mean by population (and might be referring to Tokyo or Mexico City). The reasons for this usage are buried in the words' Latin roots ("country" comes from "terra contrata" i.e. "land opposite"; while "city" comes from "citizens" i.e. "people"; so "largest country" means "largest land", while "largest city" means "largest population (among cities)"). The reason why "largest democracy" means most populated democracy is because (as some user mentioned above): "democracy" comes from the Greek "demos," which means "people." As for the use of "populous," all I can say is that (a) the word has already been used in that sentence (b) readers of Wikipedia are expected to know the meanings of such words, or are expected to look it up in the dictionary (c) since "populous" has been used earlier, it is more euphonic (in the intonation patterns of the English language) to repeat the word, than to follow it up with "largest" in the same sentence, and (d) I have now provided a Wiktionary link to "populous." As for democracy, I have now provided a Wikilink to liberal democracy. If you go to the Wikipage for democracy you will see that liberal democracy (i.e. the kind of democracy in India) is only one form of democracy. There are others as well. So, all in all, I would prefer the new wording, but since Wikipedia is also governed by consensus, if most respondents here feel the "world's largest democracy" is better, we can change back to it. Fowler&fowler 12:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

If I said "World's Largest Country," I would be referring to China. Who cares how big a country is geographically? john k 12:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You might refer to China (and come to think of it, I might too), but according to the 2006 Encylopaedia Britannica, "With an area of 6,592,800 square miles (17,075,400 square kilometres), Russia is the world's largest country, covering almost twice the territory of either the United States or China."[27]. But Russia or China aside, what if it were "largest empire," or "largest kingdom" would you then be talking about area or people. My point is simply that it is better to choose language that is less confusing for the average reader. Fowler&fowler 13:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Decimal number system and zero

I reverted a previous edit which had added "concept of zero" to the "decimal number system" listed in the second paragraph of the introduction. This was done for the following reasons:

• Zero is already a part of the decimal number system (or decimal place value system); without zero (or some such symbol), there would be no place value system.
• It is the place value system that is important, not zero by itself.
• The provenance for zero as a symbol for "nothingness" is more problematic, since all kinds of civilizations (Babylonians, Greek, Mayan, Chinese) had such concepts.
• See article on "Indian number system" footnoted in Introduction; see also the Arabic numerals page.

I hope this seems reasonable. Fowler&fowler 11:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

ugliest intro paragraph ever

looking at the formatting and number of references in the introduction makes me not want to read it at all. explains why it is the 25th most edited article, but only the 79th most popular page.

1. is it necessary to give so many references/crosslinks in the introduction?

2. all the statistics in the third paragraph of the intro - we could do away with most of them. 2nd fastest growing economy, 124th undernourished blah blah united nations blah blah. we can point out strengths and weakness with a few subjective sentences, and move these numbers to sections like economy, demographics, etc.

look at japan, france, People's_Republic_of_China - they dont have so much clutter in their intros.

--ti 21:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I would like to own up to not only rewriting much of the content in paragraphs 2 and 3 in the introduction, but also to adding most of the footnotes. (I will discuss the choice of introduction and topics in a separate Talk page section soon.) Second, all the changes were made in the last week, so all this is recent. The statistic you quote, the 79th most popular article in 2004, is from a time when the introduction was in fact just like what you want it to be. (In fairness to the people who contributed to that version, I should add that the 79th rank is misleading: in that list India was the 6th most popular country and apparently more popular than sex.) More relevant is the "List of most referenced articles." In that list (from 2006) India is ranked 29th and is the 9th ranked country. That's not too bad. Now let me answer your specific objections:

1. I mostly agree with you. The number of footnotes could (and probably should) be reduced. Since I added them, why don't I take a stab at reducing them.
2. There too, you have a point. Let me attempt that too.

There is another point about footnotes and links that needs to be mentioned. Ideally, the introduction shouldn't have too many links or footnotes (per Wiki stylistic dogma); in other words, the introduction should be a short and sweet précis of the main article. What I observed though with the India page in the month or so before I jumped into the fray was that people were endlessly and repetitively editing and re-editing the subjective sentences in the introduction, there being no benchmark to constrain them. The addition of footnotes was an effort on my part to provide such a benchmark and to make the introduction more stable. I feel there are two ways to deal with the "introduction problem": either make the introduction so insipid and vacuous in content that no one constituency is displeased (although no one is thrilled either), or to have some real content in it, but hold people to a standard, which means that the ugly footnotes appear. On the whole I prefer the latter approach, but I sympathize with your point too. It would be interesting to know how others feel. Fowler&fowler 23:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ti, I understand your concerns. It may be 79th most popular page, but the fact that it is the 24th most revised article says it all. The information that comes with the lead section is fully loaded. That information is questioned, and the lead section edited and reverted every single day recently. People simply think it is POV unless the information has credence. Wikipedia works not on a subjective basis, but on an objective basis. We have to maintain NPOV, and stating something like India influenced South East Asia raises whole lot of questions.

Perhaps, a few words from, WP:LEAD would help you understand...

The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and describing its notable controversies, if there are any. ... (the lead) should be carefully sourced as appropriate...

Cheers. -- Chez ^{(Discuss / Email)} • 23:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Chez, has a good point. Please read the discussion sections above on Largest democracy in the world and World's largest Democracy and to see how a unsourced sentence like, "India is the world's largest democracy" can bring all kinds of objections (all well-meaning) from its defenders and detractors. Fowler&fowler 10:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

1857

I've added a line which states that the events of 1857 are often collectively termed as "The First War of Indian Independence" in Indian text-books. I have been engaged in a very tedious discussion on the Rebellion page about the correct term. However, from the discussions I have had - users there have stated that it was not a nationwide movement. However, this article does state otherwise. Which view is correct? I didn't wish to unilaterally delete anything. Hence, the question. (Jvalant 04:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC))

Country Infobox

The country infobox was replaced by a country or territory infobox, with the edit summary "not a country". I apologize if this has been discussed before, but could someone explain this change to me? Thanks --BostonMA ^talk 19:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Is India really home to the Worlds Second Largest Muslim Population?

I think this part of the article is highly flawed, the link to the section islam by country itself has a netural pov tag and I think it would be highly erroneous to claim that India has the worlds second largest population of muslims.

The phrase 'second largest' should be removed and just left with the percentage figures, or rather it should say 'one of the largest'.S Seagal 02:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to pop explosions in Pakistan and B'desh, I dont think we have that title any longer.Bakaman _Bakatalk 07:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Poverty Line

I noticed that a number of people have changed the sentence "with four-fifths of the population living on less that $2 a day," (in the lead) to "25% below the poverty line." Although I agree that a dollar can go much farther in India, I still feel that poverty lines set by individual countries are not good economic indicators. The Indian poverty line (which is the inflation-adjusted amount that would have bought 2400 calories in food per person per day in rural areas and 2100 calories in urban areas in 1973) is now Rs. 540 per month, or $12 per month (at the Rs 45 = $1 exchange rate), or 40 cents per day. This assumes that the entire income of Rs. 540 is being spent on food. With this definition of the poverty line (ie. 40 cents per day), the proportions of Indians below the poverty line is 23% or 25% (depending on what statistics one quotes). I am happy to replace the UN Human Development Index figure of "79.9% living on less than $2 per day" by "23% below the poverty line," but I feel that the latter doesn't convey any information unless one says, "23% below the poverty line of $0.40 per day." I'd like to hear what other people think. Fowler&fowler 22:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Independance

Abt the information posted in infobox. Did India get independence from UK or from British Empire

From the UK. Fowler&fowler 21:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Too many images?

Am I the only one who feels that the article as of now has too many images? And, is The Tibet Autonomous Region an officially acknowledged entity to be said bordering India? -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 05:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

India is a country that is best described by pictures :). Plus, look at the articles on other countries like United States,Pakistan,Malaysia all have comparable # of images.Hkelkar 05:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

We can discuss the Tibet thing.Hkelkar 05:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Sundar that the images look too cluttered. Part of the problem is that they are of different sizes; in addition, there is redundancy of image content: two similar looking temples wedged in with the Taj Mahal; same with the modern buildings--too much duplication. Also, I don't see the point of the overhead view of Mumbai in the demography section, and the modern buildings and the bridge in the economy section, other than making a general point that India has modern buildings. Besides, user Ganeshk has been patiently discussing above (for some time now) which images and maps to add to the demography section; so adding all these images all at once seems a little unilateral. So, I would suggest:

1. reduce all image sizes (like Pakistan) to about 200px width.
2. get rid of at least one modern building and one temple.
3. discuss the point of Mumbai picture in demography, especially when people have been discussing what images to add in that section.Fowler&fowler 13:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

HKelkar, India is a featured article that has been chosen carefully by a number of editors and it's expected to meet the highest standards. So, we need to be careful about what we do with that. It's best for anyone to discuss major changes and additions beforehand. Let's fix it as soon as possible. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 13:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

1. I agree that image sizes need reduction
2. Perhaps the BSE and one temple can go
3. Agreed that Mumbai pic moved to demography. Sorry I misunderstood you.Let me restate.Mumbai is a microcosm of many different ethnic groups of Indians (largely due to immigration for better jobs etc.)

therefore it is ok to put a nice pic of the city there with a caption that qualifies the point.Hkelkar 14:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The point is more that user Ganeshk and others have been discussing above what pictures to add to the demographics section. You should add your picture to the other pictures in that discussion section and take up the matter with the other discussants first (rather than adding the picture to the main article and then giving us reasons why it might be appropriate). Fowler&fowler 02:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Look I have no desire to get involved in another Desi-Desi catfight. I feel that the Mumbai image belongs in the India article and thought that the demographics section was the best place to put it (where else should it go for now)? There should be a special "Metropolitan cities section" where a cross section of pics from all the major metros should be there, with short summries about each city and links to their wikipedia articles.Until then, let's leave the Mumbai pic where it is as a stopgap measure.That way, it illustrates the multicultural nature (as personified by Mumbai), as well as showcases the cosmopolitan side of India. We can move the pic over to the Metropolises section when (and if) it is created.I will contribute another nice picture to the Ganeshk collage above.Hkelkar 02:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed the images that were cluttering the article. This addition of images is making the discussion few sections above meaningless. A picture per section is enough. We need to find a right picture for the demographics section. Let us added images to the article after discussion and consensus here. Thanks for your cooperation. -- Ganeshk (talk) 02:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. Look at (better) articles on other countries:United States,Thailand,Malaysia,Pakistan. Many of them have 2 pics per section. At the very least, one must admit that other sections are needed.Shall I start a "Largest Cities" Section?Hkelkar 03:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Adding more images makes the article look "congested" making it harder to read. Also note that articles on United States, Thailand and Malaysia are not featured articles (hmmm.. in what way are they better?). The aerial image of New Delhi you had added was completely unnecessary. One can hardly make out anything in that image and it doesn't help the article or the concerned section. An aerial view of the Rajpath area showing the parliament and other government buildings would be more appropriate. --Incman|वार्ता 05:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Largest Cities [sic] ?! :). I don't writing a section mentioning large cities in India is a very good idea. Thanks --Incman|वार्ता 05:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I was just citing precedent United_States#Largest_cities & for more pics see another featured article Pakistan.Hkelkar 05:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I have already explained on your talk page that it would be best not to add that section. It will lead to edit wars over which city is the largest, thereby losing stability and losing featured status. Me thinks it's a very bad idea . And I feel we already have plenty of pics on the article. Only the demographics is missing one. Thanks, Ganeshk (talk) 06:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Hkelkar: So according to you, India should have 2 or more images per section similar to the articles on Pakistan, U.S., Malaysia etc. Your argument reminds me of the Bandwagon effect. Images should be added if their is a real need for them. Adding more images, as I said before, will make the article look too congested. I agree that we need one for the Demographics section but other than that, we do not require anymore images. --Incman|वार्ता 06:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I feel it's not so much the number as the relevance (and quality) that is important. From my perspective, the pictures uploaded by Hkelkar are for the most part unremarkable, except for the Bene Israel in Bombay, which she/he has added to Ganeshk's collection above. The overhead Bombay picture would be acceptable if it were a little clearer. One compromise would be to stick to the one picture a section "rule," but have a pool of "consensus" pictures, and keep rotating the pictures in the main article (from the pool every couple of months or thereabouts). It will be more work though. Fowler&fowler 14:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The article should be longer

This is not a bad article, but considering the long history of India and the fact that it has the world's second largest population, it is awfully short. Of course, Wikipedia articles generally should not be too long, but important topics like this one are allowed more length. I like the pictures, although perhaps some of them could be smaller. I might try to help on this article if I get time. HeBhagawan 21:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The current length is fine from my perspective. Fowler&fowler 14:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Economy Section Contradictory

The economy section of this article says that India is the fourth-largest in the world by PPP. The Economy of India article states that India's economy, by PPP, is third-largest. This is a contradiction. What should be done about this? -- Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs}  23:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC) 23:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Have corrected the ranking in the Economy of India to 4th for PPP and 12th for nominal GDP. Someone had changed the numbers there without explanation. Fowler&fowler 01:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)