Talk:India/archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Currency

The "Currency" link on the right hand side of the India page points the Rupee. Should it not point to Indian_Rupee. I wonder how to edit that! I looked for a way but could not find it. If you know how to do that, please do it and let me know too. doles 20:44, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)

fixed the Link. But please add new comments to the bottom of the page. kaal 20:56, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How did you fix the link - please share some gyan. Thanks for informing me of the convention - I did not know.

Do you see {{India infobox}} in the edit window? That says that the box comes from Template:India infobox and hence that template has to be edited to see the change here. Hope I've answered you. -- Sundar 04:14, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

Another way of editing the template is to "Edit the Entire page" and see the listed categories below the textbox. See the relavent in the textbox template as Sundar pointed and then click the corresponding template link below. Nichalp 20:03, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Origin of Names

The line that explained the context of the term Hindustan seems to have been removed. Now we just have a translation of Hindustan as Land of the Hindus, but IMHO this gives the wrong idea to he reader. Associating the word Hindu with a follower of Hinduism is a post-1750s phenomenon.The word Hindustan has been around since the Moghul period, when that association was not there. We used to have a line there that clarified what the word Hindu means in this context. I say we put it back. --ashwatha 16:17, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Religions

From the intro section, I am just curious: Are Jainism and Sikhism considered world religions? Buddhism is certainly a world religion, maybe Hinduism too. To the best of my knowledge, Jainism and Sikhism are not considered world religions. Please correct me if I am wrong. --ashwatha 04:23, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I know that in the UK there are many Hindus & Sikhs. I think there are a small number of Jains too. I suppose if they exist in reasonable numbers outside of India then they can be considered world religions. (though it's hard to think of a religion that wouldn't be considered a world religion by this sort of reasoning)--DanCupid 07:53, 4 Dec 2004

You're looking at somewhere in the region of 1/5 of Sikhs living outside of India. Main concentrations are in the UK, Canada and the USA. However there are significant populations in other parts of Europe, Africa as well as South East Asia and Australia. I suppose that gives it the title of a 'world religion'. I'm not sure about Jainism though.

English speaking population

From the Trivia section:

India has the largest English speaking population in the world (larger than the UK or USA).

Not convinced - the population of the USA is around 290 million, so one out of three people in India would have to speak English for India to have the largest English speaking population. I can believe this about the larger cities of India, but certainly not the smaller cities and rural areas. Considering that more than 70% of the Indian population lives in smaller cities and rural areas, I find it hard to believe that one out of three people in India can speak English. I am not opposed to that sentence being there if we have specific statistics to back it up. Otherwise I say that it needs to be removed. --ashwatha 19:43, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You have to remember there is also a large Spanish and French (Haiti) population that can't speak English.

Remove the phrase. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 19:55, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Removed. --ashwatha

Simonides, I see that you put this back - as I said, I am not against having it there, but please provide statistics to prove it - I have given my reasons for why I think that the sentence is not true. --ashwatha 21:21, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see this discussion, the info was removed from an anon IP and I thought it ws vandalism. But as a general note, the population of English speakers in India is calculated to be approximately 30%, which would easily equal the population of English speakers in the US (not all the 290m are speakers of English), though if you specified a certain minimum level of English that percentage would probably drop sharply (also, there are not enough grounds for the rural vs. urban distinction where knowledge of English is concerned.) -- Simonides 22:19, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. --ashwatha 02:20, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This isn't really relevent to English, but there is a descrepancy between the main article and the demographics of India article as to the number of official languages recognised by the constitution (21 vs. 22). Anyone know which is correct?

No, both articles say 22 (which is the correct number). The main article says: "21 other languages...", 21 in addition to Hindi = 22.

Some critics at the feature-story of this article no the frontpage

[quote]India is also the second most populous country in the world, and the world's largest democracy.[/quote] The only thing this line is saying is that the peoples republic of china is not a democracy, it has not much relevance for india because we already established that it's the second most populous country in the world. Not worth the space if you want to give a summary of 10 rows about such a big country. --62.251.90.73 00:42, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It establishes India's status and role in the world community. Mark ¹ 00:48, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[quote]It shares its borders with Pakistan, the People's Republic of China, Myanmar, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan and Afghanistan. Sri Lanka, the Maldives and Indonesia are the nearby island nations in the Indian Ocean.[/quote] Countries don't 'share borders' with islands or other lands lying somewhere close by but accross water, Holland is not bordering England or Denmark even although they're just across a little bit of sea. Russia isn't bordering Japan, Canada is not bordering Island. It's common geographical and political practice to only talk about border countries if they really share land borders.--62.251.90.73 00:42, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

On closer inspection, those appear to be two different sentences. Mark ¹ 00:48, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"In 1999, India participated in the Kargil War in Kargil, Kashmir to repel 
Islamist terrorists who, under the auspices of the Pakistani government, 
were encroaching upon Indian territory."

A Pakistani would claim this isn't NPOV. I think we'd need something like "Kashmir - a territory who's control is disputed between India and Pakistan". IIRC, the Pakistani government also officially denies that the terrorists are under its control. I personally think this is a diplomatic figleaf, but I think that's the official position.

Also:

"Economy Main articles: Economy of India, List of Indian companies

A nation in rapid development, India has an economy ranked as the fourth largest in the world "

At the top of the article it mentioned that it was fourth in terms of Purchasing Power Parity - not the usual was to rank economies. Does anyone know what rank it has in terms of accepted exchange rate? Ideally, I think we should give both ranks, for comparison.

Overall, this did strike me as a bit too much like a tourist brochure in tone.

Under accepted exchange rates, I believe it is the 12th largest, but it becomes the 4th largest after adjusting for PPP (I have no idea what that is). See the article on the economy of India. --ashwatha 15:29, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

PPP means purchasing power parity. The reason rates are adjusted using PPP is because exchange rates are not an appropriate way to measure differences in countries. i.e. An American makes $3000 a month, and an Indian makes $200 a month. Obviously, if you look at it from an absolute point of view, The American is making more money. However, you need to take into account purchasing power - a haircut costs 14 rupees in India (this is under $1) and about $14 in USA. Therefore, just because an Indian is making less money when converted into US$, he may not be making less money in terms of quality of life - thus the need to use purchasing power parity. This is because exchanges rates do not accurately reflect the differences. It is entirely appropriate to use the PPP figure.

...this whole page seems to be one big ad for India. For a Wikipedia page to be a credible source of info, it probably needs a little more balance in its perspective. It's not as if India doesn't have problems. It has tonnes of them, an encyclopaedia isn't suppposed to sound like a tourist brochure. you guys should build self-esteem somewhere else - anon

Bordering Countries

Surely India does not share a border with Afghanistan.

As per the official map of the Indian government, it does share a small border with Afghanistan. Howeve, this border is not in Indian control - the state of Jammu and Kashmir is disputed by India and Pakistan, and the Afghan border is in Pakistan-controlled Kashmir. There is a small footnote in the article to this effect. --ashwatha 15:31, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

We are a nation that is young, and can learn from our mistakes, an unified sub continent in whichever manner, either economical or political would place us as a much strong force from the East, I hope India and Pakistan,including Bangladesh/Nepal, sees this vision someday. -- Marcus

??? Nice vision, but what, if any, is the relevance here? --ashwatha 22:23, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Space Program

Do we need a space program section here? It should be enough to link to this in related topics. We have also mentioned the space program right in the intro. Conversely, if there is a section on the space program, why not sections on IT, Biotech, nuclear program, and so on?

It is a huge article, and personally, I think it is better if we don't clutter it with a huge number of sections. If there are no objections, I will be removing this section and addin the ISRO link into the related topics section.

--ashwatha 15:45, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, i think a lot more people would be interested in the indian nuclear program then in their space program. It's on the news all the time --62.251.90.73 01:05, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

True - there already is an article on India's nuclear program, and this page links to it. --ashwatha 01:59, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't Space Program be "Space Programme"- I realise many of you are proud citizens living in the US but we use British not American English in India, right? - anon

mothership of ...

I removed this sentence in the Intro:

"Bharat, the mothership of everything related to religion and spirituality......."

While India has a long tradition of religion and spirituality, calling it the mothership of everything related to them is a bit too much, IMHO - there are several other places in the world that can lay the same claim (Israel is also a mothership of religion). --ashwatha 15:37, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Let the Israel be whatever they/you claim to be. We are working on INDIA article, and spirituality that arouse out of India, such as the mentioned in the line before, are MAJOR parts of India’s culture, and nation as a whole. Spirituality is the inbuilt part of Indian History, and it would be travesty and great injustice for people to not know about this side of India, when reading this article. We should definitely include some information about it in the main article. Maybe we could move the section that you just removed in the middle section somewhere. If you don't then I will do it. Sjain 06:01, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My objection is to the word everything - it is not the mothership of everything related to spirituality and religion, and neither does India have a monopoly over the concepts (that was my reason for mentioning Israel - China also comes to mind). India is certainly the motherland of several major religions, and this has already been mentioned. Another mention is fine with me, but I certainly object to saying it is the mothership of everything related to religion and spirituality.

I am open to saying: India is the motherland of several religious and spitiual traditions, which form an inbuilt part of Indian history. --ashwatha 06:43, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Multicultural"

"Multicultural" appears to be a buzzword. Besides, we do not need the word up there in the first paragraph. Let's say "India's culture is often described as multicultural" in the "Culture of India" paragraph. WhisperToMe 18:00, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

third world?

To 192.94.94.105 (sometimes 209. .....):

Get a user id
Wherever did you come up with the idea that "400 million people" are starving to death, as you proclaim in your edit comment?
Just out of curiosity, do you vandalise articles on all countries that you consider to be "third world"?
Also out of curiosity, do you always have this tactic of vandalizing an article and then accusing others of vandalism when they fix your vandalism?

--ashwatha 21:29, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I told him to stop on his talk page :( WhisperToMe 21:51, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hey guys, I'm not trying to be sensational or controversial, just stating the facts. If you want to proport a myth, that's fine, but Wiki deserves more than that, imho.

Given that you haven't backed up your claim regarding 400 million people, I don't see how you can talk about others propagating myths. In any case, the article clearly provides data about India's GDP status and per-capita GDP. The readers can make their own conclusions about what "world" India belongs to. Given that the definitions of terms like "first world" and "third world" are vague at best, it is much better to provide actual data and leave it to the readers (which is exactly what this article does). --ashwatha 02:53, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Here's some facts...

India's per-capita income by purchasing power parity works out to be US$ 2,540. (see the main article) Current exchange rate(as of oct 08, 2004) is RS 45.760 per 1 USD. Indian Rupee

If anyone knows of a term with less negative connotation to say what I'm saying with "third world", by all means put it in, but I think it's clear their economy is poor.

npov - let people come to their own conclusions. WhisperToMe 19:52, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is not NPOV to state a fact. If you don't like what the facts indicate, and can't handle such things being posted, maybe you should not be editing. GregNorc (talk)

It's NOT a fact to say a country is "third world" - it's an opinion, an arbitrary division. WhisperToMe 19:55, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is a statement I agree with. And IMO it is breaking a generally accepted standard to place such a label in the introductory paragraph. Ground 20:04, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it is. I have backed my opinion up with facts. It is no longer an opinion. GregNorc (talk)

" 'Underdeveloped or developing countries, as in The conditions in our poorest rural areas resemble those in the third world. This expression originated in the mid-1900s, at first denoting those countries in Asia and Africa that were not aligned with either the Communist bloc nations or the non-Communist Western nations.'"

I copied and pasted =\ WhisperToMe 20:00, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, now two people oppose me. Wikipedia is intended to be democratic, and it seems my view is in the minority, so I won't be reverting Ground's edit. This is no way is meant to be constued I approve of it, but in the interest of democracy, I won't revert it. GregNorc (talk)

"third world" is certainly POV - since we have the data in there anyway, anyone can come to their conclusions. I say we let them, instead of insisting upon whether we think it is third world or not. --ashwatha 00:10, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As Whisper noted, the term "third world" is a leftover from the Cold War and further back, from the days of imperialism. If for no other reason, it should be left out because it is a blanket term that does not have a tenable, relevant definition today, is highly Eurocentric, and gives little indication of the socio-economic variety to be found in countries so labelled. Of course that doesn't prevent people from using such labels in daily speech, but that doesn't mean they belong in an encyclopedia. -- Simonides 00:24, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, third world itself does belong in an encyclopedia. :) Ground 02:10, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Where it is used as a title to be explained, not as a label. -- Simonides 02:31, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Gzornenplatz and endorsement of the CIA map

As usual, the above user continues his reverts on nearly 30 India-related articles to make sure the CIA map is always on display. I have requested that the images be protected because I am tired of reverting him, but he claims the current image never reached consensus. If other editors would like to correct his impressions, you can do so at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_page_protection#Clarification. -- Simonides 02:49, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

According to this he is required to discuss "all reverts on the talk page" or you can go to the committee and ask him to be banned until 22 March (being 3 months after he went on the probation. If Gzornenplatz has not been discussing each of those reverts every day on those 30 pages, that would be your remedy. Note that he was also required to discuss each and every time he reverts an article on the talk page (and note it in an edit summary) by an earlier Arbcom decision, which, as far as I am aware, has not been revoked. I can't see any references to reverting in his contributions list, so if he has been reverting he should be banned for up to 30 days at the ArbCom's discretion, jguk 19:20, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm also concerned at the reverting of the maps. We need a quality NPOV map like the map of India we have. Anyone up to the task? If the completed maps are satisfactory and the unnecessary capricious reverts are made again, I shall personally protect the images. Nichalp 19:36, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

Why can't I see India-related edits in Gzornenplatz's contribution history? I know I must be missing something, could you let me know what?

Also, Nichalp, it wouldn't be a good idea for you to block Gzornenplatz over this as you are involved in the article - unfortunately he'll only throw it back at you for being improper. Either get another admin to block him (if he's breaking WP policy or the ArbCom ruling), or you'll need to go through the dispute procedure (and that's best done with clean hands). Kind regards, jguk 21:59, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Miscellaneous topics

added a Miscellaneous topics subsection to the page to standardize the page accoring to the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countries. More links from the "See Also" can be moved here to highlight them. kaal 02:49, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

History section

The history section has become bloated and now rambles through both relevant and irrelevant info. Specifically, I notice these problems:

some grammar problems
gives the impression that the Maurya empire existed in the first millenium CE, rather than BCE
rambling, irrelevant info in some places

I think some of the info should be pruned. I made an attempt at this, and here is what I came up with. Please suggest improvements:

(removed - these changes are now in the article itself)

Since no objections were noted, I have pruned the history section in the article. Basically, I have used an older version with some modifications. Let us please leave detailed descriptions of Indian history to the History of India article. --ashwatha 19:53, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nice work on the pruning. However the spellings on the article use British spellings. Please conform to the standards. Secondly, please add new topics at the BOTTOM of the talk page, not on top. Nichalp 18:12, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

The end of the history section does look a little untidy, seems to skip from one subject to another (see excision 17:33, 9 Feb 2005 by 128.238.242.63 and revert by Nichalp). --stochata 18:11, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I made some significant changes in the History section. The last paragraph dealing with post-independence India has been completely rewritten. The earlier verion of this paragraph was fixated on wars and nuclear weapons. I believe that there is much more to post-independent India than wars and weapons. It is not consistent with the History sections of other nations, either. While my revision does not ignore the wars and other negative events, it attempts to portray a broader picture. I admit it is a bit long and some events can be moved to the History of India article. I will do this as soon as possible.

Shaker 21:48, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Lead in

To Hemanshu, The phrase that you have added is superfluous. Adding text in brackets is ugly and spoils the overall asthetics of this Featured Article. As for the population, it is mentioned in the demographics section. In your rollback you have also inadvertantly removed an important update of India's tourism numbers. Nichalp 09:49, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Natural Disasters and Geography

I have re-reverted the main page for now. I understand why "Natural Disasters" would not seem part of geography, but they are geographical phenomena. I'm certainly agree that it seems odd as it is -- I decided to give the benefit of the doubt to the anon IP: given the importance of the tsunami, perhaps it should be included. Please discuss first, then delete. --stochata 19:00, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The topic is Geography of India and adding natural disasters is certainally out of place out here as it is a brief section on India's geography. Details SHOULD NOT be added here. Granted, India has suffered a lot of devastation in the past and the January 26, 2001 earthquake, Orissa super cyclone, Latur earthquake, Koyna earthquake immediately come to my mind which are of equal magnitude if not greater. Just because the tsunami is a recent phenomena and in everybody's minds these days, doesn't mean that it has to be put up here. I am reverting. Nichalp 19:40, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

Natural hazards are generally part of geography (see for example the CIA World Factbook entry for India [1]). To a non-geographer this may seem odd, and it certainly looks out of place without a separate heading (and I agree it is probably inappropriate to add it here). However, I would rather you talked through the issue more before acting. As usual, the importance of any one event is subjective. When I added droughts and epidemics, I was thinking particularly of the drought of 1942, and the 1920 plague. As for details, the article does include them -- for example "global leader in software and business process outsourcing services, raking in revenues of US$ 12.5 billion in the year that ended March 2004". These details may be important to you, but they may not be important to others. At the end of the day, which details should and should not be placed up is, of course, a matter for debate, but I feel you should not simply shout us down. Regardless of the amount of work you personally have put into the article (for which of course I am very grateful and impressed), you are currently outvoted -- the anon IP and myself both consider this an important entry for the India frontpage. --stochata 22:45, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We could go on and write reams on India. So many queries are asked as to why the Rajputs are not mentioned, north-east Indian history is not mentioned, architecture is absent from culture and so on. I'm not saying that natural disasters should be completely omitted from wikipedia, just that it does not fit into this page. Natural disasters are an abberation under the geography heading and should be in a separate article just like we have ecoregions of India and so on. Software is the largest and fastest growing industry, and certainally merits a line under economy. Nichalp 17:56, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Last paragraph of history section

shaker replaced the last paragraph with a new version. I think we can incorporate a few of the stuff from his edit into the main article. Here is what i propose for the last paragraph.

Since its independence, India has been involved in four wars with its neighbours. In 1974 India became the world's sixth nuclear power, exploding a nuclear device in Pokhran, Rajasthan. Barring a brief period from 1975 to 1977 during which the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi declared a state of emergency with the suspention of civil rights, independent India has been ruled by democratically elected governments. As a multi-ethnic and multi-religious country it has remained largely a peaceful and secular democracy, although having its share of ethnic and religious confilicts. The destruction of the Babri Masjid in 1992 resulted in religious strife in much of India. In 1998 the Indian government exploded five nuclear warheads, confirming India's nuclear status. In 1999 India participated in the Kargil War in Kashmir to repel Islamic separatists encroaching there.

This is just the first draft. feel free to comment on what can be changed in it and whether it is NPOV enough. kaal 23:33, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to know, what in my version of the last paragraph of the history setion is biased and therefore does not reflect a NPOV? Am I mis-representing any factual information? Before proceeding on pruning this paragraph, it'll be educative to visit the history sections of other major country pages. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I do not see these pages dwelling on the wars that they have engaged in or the nuclear war heads that they have or have not exploded.

Shaker 00:05, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your edit was not reverted for NPOV reasons. When this article was in development last September, we decided only to sample the important aspects of Indian history to keep it brief. Look at this sentence Yet, it is a no mean achievment to elect a Muslim as the President of India twice, a Sikh as the Prime Minister, and a Christian as the Head of the largest political party, in a largely Hindu nation. It does not belong in this article and gives too much focus on the heads of state. The word peaceful here is debated. Is India really peaceful? Kashmir, the north-east, Naxals, Punjab all come into instant focus. Peaceful with the world at large? The para deals with post independence. The Cold War was at its peak at that time. Consider India's foreign relations then. Its debatable whether entire India was peaceful so its best to omit it. Please have a go through the guidelines listed above on how to edit the page regarding spellings and other details. Be free to reword the last para but please to not unjustly increase the size of the history section. Till then I am reverting to maintain article consistency. Nichalp 19:08, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

I was responding to the remarks by kaal who asked if my rewrite is NPOV enough. Although you say that my edit was not reverted for NPOV reasons, your subsequent comments suggest exactly that. It does not belong in this article and gives too much focus on the heads of state. Are you asserting that one sentence about the independent India's heads of state is too much? Just take look at the rest of the history section. It is all about dynasties, kingdoms and kings, and their religion! You have five sentences in the revert and two of them are about the nuclear weapons! Why should "going nuclear" be given so much focus here, especially considering the foucs it has been given in the introductory paragraph of the article? I agree that "peaceful" is debatatable in the Indian domestic context. I'll edit it out in the interest of NPOV. In the context of India's foreign relations, however, I disagree with your view. What does Cold War have to do with India? India was a non-aligned nation through this period. Are you disputing that India has had peaceful relations with the world nations, except Pakistan and China as I have noted? As I have pointed out in my comment under the History Section, my last paragrah is admittedly long, and as I promised I'll move some of the content to the History of India article.

Shaker 23:22, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Take a look at what NPOV means. The neutral point of view policy states that articles should be written without bias, representing all views fairly.. I never said your edits were biased, I just said that it would not be suited in this article due to too much weightage on the heads of state. Cold War has everything to do with India. We all know that NAM was a farce and it ended up with Indian having warm relations with the Soviet Union and cool relations with the US. I would like you to go back to the 1971 war to know just about how cold the relations were between the two nations when the two militaries almost came to a standoff in the Bay of Bengal. Remember that the world was polarised back then and many countries too had cool relations with India. Again peaceful is debated: anti-India sentiment runs high in Nepal and Bangladesh, consider the underlying relations too, the countries cannot afford to have bad relations with India. However largely peaceful is fine by me.

I said you are free to reedit the paragraph, I only reverted to maintain the status quo. The 1998 Nuclear detonation was a big issue and it resulted in the world sitting up and taking a greater note of India. It cannot be wished away as it will always be mentioned in history books. Yes, one sentence about the independent India's heads of state is too much. Its more of a trivia statement and it might be as well be omitted. Plus it would be better under politics than history. History is composed of dynasties kings and reigns, what's wrong with that? Nichalp 18:48, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

We all know that NAM was a farce and it ended up with Indian having warm relations with the Soviet Union and cool relations with the US.I am sorry, but who's this We all, may I ask? You may think that NAM is a farce, but I do not. International relations go through periods of relative warmth and coolness. The relations between the United States and Britain were poor during the Suez War, but that does not negate the generally peaceful relations that they have had. ...[Nuclear detonation] resulted in the world sitting up and taking a greater note of India. That is your view. I believe that the world sat up took note of India, because of its technological strengths, in particular its abundant IT skills, and the fact that it opened up its economy. Also, I did not say that there's anything wrong with History [being] composed of dynasties kings and reigns..., but it sure does seem odd that after two paragraphs about kings and dynasties and very little else, you object to one sentence about the post-independent India's elected heads of state as too much! Shaker 21:05, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Look I'm not denying you your right to edit. Infact if you see the page's history I've praised your previous edits. The lead-in paragraph is a summary of what India is known for. It is perfectly alright for it to appear in other sections. You are making a simple fact seem too good to believe by tacitly implying that a Muslim, Sikh and a Christian as the country's top political leaders is too good to be true for what is a largely Hindu country. This is a secular democracy and such things do happen. This is one of the things I firmly feel is unwarranted here. The second is the massacare. It would be better to put it in the History of India sections which is in dire need of matter. If you read this page's archives, you will see that many have questioned the reason as to why history section has so many ommissions. The history on this page is a summary of India's long and rich history. If you add for example a massacre, tomorrow someone will add the operation Bluestar citing its importance. We can't allow this section to be large and unwieldy. The only responded to India's foreign relations when you brought the topic up for further clarifications. I don't want to debate about the effectiveness of NAM and India's foreign relations unless you specifically require me to do so and so will only debate on the history. Nichalp 19:01, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

We Need a Indian Flag Page

I belive there is a need to add a Flag of india page where we address the following issues:

History of the Flag:
Colours of the Flag:
Saffron: CMYK 0-50-90-0, Pantone 021c
Green: CMYK 100-0-70-30, Pantone 341c

somebody add RGB,HSL,websafe options too,

Meanings of the colours:
Flag code of India:
The Ashok Chakra:
The Indian flag is not as shown on the India page, especially the ashok chakra in the middle.

Can the admin put in a more correct version ?

I don't think you've read the article properly. Just below the flag there is a link: In detail. It links to Flag of India. You may want to read that article. The same link is present at the bottom of the page in the See also section, under others. I you have any difficulty in searching pages, you can use the search box on the left and click SEARCH (not GO). You don't need an admin to change the flag. You can upload a new flag over the old if you create an account. I would also like to know what is wrong with this one and where would I find the 'correct' one. Nichalp 18:54, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

New Infobox

I have made a new test info box at: India\New_Infobox

The advantages I see are that it is much easier to edit / update than the old template, and can be included in the main article, making changes easier. The disadvantages are that we would have to lose the national song / animal / bird / flower / sport fields, but I think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages...

(ps I think I created that page under the India page, but may have messed up the backslash forward slash, and perhaps the page will have to be deleted.... in any case it was meant as a test to see how using the new infobox would look like) srs 05:00, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Its good, but I have some reservations on the timezone issue. Yeah, we will lose out on may fields, that's a minor issue (another smaller template can also be made adding such details in that). Nichalp 19:49, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Protection

I have temporarily protected the page due to the spurt in vandalism and addition of POV links. Nichalp 20:05, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

48 hours, time to give the page another chance. Unprotecting. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:06, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Photo copyvios

The Indus Valley Civilisation points to the earliest known urban settlements in the Indian subcontinent.

I moved this picture (Indus Valley Civilisation) and replaced it with Image:Mehrangarh Fort.jpg due to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notice board for India-related topics#URGENT -- INDIA Page about the potential loss of featured status. I'm working on adding India pictures to Wikipedia in general, so if I find a better one I'll put it there instead. If I've misunderstood or something, feel free to replace the image. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:03, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Though the Indus Valley image will be more appropriate, the change is necessary due to the copyvio issue. I appreciate your effort in this direction. -- Sundar (talk • contribs) 05:11, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I like the Indus Valley image much better too—I hope we can figure out a way to get an image like that for ourselves, although I have no idea how one would do it. I also will be uploading more images to commons:India (I've already done several) so if you see one you like better there, please switch it. Regarding the Taj Mahal, I do have a few pictures but they are quite inferior to the one we have now—it was overcast and raining, and there is some scaffolding visible due to the reconstruction. Do we have to replace the image? Does anyone else have anything better? Unfortunately, I have no idea what could replace the Infosys picture—I don't have anything appropriate. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:55, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For Infosys, let me try to take a photograph of the main building this weekend. If any body else lives/works close to Electronic City, s/he can do that easily. -- Sundar (talk • contribs) 06:56, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

I have some images on the Sikkim, Gangtok and Calcutta pages, but they won't be useful. The Goa page also has some free images. I can try and cleanup photos if you have any, mail me the photos @ gmail.com. User id is: nichalp. PS: The fort needs a better caption to match with the history text. =Nichalp (talk • contribs)= 19:40, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Any word on if the Taj Majal copyright is OK? Or does anyone else have a freer picture? I don't think the ones I have could really be cleaned up, as the main problem with them is they were taken on an overcast, rainy day, and don't show off Taj as well as this one on a bright, sunny day. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:02, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't know about the current Taj Mahal pic, but if there are problems with it, the pictures at

[2] are (c) by me and can be used and put under the GFDL. A taj mahal pic (not the usual one) is at [3]. -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 15:57, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Till, if we fail to get a better option, we'll use some of your images. =Nichalp (talk • contribs)= 20:31, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

--- Good news! There are a lot of nice images on India in Wikipedia commons. See the India category. I'll be linking them here soon. Don't worry abt images. =Nichalp (talk • contribs)= 18:57, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I've taken the photograph of Infosys head quarters front view using a digital camera. Will uplload soon. -- Sundar (talk • contribs) 04:31, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Update:I've uploaded the image to commons and replaced the copyrighted one with that in the article. Doesn't look as good as the previous one though, probably the size can be increased given that the resolution is good. Someone shall do some PhotoShop work on the image. -- Sundar (talk • contribs) 05:26, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

It looks good to me. Nice and clear. Thanks. =Nichalp (talk • contribs)= 18:22, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Two Maps

Is it necessary to have two "maps" of India? I think they are redudant, and one can be removed. srs 02:11, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

One is of the states of India. =Nichalp (talk • contribs)=

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/n/d/Talk%7EIndia_archive_6_c72c.html"

Category: Talk archives