Talk:India/Archive 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Contents

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)
[1], [2], and [3] 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?-- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK04:29, 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. -- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK15:08, 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. -- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK13:23, 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

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

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. [4] [5] [6] 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 - [7], [8], [9] - 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
In New Delhi, a woman wields a pickaxe on a footpath maintenance project while her husband rests and her baby sleeps
India 6th most dangerous country for kids: Poll
Poverty-stricken people washing their clothes by a road in Mumbai, India. by Antônio Milena/ABr
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 [10]. 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)