Talk:India/Archive 14

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.
This is archive of old talk page messages. Please do not modify it.

Contents

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 [1] 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
KolkataCofeehouse123.jpg

Coffee house in Kolkata
Population density map.png

Map showing population density
Naga people.jpg

Naga people of Assam

Apatani tribal women

Naga girls in traditional attire - Added by Chanakyathegreat
Cuckood.jpg

Naga people dancing - Added by Chanakyathegreat

Labelled

Plain

labelled

Plain

labelled

Plain
Desi Yehudim Sari.jpg

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 [2], 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."[3]. 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)