Talk:India/Archive 17

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Steady increase in page India's popularity?

As a result of user Chanakyathegreat's kindly making the statistics utility available, I compiled the statistics for the most popular country pages since August 2006. India has shown a steady improvement both in terms of the average number of daily hits and in the relative ranking. The format is: (Country rank, Country, number of hits per day, overall rank). Here are the statistics for the different months:

• August 2006 (India not in first 200):

1. United States. 34,677 (3)
2. Morocco. 14,833 (25)
3. Iran. 12,667 (42)
4. Germany. 11,333 (61)
5. Israel. 10,333 (75)
6. Philippines. 8,333 (172)
7. Switzerland. 8,333 (176)
8. Colombia. 8,000 (195)

• September 2006:

1. United States. 23,067 (8)
2. Canada. 11,200 (28)
3. Japan. 10,900 (32)
4. Germany. 10,533 (34)
5. Brazil. 10,167 (35)
6. China. 9,100 (45)
7. Australia. 9,067 (46)
8. United Kingdom. 8,500 (54)
9. Mexico. 8,400 (58)
10. Israel. 8,000 (61)
11. France. 7,867 (65)
12. India. 7,733 (70)

• October 2006:

1. United States. 23,742 (5)
2. North Korea. 13,419 (21)
3. Mexico. 12,258. (26)
4. Canada. 10, 968. (33)
5. India. 10,903 (35)
6. United Kingdom. 10,710 (37)
7. Germany. 9,355 (47)
8. France. 8,935 (53)
9. Australia. 7,613 (67)
10. Israel. 6,677 (94)

• November 2006 (first 16 days):

1. United States. 25,500 (8)
2. India. 14,375 (25)
3. Kazakhstan. 14,000 (27)
4. United Kingdom. 13,125 (35)
5. Australia. 12,750 (44)
6. Canada. 11,625 (55)
7. Germany. 9,750 (77)
8. China. 8,875 (95)
9. Netherlands. 8,750 (97)
10. Italy. 8,625 (99)

One should be wary, though, for many reasons: (a) the utility is still being tested, so the statistics may be faulty, (b) there is a percentage error in these estimates that can vary between 10% to 30% or more, (c) sometimes the popularity of a certain page like Kazakhstan in November or North Korea in October may be a reflection of Hollywood movie releases or world politics ... or it may have to do with the dynamics of the academic year in schools and colleges.

Fowler&fowler 20:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Khazakastan has overtaken India. =Nichalp «Talk»= 02:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Darn it. That Borat movie. :) Fowler&fowler 02:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Talking about Borat, well he surely has made Kazakhstan popular! --Incman|वार्ता 20:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

India up to 22 with UK snapping at the heels at 25. Kazakhstan down to 52. India still 2nd most popular after US for 24 days of Nov. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Latest ranking: 8) US ... 19) India, 20) Pornography, ... 29) United Kingdom Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Poor quality

This article has deteriorated in quality since I last edited it. At 522 kb it is too bloated and needs to be pruned to about 35 kb which it originally was. I will begin shortly. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank god. Welcome back. Let us know if you want help. Saravask 07:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

A copyedit and a refinement of the related topics would be helpful. :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I am assuming you meant 52.2 kb. I did a search of other featured country pages. Here are their sizes: Australia (49kb), Bangladesh (45kb), Belgium (43), Bhutan (42), Cambodia (40), Canada (78), Libya (54), Nepal (43), Pakistan (53), China (69), and South Africa (65). Why does the India article have to be 35 kb? Fowler&fowler 23:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The longer the article, the harder it is to read. Around 30 kb in raw page count is about the maximum that a casual reader can read in one sitting. Any longer, it becomes more tedious to read. I'm not saying that 35 kb be kept as an arbitary number. Having a lower count allows us to be more flexible when welcoming newer additions. If the size was set at 45 kb, it would very well have ballooned to 60 kb by now. Granted, most of the country articles are more than 35, but you've also accounted for infoboxes, references and other meta data. I also have worked on Bhutan and Nepal to FA status and at the time of it being promoted, both were 30 odd kb. It hasn't been maintained since then. As for other countries, I have commented about the same for SA and China in the past, even dragging China to FARC. Please note that at the time of promotion, a lot of these FAs were much lower in page size. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 02:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, OK. That makes sense. Thanks. Fowler&fowler 03:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Improvements

I have made some edits to the page to bring back some semblance of a featured article. However the text is still choppy in some places and needs a good copyedit. I have also introduced a couple of featured images in the text, request all to provide a good caption. The article can still be improved, currently Australia is the best written country article. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

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. Colonised as part of the British Empire in the nineteenth century, India gained independence in 1947 as a unified nation after an intense struggle for independence. The country has the most diverse populations, wildlife, geographical terrain and climate systems found anywhere in the world.

I don't know about the rest of the article, but the present lead (especially the 2nd paragraph quoted above) is problematic. I understand the need to be succinct, but an encyclopaedia article's lead also needs to provide information that is then used by a new reader to infer credibility and to read on. The lead re-inserted by user Nichalp will certainly resonate with Indian readers (and perhaps with readers knowledgeable of India), but it provides little meaningful information to readers new to the topic. I quote from, WP:LEAD

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...

Here are the things in the lead that people have objected to in the last couple of months:

• "Home to the Indus Valley Civilization": For someone a reader who doesn't know about IVC, it doesn't provide any meaningful information without using the use of the link. To Pakistanis, it may seem a little disingenuous.

The IVC is a well known civilzation and is taught in schools around the world. I'm afraid but we can't really cater to the absolute minority who haven't heard of the IVC or can't deduce the context from the text.

Done. I've kept "Indian subcontinent" though in first sentence.

• "India has long played a major role in human history." This is very normative. What is "major"? It could be applied to China, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Japan, the U.K., the U.S., France, Germany, the Netherlands, Mexico, Peru, Egypt, Greece, Italy, ..., and not least, Africa, the birthplace of human history. What real information does it give a new reader about India?

Good point

• "... enjoy strong cultural heritage." Again, what does that mean? It could be used euphemistically, for example, by many countries of Europe, like Britain, Germany, Italy, Denmark, Sweden, ... with recent burgeoning Muslim immigration.

Good point but the current draft is too restrictive. Shows that India only influenced areas east of it when it also influenced western Asia.

Removed restrictive sentence.

• "Colonised as a part of the British Empire ..." India was colonised by Great Britain and consequently became a part of the British Empire. Again, given the size of the British Empire at its height, it doesn't distinguish India, for example, from Zimbabwe, Botswana, Sudan, or Egypt--countries that the British arrived in late in the 19th century.
• "...after an intense struggle for independence" When was any struggle for independence not intense?

The current draft is better

• "The country has one of the most diverse populations, wildlife, geographical terrain and climate systems found anywhere in the world." This is very problematic. Biological and geophysical diversity are complicated concepts: best not to mention them. For example, India may not have any more biological diversity than Costa Rica. Diversity after all is not only about "charismatic mega fauna." The statement could be made about scores of countries--Madagascar, Papua and New Guinea, and Chile, to name three. Human diversity is similarly problematic. Are we talking about genetic diversity or linguistic diversity? Since all human lineages trace back to Africa, most countries of Africa (especially East Africa) will in general have more genetic diversity than countries in other continents.

I've put back a sentence in par3 end addressing diversity.

• Etymology. No reason to include etymology in the lead. It is not of paramount interest to a new reader.

And why so?

Well, it is of interest to me, but unless it is one sentence (as in Bangladesh) it takes away from other content in lead. All the other FAs including Australia, Canada, Pakistan, ..., and even the one's you worked on Bhutan and Sikkim have etymology/history of name in separate section.

• Finally what the lead excludes: no mention is made of contemporary India. In some earlier versions, India's recent achievements (4th largest, 2nd fastest growing, bomb, rocket, IT, etc.) were included. But the news of the bottom fifth (the 220 million undernourished citizens, who don't edit Wikipedia) is surely as relevant as that of the top fifth.

Current draft is too specific. Too much facts and figures on the economy

Removed most facts and figures.

• Here are two examples of readers objections from the talk page: Example 1 and Example 2.

I am replacing user Nichalp's lead with the last version before his edit. I understand that the article needs to be pared down, but the lead is not the place to skimp (within reason). I'm not a fan of latinate constructions, but, for better or worse, they are often more precise and more informative. I would like to get other readers' responses. But please don't simply revert to Nichalp's lead without discussing the issues I have raised. (PS. I've copy edited the new lead since. Fowler&fowler 19:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC))

Fowler&fowler 15:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

See my above replies in blue. I've refrained from editing the lead, but I'm not happy with it's current status although it is an improvement. To begin with,

1. The lead should be free from footnotes (it should summarises content, shouldn't introduce standalone content that needs to be referenced)

Removed all footnotes, but two. You are welcome to remove those too.

1. Is too long and specific. (living on less than $2 a day, Buddhist cave monuments at Ajanta &ndash why single these out?)

I've removed that particular stats. I've kept the cultural examples because they are concrete examples of "major role in human history." I think of them as historical equivalents of "featured images," i.e. they give the reader a quick fact to latch on to and they break the tedium of abstract sentences. They could be changed to other examples in time (to mix it up).

1. Contains weasel phrases and possible POV (a venue of cultural flowering; Modern India is a large and complex country that defies easy assessment) -- according to who?

 :) Good point. Removed them.

1. second fastest growing economy – the source is poor. The source should actually lead to a survery or ranking conducted by a reputable organisation. Linking the reference to a secondary source does not necessarily make it credible.

Haven't found a source for that yet. Will look. Do you have any?

See this. Saravask 05:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Done.

Fowler&fowler 05:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The lead should be pared down, there's a lot of content that doesn't belong there. Request you to take care of these issues and snip the size. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Have answered your particular objections above in

dark goldenrod

What do you think of the size? One request I have is to not change "most populous liberal democracy" back to "largest liberal democracy." I've had a lot of headache over that. I know that "largest democracy" used widely in India, but its usage is not standard worldwide. In particular, Britannica reserves "largest" for area (unless it qualifies it). See correspondence here. Fowler&fowler 00:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The size is ok, but the lead still has specifics (animals). Something seems to be messed with the infobox too (the coordinates), could you have a look at that too? And lastly, the history section seems to have a lot of pakistan bashing, request that the version I recently reverted be restored. Thanks! let me know. =Nichalp «Talk»= 00:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Haven't touched the history section or the info box. Please feel free to change as you will. Have replaced "pandering" last sentence with animals by a previous "diversity" statement (last sentence lead). If you think there's too much blue there, please let me know and I'll unlink. Will keep working on replacing the other specifics (decimals, ajanta, taj). Fowler&fowler 02:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Nichalp, I've reinserted your original history text. Very well written, I have to say! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Reaching 10,000 revisions

We are very near to reach 10,000 revisions of the article. As last updated Mostrevisions on 03:33 UTC, 18 November 2006, India has 9,791 revisions. After that 157 revisions has been made as of 06:47 UTC, 20 November 2006. So India has 9,948 revisions as of now. Shyam ^(T/C) 06:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Retaining edits made by the ip

I've retained the edits made by the ip (which Fowler removed) as they were fair. Can Fowler please explain how Pongal, Diwali and Holi are notable and good enough to merit a mention in the article but not Ugadi and Sankranti (I havent added Sankranti yet, but I will soon add)?? Pongal is the harvest festival in Tamil Nadu and Sankranti is the harvest festival in Karnataka. So how is Pongal more notable than Sankranti?? Similarly, Ugadi is new year day in Karnataka and Andhra. How on earth do you think that it is not 'notable'?? How is Yakshagana not notable?? Yakshagana to its eternal credit has also given birth to Kuchipudi. Do not revert edits if you dont understand something. And please do not bite. And nobody really should be expected to explain edits like this on talk, least of all newbies. These are common sense/common knowledge edits. Just because an article is FA is no reason to prevent common sense edits. Sarvagnya 03:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I only reverted one edit that changed "Carnatic music" to a vernacular version and I said that name changes should be discussed on the talk page. The other reversions happened because we were editing at the same time and I wasn't aware of the ip's rapid fire edits. Many apologies. As for explaining edits, my understanding is that unexplained edits by ips and vandals is what required this recent rollback and extra work by users Nichalp, Saravask, and others. (See Rollback ) Fowler&fowler 04:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. With respect, this article is a summary. It is not a grouping of vast, comprehensive lists. This is why, out of hundreds of Indian writers, only Tagore is mentioned. Readers can get details on others from Indian literature. Another example: [1]. Endless expansion of what are meant to be lists of a few selected examples helps explain the article's spectacular degradation over the past few months. I'm certain that the anon meant well. But his additions were poorly written and failed to use proper naming conventions. However, it is not our job to give each one an 'A' for effort, allowing their endless additions to stand. Our purpose is to point readers to selected and salient examples, not to cause their eyes to glaze over from witnessing a zoo of details. Saravask 04:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Everybody knows it is a summary. Tagore is mentioned because he is a nobel prize winner and hence is arguably more 'notable' than other literatteurs. But with the festivals its different. If Diwali and Pongal can be 'notable', so can Ugadi and Sankranti. I see that my edits have been reverted(I dont know by whom) and I consider these bad faith and sneaky reverts especially given that neither is it mentioned in the edit summaries nor has it been said on talk. Please put them back. I'm signing off now. I'll take another look tomorrow. Sarvagnya 07:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Ever so sorry, but you apparently missed the lengthy explanation provided by user: Saravask in his revert: (Culture - rv -- replacing bulky list with the four most widely celebrated holidays listed at List of Indian holidays; add any others to subarticles.) Fowler&fowler 07:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Four most widely celebrated holidays? eh! And hth did you decide Sankranti and Ugadi were not widely celebrated, but Pongal and Holi were! Sarvagnya 15:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

And talking of most widely celebrated festivals, Ganesh Chaturthi doesnt even figure!! What kind of list is that? Either get your facts right or let people who know do the editing. Sarvagnya 15:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear user Sarvagyna, I have my sympathies. Please work on the List of Indian holidays page. Establish authoritatively what the four most popular festivals are and we'll include them instead. Meanwhile for the India page, brevity will remain the overarching compact. Warm regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

This edit borders on vandalism — a section heading has been removed while grammatical flubs and eyesores have been introduced. I've already discussed my opposition to the unsourced listcruft, and I will continue to revert such bad edits in the future. Regards. Saravask 16:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Obviously it happened by mistake while being in a hurry to revert POV pushing and misinformed reverts. No need to call it vandalism. Sarvagnya 16:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not need to 'authoritatively' establish that my additions to the list of festivals are as popular if not more popular than those that you have listed. If you want, you go read up on relevant books, talk to people and do the 'establishing' yourself. A list of 'most popular' Indian festivals without Ganesh Chaturthi in it is the most ridiculous thing I've seen on Wikipedia so far. Sarvagnya 16:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear user Sarvagnya, Thank you for your input. Please don't insert messages out of (time) order--it can be confusing to readers. Please address user by name instead. I have rearranged the messages in time order. Wikipedia's recommendations on Talk page layout are given here. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Sarvagnya, we want to list only the festivals with the highest brand recollect. So while Diwali, Dussera and Holi are very popular, user:Sundar a few others and I came to the understanding that N Indian festivals were dominating the list, and the most recognizable S Indian one be also added to balance it. There is no point adding any more to the list, Ugadi is hardly a festival celebrated outside S India (I have never heard of it to be frank, and I do have friends from the region where the festival is celebrated). The current list is ok, we don't want bloat. Please do something about the quality of articles instead of unnecessary rants. Thanks! =Nichalp «Talk»= 01:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• This is what I call introducing systemic bias into Wikipedia even where it can be avoided. What do u mean brand recollect? Holi's 'brand recollect' is thanks to Amitabh Bachan dancing in a rain of colours more than anything else. Bollywood propogates systemic biases and stereotypes and you perpetuate it on Wikipedia. The government of India neglects the North East and basically the hindi belt hogs a lion's share of the media space and you faithfully reproduce it here. This has to stop.
• Sankranti/Ugadi-Pongal : What extraordinary discussions did you all have and how did you conclude that Pongal has more 'brand recollect'(whatever thats supposed to mean) than Ugadi or Sankranti. When you say you havent even heard about Ugadi, you are emphatically confessing that you know next to nothing about Indian festivals. Ugadi is the Kannada new year day. Also the Telugu new year day. Sankranti is the Karnataka harvest festival. Pongal is the Tamil Nadu state harvest festival. So how is Pongal more 'notable' than Sankranti?? Both are confined to their own respective states. Infact, Sankranti(more precisely Makar Sankranti) unlike Pongal, I am sure is celebrated in other parts of India also. Ugadi, Sankranti and Dasara are government holidays in Karnataka. Ugadi is a government holiday in Andhra also. Holi, in most parts of India including all of South is a 'restricted' holiday.
• To be frank, I am flabbergasted that even common sense, common knowledge edits like this is being met with such stiff resistance even from admins who surely should know better than acting like they 'own' articles. Fowler so very condescendingly asks me to establish 'authoritatively' that my entries are valid. I think WP:citing sources doesnt require me to establish 'authoritatively' anything that is common sense or common knowledge. And Ganesh Chaturthi not finding a place on a list of India's most widely celebrated festivals has got to be the biggest joke I've heard in a long time. How did this article even make it to FA?
• Forget this small issue of list of festivals, even the rest of this article and many other India-related articles elsewhere on Wiki also reek of the kind of systemic bias I've described above(the north east is all but forgotten just like in the real world. that, to me is sad)
• As senior editors and admins here, people like you and Svarask etc., should do a little more 'listening'. I was aghast that Sundar somewhere even prayed for special controls on newbies. I am sure he meant well for the article, but certainly such ideas dont augur well for WP. This is supposed to be the encyclopedia 'anybody can edit'. That is what Jimbo Wales says. But unfortunately, I have to say that in reality WP has in some places has degenerated into its own small isolated fiefdoms. Sarvagnya 02:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• And how did you decide that Pongal is the most recognisable South Indian festival? Why not Ugadi? Why not Onam? Sarvagnya

• Sarvagnya, I'm right now on limited Internet access, but let me clarify two points quickly. First of all, I never claimed more notability for Pongal than Ugadi. At that time, there were only North Indian festivals listed and I wanted some prominent S. Indian festivals be listed. (I remember that my request included Onam and Ugadi.) For Pongal, the reason why I wanted it to be mentioned was because I felt it was more a "secular" festival than Deepavali, Christmas, etc., that were listed. I think it was subsequently removed that it's a secular festival. In fact, in /archive 8#Use of Infosys Photograph and elsewhere, I have requested for more uniform representation for S.India nad NE India. Until, Saravaskpointed out that Pongal is being celebrated in AP as well (apart from TN and Kerala), I never even thought that it could be more widely celebrated than Ugadi.
• Regarding my comment on controls for newbies, let me put it in perspective. I only suggested a mechanism to prevent "massive changes" to a "featured article like India" by newbies "without prior discussion". This pretty much applies to any user, but established users have the barrier in terms of bad name that prevents them from making undiscussed massive controversial edits, which is absent for newbies. That's about it. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 07:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Interestingly, I just found that I was very reluctant to add Pongal to the list in the first place!

From User_talk:Nichalp/Archive9#India_page_images:

• Let's raise issues in a softer tone without presuming others to be adversaries. As for the prose, I'm in favour Arvind's suggested version. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 07:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Sundar, I never presumed you or anyone else to be an adversary. In fact, given my previous interactions with you, I was fairly certain that you wouldnt have made such a claim(for Pongal being included ahead of others I've been making a case for). That was precisely why I've asked more than once for Saravask, Fowler, Nichalp et al to point me to the conversation that took place. None of them had done it. Now, that you've pointed me to it, I see that my guess was right and that what they were saying about this conversation was 'factually incorrect', not to mention that they used 'factually incorrect' information to gain what I see as a bargaining advantage in this discussion. Sarvagnya 20:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• And as for Pongal being celebrated in AP, I think I've established from Telugu sources(including te.wiki) that it is called 'Sankranti' in telugu and not Pongal. Infact, if you observe on te.wiki, there is not even an article for "Pongal" while there is one for "Sankranti". "Pongal" is not even a redirect to "Sankranti" on te.wiki, where I think its safe to presume that mostly native telugu people work. Sarvagnya 20:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• As for your comment about newbies, I've said that 'I am sure you meant well'. Sarvagnya 20:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I read your comments. You seem to be confused on several points. So let's set the record straight:

• Pongal is the Tamil Nadu state harvest festival ... No. It is celebrated across most of South India, not just in TN. Most of Andhra Pradesh (75 million people) celebrates it. In many regions of AP (Vijayawada, etc.), it's called "Pongal" ("Pongal" is not just a Tamil word; it's also a word in Telugu); in other regions (Hyderabad), it is called "Sankranti". It is the same festival with the same calendar date and the same types of food, designs, offerings, etc. By the way, in AP (the biggest and most populous state in South India), Pongal is more important than Ganesh Chaturthi, Onam, etc (Onam is confined to Kerala, and is a truly regional festival). That's probably why Sundar and Nichalp decided Pongal is most representative of South India.
• See one and two. Hope this helps. Saravask 05:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Saw both links. And no. It doesnt help. Because Pongal is not just a festival. Apart from Pongal-the festival, there is also a Pongal - the popular food preparation. Your google fight obviously doesnt make a distinction between the two. And no. It is NOT 'Pongal' in AP, it is 'Sankranti'. And Sankranti or Makar Sankranti is celebrated all over India and even Nepal. Refer Sankranthi. Sarvagnya 05:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

You can say what you like, but where I was born, it definitely was called "Pongal". We never called it "Sankranthi". And the food is referred to as "pongali", not "pongal". Saravask 05:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Saravask, please refer to the disambiguation message put in Pongal article. The dish name too is Pongal.

Thanks. - KNM ^Talk 06:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Sarvask, you can say what you like and I dont know where you were born, but the dish is certainly called Pongal and not Pongali as you can see in the link that KNM has pointed out above. And in any case, I am not sure if your google fight can make out the difference between pongali and pongal. Sarvagnya 06:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add few points here.

Makar Sankranti, Sankranthi and Pongal all are same and is the biggest harvest festival in India. It is called as Makar Sankranti in North-India, Sankranthi in Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, and Pongal in Tamilnadu. It would be lot more logical and neutral, if we include the name as Sankranti which contains a) links to all these three names, along with b) the information on, in which region what name is used. Also, please refer to this and this regarding more details on this festival.

Ugadi is one of the most widely celebrated festivals and also new year day in Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and Karnataka.

To be noted that, it is the first day of the Hindu calendar year (first day of the first month, "Chaitra").

This citation says, it is the most important festival for Hindus.

More details on Ugadi is here and here.

Ganesh Chaturthi is certainly one among the most widely celebrated among the festivals of India and is known for the celebration all over the world, by Hindus. Please refer to this.

More importantly, it is not a regional festival and is one among the very few festivals which are celebrated in each and every place of India, unlike the other regional festivals. Please refer to this and this.

Also, it is the festival which has historical importance to India. With the efforts from Balgangadhar Tilak the festival was started being celebrated publicly. Please refer to this.

I believe this is more than enough to establish the required notability to include Ganesh Chaturthi, Sankranti and Ugadi in the culture section of this article.

I propose to have the below five festivals instead of the four currenly existing in the article now.

Ganesh Chaturthi, Diwali, Sankranti, Dussehra, Ugadi. Thanks. - KNM ^Talk 05:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Here are the results of Google boolean search (to avoid confusion between festival and food/recipe). Note that Dussehra/Dusshera and Sankranti/Sankranthi are alternate spellings.

1. "diwali festival -food -recipe" 557,000
2. "holi festival -food -recipe" 331,000
3. "pongal festival -food -recipe" 86,400
4. a) "dussehra festival -recipe -food -dusshera" 60,000 b) "dusshera festival -recipe -food -dussehra" 10,300. Total 70,300
5. "ganesh chaturthi festival -food -recipe" 63,700
6. a) "sankranti festival -food -recipe -sankranthi" 38,600. b) "sankranthi festival -food -recipe -sankranti" 676. Total: 39,276
7. "ugadi festival -food -recipe" 25,000

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

PS Dussehra has a number of other spellings that add another 5,000 to it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous exercise in futility. Google fights are no way to establish notability of Indian festivals. I think KNM's links establish enough notability and I will be making the changes accordingly. Also I should point out that while I have been harassed for proof, I see no proof from fowler, sarvask and co for the edits already there. And btw(Fowler), if it was sarcasm that you were attempting by your nonsensical search strings, should just say that you failed miserably. Sarvagnya 15:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It's no more ridiculous than referring to "www.udupipages.com" a as a bona-fide "citation" (e.g., what reliable sources did they reference? Who wrote it?). As for your "approach", all the other links turn out to merely be normative descriptions making no referenced or authoritative statements on the relative importance of the relatively obscure festivals you are shilling for. Do try again. Saravask 16:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Talking of google fights, here's some links -
  

[2]-Sankranti in te. script

[3] - Pongal in te. script. Guess these links speak for themselves.

• Also note the first hit for "పొంగల్"(Pongal in telugu script). Also note what the wikipedia article for "సంక్రాంతి"(Sankranti reads). It reads,

".... ఆంధ్ర ప్రదేశ్, కర్ణాటక లలో సంక్రాంతి అని; తమిళనాడు లో పొంగల్ అని; మహారాష్ట్ర, గుజరాత్ లలో మకర్‌సంక్రాంతి అని..."

• which means, "....sankranti in andhra pradesh, karnataka, pongal in tamil nadu, makar sankranti in maharashtra, gujarat..." Sarvagnya 16:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Another link which shows what telugu people call the festival. సంక్రాంతి గ్రీటింగ్ కార్డులు - Sankranti greeting cardulu reads the title of the page. Obscure. huh. Sarvagnya 16:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, you can dig up all the unreliable junk links you want ("www.telupu.com", etc.), since finding "proof" on the internet is rather like reading entrails or interpreting scripture — for any given argument you want to make, you're sure to find sites "confirming" it. I've already stated how my region contrasts with your blanket stereotypes of AP. But the real issue is not regional variations among Andhra people; rather it regards how the majority of Indians refer to their holidays and which four holidays they most celebrate. In the absence of definitive, authoritative rankings (which you have repeatedly failed to provide), Fowler's binaries are the next best thing. They gauge empirically how Indians themselves refer to their holidays; further, unlike selected sets of dubious links, they are absolute and cannot be manipulated. And the binaries strongly suggest that pongal and the other four holidays selected by Nichalp and Sundar are by far the more common festival names. Your attempts to obfuscate this fact by pasting handfuls of self-selected and non-authoritative links is approaching the point of disruption. Saravask 21:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

A few quick points:

• Sankranti, Makara Sankranti, and Pongal are the same festival, and the festival is celebrated all over India. However, it's only called Pongal in Tamil (historically, also in some parts of AP, but that usage is dying / has died out), so it doesn't make sense to refer to it as Pongal in this article. It seems to me that it would make most sense to use a descriptive name and call it "the midwinter harvest festival", which we pipelink to Sankranthi. The reason I would prefer not to use just "Sankranthi" in the article is that that term, technically speaking, refers to *any* movement of the sun from one asterism to another, and if you're an orthodox Hindu, there actually are observances for just about every Sankranti. There are certain tarpanams and shraddas for Mesha Sankranti and Tula Sankranti, some others for Krakata sankranti, and so on. "Midwinter harvest festival" avoids impreciseness, and is also more descriptive to the average uninformed westerner (who, at the end of the day, are likely to be the people reading this). I do not feel very strongly about this, however, this is just a suggestion.
• As far as TN goes, everyone celebrates Pongal - Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Tamil Jains, Bahais and Dravidian rationalists. I'm not sure how it works in other states, but at any rate it is not an exclusively "Hindu" festival, and shouldn't be classified as such. This I do feel strongly about.
• Similarly, for the New Year: my suggestion would be to simply say "the various Indian New Year's days", and link to a disambiguation page which lists all the New Years celebrated in India. Otherwise, believe me, there will be quite a bit of bickering about whether more people celebrate the March lunar new year (Ugadi, Padwa, Cheti Chand), or the April solar new year (Bihu, Baisakhi, Vishu, Noboborsho, Varudappirappu). Speaking in more general terms avoids this, and also lets us include things like the Gujarati new year, the various Parsi New Years, etc. Again, only a suggestion which you can take or leave as you see fit.
• I think talking about "balancing" the section by mentioning something from the South is ridiculous. The North-East is being totally ignored in this section. Apart from a token reference to Manipuri (which is anyway recognised as being a classical dance), there's nothing about north-eastern culture. Nothing. Not a thing. Just because the majority of Indians haven't heard about the Lai Haraoba festival it's not a notable part of Indian culture?
• Finally, the next sentence - "India has three national holidays" - is a little silly as it stands. Either say what they are, or take the sentence out. Needless to say, only my opinion. -- Arvind 19:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, Arvind. Finally someone who share my concern on what I call systemic bias. I know that information about North East is not easy to find as there arent as many websites and 'national' newspapers and blogs covering that part of the country as you would find for say, the south or west or north of the country. But in such cases, an article like this shouldnt make it past a peer review. How did this make it past the peer review and become an FA. I am sure an FAR is not too far away in the future.

The token references that are made for the NE is almost 'condescending' and is almost like we are doing them a big favour by even talking about them. And by following the stupid 'google fight' logic I dont think 'Lai Haraoba', 'Bihu' etc., will make it into this article any time in the near future, if ever. This simply is no way to write such an important article in an encyclopedia.

And Arvind, as for your comment about Tula Sankranti etc., I am sure that in many parts of the country the term used is 'Sankramana'. But then I am not averse to your idea of creating diambig pages like 'Harvest festivals of India', 'Various New Year days in India' etc., and linking to those. I also think that it would be a good idea.

But then, who will bell the cat? Even making the smallest of changes to the article is being met with such stiff opposition. Sarvagnya 20:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The article deals with India as a whole. I don't see how there is a systemic bias where NE India is concerned. There are references to NE India in the article including an image from Arunachal Pradesh. The article is meant to summarise the salient points of India, and NE India as a specific reference has been omitted. This is also true for Gujarat, Goa, Maharashtra, Punjab and a lot of other states. Starting with the history section, note that only events that have made a difference to India today are mentioned. All specific references to anything else are omitted. We have a mention of NE India in the geography (Himalayas and the Brahmaputra), and an indirect mention in Demographics. So the talk about systemic bias is really loud a pitch to be valid for this article.

Now when we talk about culture, we are talking about the most well known aspects of the country. No matter how much you may speak about the Lai Haraoba ishei festival, it is NOT a mainstream festival. If such festivals were to be added, it would open the floodgates to people adding minor festivals such as Navroze, Losar, Loosong etc. This is why we are limiting the number of festivals to just the most significant. Now measuring the popularity of festivals is an impossible task, so we've just included a maximum of the three most well known ones to illustrate this point. Please read Wikipedia:Summary style before accusing us of being pseudo conspiracy thoeorists, introducing systemic biases, owning articles, and what not. We admins are here to guide you on wikipolicy, why we defend certain reversals, and discuss matter on talk. Please do assume good faith in the future, and learn the ropes of the trade from senior admins. Thanks =Nichalp «Talk»=

This is how I would have written the bit about festivals:

Festivals and celebrations are an important part of Indian culture. Major Hindu, Christian and Muslim festivals, such as Diwali, Christmas, and Eid-ul-Fitr, are celebrated nationwide by the respective religions, as is the more secular midwinter harvest festival. Each region of India has celebrations peculiar to it, some of which - such as Kerala's Onam and the various New Year's days - are secular, whilst others are religious. India also has three national celebrations, marking the anniversaries of independence, the republic, and the birth of Mahatma Gandhi.

In my opinion, this represents Indian culture much better than the present article does but, at the end of the day, given your contributions to India-related stuff on Wikipedia, your judgment is probably much better than mine. I think standard definitions of "mainstream" are a source of systemic bias (Lai Haroba isn't mentioned on Holidays in India or Hindu festivals either), but that's obviously a personal opinion, and, again, you probably know better. -- Arvind 12:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I support Arvind here. The paragraph above looks and reads much better than the one currently exists in the article, and is concise as well. Only change I would suggest in the above paragraph is the usage of word "specific" instead of "peculiar". - KNM ^Talk 17:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I support Arvind's writeup with some minor changes(I've bolded my changes). This version I think, is more concise, NPOV and doesnt rely on such esoteric concepts as 'brand recollect' that lesser mortals dont understand. - Festivals and celebrations are an important part of Indian culture. Major Hindu, Christian and Muslim festivals, such as Diwali, Christmas, and Eid-ul-Fitr, are celebrated nationwide by the respective religions, as are the more secular midwinter harvest festivals. Each region of India has celebrations unique to it, some of which - such as Kerala's Onam and the various New Year's days - are secular, whilst others are religious. India also has three national celebrations, marking the anniversaries of independence, the republic, and the birth of Mahatma Gandhi. Sarvagnya 22:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Sarvagnya, you should get Fowler and Nichalp to comment also. My views:

• Replace "independence" with "Independence Day", "republic" with "Republic Day", etc. No need for such easter-egg linking.
• Condense for flow. Cut phrasing like "by the respective religions" and "marking the anniversaries of".
• Replace "Mahatma Gandhi" with "Gandhi Jayanti".
• List Eid-ul-Fitr before Christmas and Muslim before Christian (there are more Muslims than Christians).
• The Indian Harvest Festivals page needs to be created and linked to the various regional names (sankranthi, makar sankranthi, pongal, etc.) on an equal basis. It can be a dab page if you wish.
• The phrase "Each region of India has celebrations unique to it, some of which - such as Kerala's Onam and the various New Year's days - are secular, whilst others are religious" should be condensed to "Each of India's regions host festivals unique to it, such as Kerala's Onam and various New Year's days" or something of similar length. Onam is not a truly secular festival (the underlying legends are Hindu), so no need to discuss those distinctions here.
• Don't bold and italicise for emphasis unless WP:MOS mandates it — "unique" should be "unique".
• Please use — for dashes, not - per WP:DASH#Dash guidelines for Wikipedia editors.

Let me know. Thanks. Saravask 18:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Saravask, I bolded some parts of my post above only to indicate where I was different from Arvind. It was meant only for the talk page and I never meant it to be used on the article page. Sarvagnya 20:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I've also been gently informed that some Keralite Muslims have begun lobbying against their community's celebration of Onam on the grounds that it's Hindu, so I'd strike that out and just leave the new year days in. As far as the style goes, I'm increasingly coming to the conclusion that my natural style doesn't fit :en's guidelines, two FAs notwithstanding, so do what you will with the text. -- Arvind 21:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Sarvagnya, I agree with pretty much everything Saravask says above. Please also get Nichalp's views. Here is my take:

• The sentence "Festivals and celebrations are an important part of Indian culture" is fluff. Find me a culture where that's not true. I think a version of Nichalp's (?) present one is better. (See below).
• Mentioning only Diwali, Eid, and Christmas, while admirable in its religious egalitarianism, distorts the reality that India is still a predominantly Hindu country. I think Holi and Dugra Puja/Dussehra need to be mentioned. All the evidence I have—Britannica, Encarta, and Google—points to this. In other words a Martian spending the year in India and equipped with the above information might get a tad confused by the reality that unfolds.
• "Each region of India has a celebration unique to it" again borders on the tautological.
• If you want to change Pongal/Sankranthi to Indian Harvest Festivals, it would be fine by me.
• You might consider having a simliar disambig. page for Indian Regional Festivals.

Here's a version, I'd be more comfortable with. It is shorter (72 words to your 84) and packs in more information. If you don't like "ubiquitous" (although I think it is more evocative of reality), you could change it to "numerous."

Indian festivals come in a large variety, with many celebrated by all castes and creeds. The major ones include the Hindu festivals of Diwali, Holi, and Durga Puja/Dussehra; the Muslim and Christian festivals of Eid ul-Fitr and Christmas; and the more secular Indian Harvest Festivals. Among the ubiquitous regional festivals are Kerala's Onam and various New Year's days. In addition, India has three national holidays: Independence Day, Republic Day, and Gandhi Jayanti.

If you create a "regional festivals" dab page, you could link to it. Thanks for making the effort to get consensus.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I wouldn't expect an article on Israel to name the most common Jewish festivals or one on France to list the most common Catholic feasts. I'd expect them to focus on things connected to the country rather than the dominant religion. This applies equally to India - I'd expect the page to mention that the standard Hindu festivals are celebrated in India, but to focus on celebrations *unique* to India rather than those that're simply part of Hinduism. So I see the fact that there are a number of religious *and* secular regional festivals as more significant than the names of the standard Hindu festivals (for which we have the page on Hinduism), but you clearly don't. Since I'm quite out of step with the mainstream view on this one, and since we've spent a horrendous amount of time on one *extremely* trivial sentence for no particular reason (especially given that the culture section's failure to mention anything about painting and sculpture is probably a much more important issue than naming Moastu), I'll shut up and wander off to work on other, more productive things. -- Arvind 01:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not happy with the draft that says Diwali, Holi and Dussera are celebrated by Hindus, and Christmas by Christians. For a non-Indian national reading it, it gives the impression that only Hindus celebrate these festivals, and Christmas is only restricted to Christians. The actual ground situation as we all know is very different. Diwali may be a Hindu festival, but it is celebrated irrespective of religion. Similarly, Christmas is celebrated across the country, even in places where the Christian population is almost negligible. Even secular occasions such as Valentine's Day is celebrated across the country. I like Arvind's version which mentions the harvest festivals and various New Years. I feel that is more representative of the nature of Indian festivals. And when listing examples of any, listing more than three is an overkill. This applies to all sections. And painting and sculpture can certainly be added. Thanks Arvind! =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, Nichalp, I am confused by what you are saying now. Arvind's version is the one that says: "Major Hindu, Christian and Muslim festivals, such as Diwali, Christmas, and Eid-ul-Fitr, are celebrated nationwide by the respective religions ..." I simply used "Hindu" to give some context to Diwali or Holi for a new reader. How about the following consensus draft?

Indian festivals come in a large variety, with the major ones celebrated nationwide. These include the Hindu festival of Diwali, the more secular Indian Harvest Festivals, the Muslim festival Eid ul-Fitr, and Christmas. Among the ubiquitous regional festivals are Kerala's Onam and various New Year's days. In addition, India has three national holidays: Independence Day, Republic Day, and Gandhi Jayanti.

How does this sound to everyone? Down to 61 words now. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

"Festivals in India are celebrated with pomp and ___. Festivals in India celebrate the new years of various religions, the harvest, and the end of the monsoon. Some of the largest festivals in India are Hindu festivals of Diwali, Dussera and Holi, which are celebrated irrespective of religion."

A rough draft on what I meant =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I think I understand what you and Saravask meant by the text becoming too "listy." Cool. I like your version, but would bag the dussehra and add Id and Xmas, maybe with vignettes. I can complete "pomp" with "circumstance" or "pageantry," but they don't sound right. How about "ritual and fanfare?" Or, something like that. So, here's a possible rework.

Festivals in India are celebrated with both ritual and fanfare. They celebrate the new year's of various religions, the harvest, and the end of the monsoon. Some of the largest festivals cut across religious lines and include the Hindu festival of lights Diwali and water festival Holi, both increasingly boisterous outdoors celebrations; the Id, when Muslims distribute sweet vermicelli seviyan to their neighbours; and Christmas, when tinsel trees appear in shop windows.

BTW, in South Asia "Eid" is spelled "Id." Everyone, please feel free to amend. Too wordy? Feel free to chop down. Too commercial? Feel free to fix. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

PS. If you still only want 3 festivals listed, then throw out Holi. Thanks also to Arvind and Savagnya for railing against lists. I understand now. Let's get this show on the road. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Does Afghanistan border India?

Unless they want enervating editing wars, readers should come to some consensus on Afghanistan as a neighbour of India. I would lean towards not including Afghanistan, but having a footnote explaining India's claim over Pakistan's disputed Northern Areas which border Afghanistan. (Note: Jammu and Kashmir page itself doesn't mention Afghanistan as a neighbour!) That seems to be the convention: mention the administering country in the text and describe the dispute in the footnote. See the pages on K2, Eight-thousander, Nanga Parbat, Karakoram Highway, Khunjerab Pass.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Without some sort of explanatory note providing background info, it's an unbalanced POV. I don't know why people are making these sorts of unhelpful edits when this article is lacking in several important areas. For example, where is India#Flora and fauna? Why not contribute to creating it? Saravask 19:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

(I'm happy to work on Flora and Fauna. Since this talk is about another topic, will ask more questions on your talk page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC) )

The footnote serves its purpose ever since September 2004, and has not been revised ever since. Indian administered territory does not border Afghanistan, but the claimed territory does. So, as per the ground situation, a footnote is more logical than in the lead. =Nichalp «Talk»= 00:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, since the Kashmir issue is not solved, and India considers the whole of J&K as an integral part of India and hence Afghanistan is a neighbour of India. Since POK is under the administration of Pakistan at the moment a footnote can be added to provide details of that. Chanakyathegreat 03:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is not really about what the Indian Govt considers, but rather the ground reality in the world. It would be unrealistic to claim that India borders Afghanistan, even if the Indian Govt claim is as such. In reality, the part bordering Afghanistan is actually under Pakistani control, and until that changes, the article should not claim this. Other nations have different viewpoints, for example, Pakistan may consider Kashmir not to be part of India, and China may have claims about Arunachal pradesh. Like I said, the articles need to reflect ground reality, and NOT what each Govt thinks/claims. The status quo mentioned by Nichalp above serves just that, i.e. reflects the real status, while mentioning Indian Govt's claims in the footnote. Thanks. --Ragib 04:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Looking only at the ground reality, The Waziristan region which is under the control of the Taliban as a seperate nation and hence add all those areas bordering it as neighbours of Waziristan, or the areas under the control of Baluchistan Liberation Army as a seperate nation of Baluchistan.

The neighbour relationship is not just related to the boundary. The distance between India and Afghanistan under present condition is only 90km. At such close proximity, Afghanistan can be called as a neighbour.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/464689.cms

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4897406.stm Chanakyathegreat 14:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

But, you just added "India borders Afghanistan", which is NOT what you argued for above (where you talk about "neighbours", which is not really a bordering country). There is no border between India and Afghanistan as of now. So, adding that is misinformation, and a POV. Please show the existence of the border before adding Afghanistan as a country that borders India. I'm restoring the status quo about this. Thank you. --Ragib 15:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

India is surely a neighbour of Afghanistan. I did not notice the border present there which i will be changing with neighbour to accomodate Afghansitan, which is very important from a geograhical point of view. So close to Afghanistan geographically and the historical relation with that nation makes the presense of Afghanistan in this article a necessity. Thank you. Chanakyathegreat 03:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

How is India surely a neighbour of Afghanistan? Use the following metric to determine if India borders Afghanistan: 1. Can a person within Indian-administered territory walk into Afghanistan by crossing a single boundary. The answer is no, as Indian-administered territory does not border AFG. The footnote explains the actual situation. (real vs virtual bordering). Historic and cultural ties are not the same as geographical boundaries. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Neigbhour is different from bordering nation. The bordering nation is a neighbour along with those who is close by like Afghanistan. Tell me why the BBC reported added India as a neighbour of Afghansitan? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4897406.stm

Chanakyathegreat 12:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The lead is talking about the bordering (land) nations. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Chanakyathegreat

• First of all, you can't arbitrarily change "shares borders with" to "neighbour." Find me a country other than an island country that mentions neighbours in the lead. Look at the pages for: France, Germany, Austria, Czech Republic and Switzerland in Europe, Ecuador, Peru, Colombia, Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina in South America, and Iran, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Uzbekistan and Afghanistan in Asia, they all only mention bordering countries, not neighbouring countries.
• Speaking of Afghanistan, they (i.e. the Afghanistan page) do not mention India as a bordering country, but have a footnote, mentioning the Kashmir dispute.
• Your BBC reference is not a valid reference. No matter how warmly Afghans feel towards India, it still does not affect the physical reality of the current borders—that you have to travel though Pakistan administered Northern Areas in order to land-travel from India to Afghanistan. The Northern Areas are 99.9% Muslim. No matter how the Kashmir dispute is eventually resolved (if it ever is), it is highly unlikely that the Northern Areas would go to India in a negotiated settlement

Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Just because other articles use borders and not neighbours does not mean that in the Indian article also the same must be done. There is no Wikipedia rules that states so.
• After the change in the Indian article the same will be modified in the Afghanistan article.
• Forget good relations, historical relations, now the only point is their addition as a neighbour since they are so close by.
• BBC reference is not valid? Has wikipedia rule states that BBC is not a valid reference. Regarding the 100% muslim point, let me tell you that it dosen't matter for India. India is a secular nation and not a fundamentalist nation.

Chanakyathegreat 03:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The article lead is talking about the countries that share a definable physical boundary with India, not countries in the vicinity which share cultural ties. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

User Fowler, Pls keep your political predictions off this discussion.-Bharatveer 04:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Bharatveer please remember wikipedia is founded on the principle of the neutral point of view =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

User:NichalP ,It looks like you accept that "No matter how the Kashmir dispute is eventually resolved (if it ever is), it is highly unlikely that the Northern Areas would go to India in a negotiated settlement" -from User fowler - is highly neutral -Bharatveer 08:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know that you were referring to that particular phrase. Well, I admit, it is not appropriate but you do not have to claim that I accept statements! Please do not assume implicity to be explicit. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Chanakyathegreat, The Wikipedia WikiProject on Countries (a project available at Wikipedia, with the purpose of providing a unified coordination of all country articles), has this to say:

• WikiProject:Countries (Lead Section) says: "The article should start with a good introduction, giving name of the country, location in the world, bordering countries, seas and the like." It does not say neighbouring countries.
• WikiProject:Countries:Template gives the template for the introductory sentences of a country page: "Xxxxx, officially the Yyyyyy of Xxxx (Republic of Xxxxx, or Kingdom of Xxxxxx, etc.), is a country located on the Xxxxx of Xxxx. It shares borders with Xxxx ..." (It does not talk about neighbouring countries.)

If you keep insisting on putting in "neighbouring" countries, we will have to go to arbitration. What you are proposing is against largely agreed Wikipedia convention on country pages.

Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Further editing on this subject, will not be made by me until there is clarification from the Wiki team on whether Neighbouring countires can be used or not. Chanakyathegreat 08:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It looks quite inappropriate to me to add "neighboring countries" just to justify the controversial addition of Afghanistan. Almost ALL other country pages list bordering countries, as per the guideline set by the Wikiproject Countries. How do you actually define a neighbor? That's quite a vague term. By that measure, all countries of South Asia are neighbors, and the information actually becomes useless. The Wikiproject countries guideline clearly mentions the bordering countries; quite rightfully as border is not a vague and imprecisely defined term. I suggest that you raise the question there to change the guideline and then make further modifications here. Thanks. --Ragib 09:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Bharat

What's the meaning and significance of the name "Bharat"? Hindu/Indus was explained well, but what about Bharat? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.135.60.33 (talk • contribs) .

The land of Emperor Bharata. This land was ruled by Bharata Also see Bharata (Ramayana)

Chanakyathegreat 15:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is Indus Valley even in this article?

Ok Lets get a few things straight. This is the history of MODERN INDIA, which is not the home of IVC, and the people of India have very little to do with IVC. IVC is a predominantly Pakistani civilisation, as it belongs to the people who HAVE ALWAYS LIVED IN PAKISTAN, regardless of what they now call themsleves.

Ancient India (including Pakistan) was a the name given to the entire sub continent. Ancient India (just modern India) only includes the history within its own borders. So please dont refer to IVC as Ancient India. Feel free to mention the settlements within India, but IVC is not Indian.

The Term "ancient Indian" should be changed to Ancient South Asian, or Ancient Pakistani, unless you are referring to history within Indias own borders.

I am willing to discuss this if you are. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Unre4L (talk • contribs) .

It was not only in ancient times that the area that is now Pakistan was part of India. That area was part of India during the lifetime of people now living. --BostonMA ^talk 22:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

India was a name given to the subcontinent. Ancient India was not a country.

India was created in 1947. Prior to that the region was called British India, and prior to that India was a name of the entire subcontiment, which contained counties of every ethnic group now living in south asia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Unre4L (talk • contribs) .

I think the consensus of editors is that this article is not merely about the state that came into existence in 1947. Have a nice day. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 00:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

If my history and geography serves me correct:

1. The River Indus partially flows through India
2. The inhabitants of the IVC had ethnic ties to people in southern India
3. The influence of the IVC extended into mordern day Gujarat and Rajasthan

Next, any history article deals with the the way the country has evolved ever since man has inhabited the greater portion of the territory, not from a sudden date when current boundaries are drawn. =Nichalp «Talk»= 00:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

____

Thats not what I am trying to say.

I am saying that Pakistan and India have never been part of the SAME country. They have been part of the same british Empire, and before that they were a part of the same subcontinent called India. And South Indians dont have ethnic ties to people in southern India. That theory was discarded. Indians make this claim aswell as saying that IVC is related to Hinduism, without any evidence.

New evidence suggestes that people of Punjab and Sindh are descendants of IVC, mixed with persians, arans, turks, muguls... Check out harappa.com

Please get this right. Pakistanis arent doing anything about this as they love to shun any pre Islamic history of theirs. I am half Indian and half Pakistani and I feel we should get this right. I know Indians dont want to side with Pakistan, but I think the evidence is overwhelming. Better change this with dignity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Unre4L (talk • contribs) .

____ You have sources for what you say? =Nichalp «Talk»= 01:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear BostonMA Unre4L, (Please sign your posts in the future. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC))I am not sure what part of harrapa.com you are talking about, but the section,

Indus Civilization Geography there, clearly says, "Indus civilization remnants have been discovered from as far south as Mumbai [Bombay], in Maharashtra State, India, and as far north as the Himalayas and northern Afghanistan."

Please provide the exact link on harrappa.com which supports your thesis, in the same way as I have above. Also, when you say, "people of Punjab and Sindh are descendants of IVC, mixed with persians, arans, turks, muguls," please clarify whether you mean "cultural" mix or a "genetic mix." And if you mean genetic mix (for example, the result of a 16S ribosomal RNA study) please cite paper and publication, not just harrappa.com. I should warn you genetic studies involving markers from present day inhabitants of the Harrappa region are not enough to establish your claim.

As for including Indus Valley Civilization in India, as user Nichkalp has stated above, country pages have a brief historical section. For example the France page mentions ancient Gaul which included present-day northern Italy, France, Belgium, western Switzerland and the parts of the Netherlands and Germany on the west bank of the Rhine river.

As the standard histories below (all searchable) show, Indus civilization is a part of the history of India.

• Keay, John. 2001. India: A History]. Harper Collins. 480 pages. ISBN 0006387845
• Kulke, Hermann and Dietmar Rothermund. 2004. A History of India. Routledge. 448 pages. ISBN 0415329205
• Wolpert, Stanley. 2003. A New History of India. Oxford University Press. 544 pages. ISBN 0195166787

Again, please provide exact references in the same way as I have. Warm regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

______________________________________

France existed at the time of the empire they have included themself in. Modern India did not exist in the era of IVC, and the capital cities of IVC are not in India. If you want to try and understand me, then please read this.

--- Lets for the sake of argument say that Germany changes its name to Europe. Does this give (the new) Europe right claim its history as “ancient European”, and include the Roman, British and Portuguese empire as its own? This is exactly what has happened in South Asia. Please read and discover the events.

“India” prior to 1947 was never a country. It was a name given to the entire subcontinent. When the British invaded the subcontinent, they grouped the entire region as a Country, and called it British India. This has lead to the misunderstanding that India before 1947 was one country. In 1947, two countries were born in South Asia. One of the countries took up the former name of the subcontinent, giving the impression that it was the “parent country”. Therefore it is important to note that Ancient Indian history is the history of Modern India. Not South Asia. IVC should be categorised under Ancient South Asian history if not Ancient Pakistani History

Indus valley is an interesting topic. Indians from all over the world seem to claim Indus valley civilisation as Indian history, because they are under the impression that modern India is the parent country, which was once the entire subcontinent of South Asia. Apart from the name, IVC has almost nothing to do with Modern India.

Indus Valley settlements are located all over Southern Asia. These include, Iran, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, northwest India, and of course Pakistan. However, the Main IVC cities, aswell as the majority are in Pakistan. The main ones being, Harappa and Mohenjodaro.

Many people argue that Pakistan was born in 1947. It doesn’t have an ancient history. Well the history belongs to the Pakistani people. They do have an ancient history. India has nothing to do with the Pakistani people, and it is absurd to let them claim the History of the Pakistani people. The people of Pakistan have always lived there. Indus Valley Civilisation history belongs to the people of Pakistan regardless what they call themselves. Boundaries changed, however the people didn’t.

There is no denying Pakistan was a part of British India, or the “Indian subcontinent” (aka South Asia), but referring to Pakistan’s ancient history as Ancient Indian history, is Very misleading, as the continent is no longer called India. India today is a modern country born in 1947, which has its own Ancient history limited to within the boundaries of Modern India. IVC can be referred to as Ancient South Asian history, if the approximate region of the civilisation needs to be given.

For the sake of correctness and knowledge of Ancient civilisations, I hope this misunderstanding can be corrected. Even the Ancient Indian history should be broken down into more detailed sub categories. India is the home to a lot of different people. Grouping the history of all these people to give the impression that India has always contained one group of people and Ancient Indian history belongs to this one group, is misleading.

This is the reason why it is incorrect to even label IVC as Ancient South Asian history. South Asia is home to 1.6 billion people, which is way too broad to describe the people of Indus valley, which is now Pakistan. Sure this is no harm in mentioning the settlements outside of Pakistan (India, Iran, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Kashmir), however one has to remember that Pakistan is the home of it.

Comment was added by Unre4L

____________________________

Here are some other articles to cover up what I have said. I cant help it if you decide to knock the articles because they are not written by Indian scholars. But instead read and understand the articles and it makes perfect sense. To satisfy you, the Geocities links include sources from hindu texts.

Harappans and Rig Vedic Aryans were NOT Hindu http://www.geocities.com/pak_history/nonhindu.html

Indian hijacking of Pakistan's history http://www.geocities.com/pak_history/hijack.html

Hindu Dharma and Pakistan http://www.geocities.com/pak_history/Hindu.html

Pakistani history is very different from indian history http://www.islamicaweb.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52631

Comment was added by Unre4L

______________________

Please don't keep changing the terms of your argument. I gave you the benefit of a dialog. You said the reference was on harrappa.com. I asked you to either provide me the exact reference on harrappa.com or if you are talking about studies involving genetic markers, provide the citation from a respected journal like Human Genetics or Genome Research. Outside of those references I am not interested in bogus sites on the web. My advice: if you are really earnest about your program, please first cut your teeth by writing to Oxford University Press, Harper Collins, and Routledge and get them to to take out the chapter on "Indus Valley Civilization" from the three books I cited above. When you are able to do that, I will be happy to talk to you. Until then, you will not hear a peep from me, no matter how eloquently you write on these pages. Good luck. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Unre4L, please provide credible sources to support your claim. webpages hosted by Geocities and forum threads are not notable or credible by any means. By our non-negotiable policy on citing credible sources (Wikipedia:No original research), we cannot entertain such claims. We hope you understand. Thanks! =Nichalp «Talk»= 02:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

___________________________________________________________________________

Like usual this is met with anger by Indians. I said try and understand it, but I can most people dont even read this. There is a misunderstanding, and to correct it, you want me to provide sources which are misunderstood. Harappa.com and Oxford sources do NOT say IVC is an Indian civilisation. It refers to Pakistan and India aswell as South Asia. The Article on Wiki says "India is the home of IVC" The article I write above makes perfect sense. There are no facts which need to be confirmed. If you are in doubt that look at a world map. I can provide sources for anything I wrote if you are in doubt.

But I didnt expect to get anywhere with people here. Normally Indians go on a flaming spree as soon as this topic is mentioned. Comment was added by Unre4L

Well, now you are saying something different and I don't disagree with the second half of your note with your sentiment that IVC belongs to South Asia. If you read the lead, you will notice, we are careful to say, "Home to the IVC, ..., the Indian subcontinent has a heritage ..." and not "... India has a heritage ..." and note that the subcontinent includes Pakistan and India. The history section did seem to imply that IVC was in Western India (as a result of an IP edit), I have changed that as well to Indian subcontinent. Part of the problem with the India page is that all sorts of people, who think that the family lore of their hazy childhood is the true version of history and feel obliged to educate us, keep tampering with the information. The editors are vigilant but the IPs still get away with it every now and then. Thanks for pointing it out. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a very rude and condescending remark to make about any person or community. Our comments are not infammatory, or angry, its just that we've challenged you to cite credible sources, and you fail to do so. 00:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

This Wikipedian ( UNRE4L) seems to making wild statments with absolutley no foundation. He claims to be " Half Pakistani" which would no doubt bend his arguments. I am not an Indian even I know that this person is playing the fool.He says that Pakistan was an independent state before 1947 ( not true), claims to have proof ( if he really had it, he would be sourcing it and shoing it like a crazed maniac trying to prove his arguments), and is merely arguing for the sake of arguing. UNRE4L, PLEASE, GIVE IT UP !!!!!!! DONT EMBARRAS YOURSELF ANY LONGER!!!! 124.184.238.71 21:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC) Excuse me,but that's not what he's(UNRE4L)is trying to say.Can you read maps?The ancient city of muhinjidaro is clearly located in Sindh,Pakistan MILES AWAY from the indian border.If the Greeks twisted the term "sindhu" into "india" so what?It's like saying the Iranian city of Mashad somehow becomes part of Iraqi heritage.And whoever said Sindhis are "related" to south indians,get your history right.I AM SINDHI.We are in no way related to South Indians.This is a site for knowledge.If changes are not made soon,Im afraid,they will have to be edited.Nadirali 22:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Nadirali ________________________________________________________________

I didnt insult anyone, so please dont start a flaming war. I didnt come here to make you guys believe, I was wanting people to understand, which seems to be a really hard thing to do. I DID NOT SAY Pak was an independent state before 1947. I was pointing out that prior to the British invasion of the subcontinent, there was no such thing as India and Pakistan. All the provinces you see were the countries. India was a name given to the subcontinent, which modern India named their nation to in 1947, thus claiming the history of the entire subcontinent and the provinces within it.

You have to understand, India only came into existence as a country because of the British. For the rest of time, India was the whole subcontinent, where the countries were the provinces we see today. -Punjab, SIndh, Balochistan, Gujrat, Nadu etc.

Please try to understand my point. I feel like you guys are asking for sources to prove that 2 + 2 = 4 Comment was added by Unre4L

If 2+2=4 sources should be easy to come by. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

He's given you his sources,exactly how many times do you want him to repeat himself?And you guys are starting to insult him.Nadirali 22:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Nadirali_____________________ _____________________________________________

Successor state

Please read the Successor state page and understand that concept. Pakistan seceeded from India on 14/Aug; its departure cannot transform India's own identity any more than the addition of Sikkim can generate for us a new identity. The secession of Bangladesh does not mean that the rump state did not remain Pakistan. Present-day India is recognized internationally as the successor state of the erstwhile empire: note that it retains the seat alloted to "India" in 1945 at the United Nations. This nuance of law was raised in discussions between the British, the Congress and the League in the run-up to partition and cannot be re-opened every other day. ImpuMozhi 02:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC) You speak as if Pakistan was a "part" of india.Had it not been for the British,there would be no India.This is wikipedia,we're discussing history here,not popular indian bollywood movies.Nadirali 22:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Nadirali

Britannica, Encarta, and Google on Major Hindu Festivals: New Compromise Language

I thought it would be a good idea to see what both Britannica and Encarta say about major Hindu festivals. Here is what I found:

• 1) Encyclopaedia Britannica: Hindu Festivals: India page says the following about major Hindu festivals:

  Virtually all regions of India have their distinctive places of pilgrimage, local saints and folk heroes, religious festivals, and associated fairs. There are also innumerable festivals associated with individual villages or temples or with specific castes and cults. The most popular of the religious festivals celebrated over the greater part of India are Vasantpanchami (generally in February, the exact date determined by the Hindu lunar calendar), in honour of Sarasvati, the goddess of learning; Holi (in February–March), a time when traditional hierarchical relationships are forgotten and celebrants throw coloured water and powder at one another; Dussehra (in September–October), when the story of the Ramayana is reenacted; and Diwali (Divali; in October–November), a time for lighting lamps and exchanging gifts. The major secular holidays are Independence Day (August 15) and Republic Day (January 26).

• 2) Encarta: Table of Major Hindu Festivals (arranged by time of year)
• Mahashivaratri 'Great Night of Shiva' when Shiva, his wife Parvati, and their child Ganesha are honored; offerings are made to Shiva between midnight and sunrise and the 24-hour fast is broken at dawn. 13th or 14th day of dark half of Magh (February/March)
• Sarasvati Puja Sarasvati, the patron of the arts and learning, is celebrated with music and by wearing yellow clothes, symbolizing the warmth of spring. First day of spring season (Phalgun)(February/March)
• Holi The pranks that Krishna played as a child are celebrated, and the story of Prahalad, a prince who was willing to sacrifice himself for Vishnu, is remembered; offerings are made around bonfires and colored water or powder is sprayed in high-spirited games. Full moon day of Phalgun (March)
• Rama Naumi Celebrates the birthday of the god Rama, hero of the epic Ramayana that is recited during the festival; offerings are also made in temples to a statue of the baby Rama. Ninth day of the bright half of Caitra (April)
• Ratha Yatra A statue of Vishnu, also called Jagganath, Lord of the Universe, is placed on a large wooden chariot and pulled through the streets where lamps, flowers, and other offerings are laid in his path. 16th day of Asadha (June/July)
• Raksha Bandhan Sisters tie rakhis, silk threads decorated with flowers, onto their brothers' wrists as a symbol of protection. Full moon day of Sravana (August)
• Janmashtami The birth of Krishna is celebrated as an image of the child Krishna is washed with yogurt, ghee, honey, and milk, and then placed on a swing. Eighth day of Bhadrapada (August)
• Navaratri Dusshera The festival of Dusshera follows immediately after Navaratri; over nine nights different manifestations of the goddess Durga are honored; in the form of Durga she is the destroyer of evil, as Kali she is the destroyer of time, and as Parvati she is the faithful wife of Shiva; at Dusshera, an effigy of the demon Ravana is burned to celebrate Durga's power over demons. First ten days of the bright half of Aswin (October)
• Divali (also spelled Diwali) Accounts are settled at this time and worship is given to Lakshmi, goddess of wealth and good fortune; colored patterns are made on the ground; windows are illuminated with lamps and candles; this festival also celebrates the return of Rama and Sita from exile, a story told in the Ramayana. 15th day of Kartika (October/November)

• 3) Google Boolean Search for various festivals:

• As I explained above, I did a Google Boolean search for each of the potential major festival. I should explain what this means. First of all, I am not on any side in this debate. I am not religious myself and have no stake in seeing any one festival listed over another. Initially, I must admit, I was trying to preserve the status quo, but today I thought it would be worth seeing what the numbers actually turn out to be--and I was surprised a little by the results. (Also, I am not trying to be sarcastic: believe me, if I were looking to be sarcastic, I would find a quicker way of doing it!)

• Let me then explain the syntax for the boolean search. When you type: "pongal -food -recipe" in the Google box, Google's (page rank) algorithm searches for all instances of the words "pongal" but discards the results that also have the words "food" or "recipe" in them. The "-" sign means "exclude." It is therefore a way of searching for only "pongal" (the festival) and not have it confused with "pongal (the food preparation). Similarly, when you are searching for diwali, which is also spelled divali, you have to search for "diwali -divali", "divali -diwali" and "divali diwali" (in other words, search for "divali but not diwali," then "diwali, but not divali," and then both "diwali and divali" together--that way you don't double count). The reason why I have elaborate strings like: "diwali -divali -puja -food -recipe" is that I have to standardize the search for all festivals. Here were the results of the Google search:

• diwali/divali:
  • "diwali -divali -puja -food -recipe" 1,470,000
  • "divali -diwali -puja -food -recipe" 229,000
  • Total: 1,699,000

(Since "diwali divali -puja -food -recipe" gives a small number (22,500) compared to the others, I am not bothering with the "both together" search; similarly for other festivals, where the numbers are even lower).

• Holi
  • "holi -puja -food -recipe" 1,490,000

• dussehra/dusshera/durga puja/navaratri/vijay dashmi:
  • "durga puja -recipe -food -dussehra -dusshera -vijay -dashmi -navaratri" 256,000
  • "dussehra -food -recipe -durga -puja -dusshera -vijay -dashmi -navaratri" 71,600
  • "navaratri -food -recipe -dussehra -dusshera -durga -puja -vijay -dashami" 44,000
  • "dusshera -food -recipe -durga -puja -vijay -dashmi -navaratri -dussehra" 14,300
  • "vijay dashmi -food -recipe -durga -puja -dusshera -dussehra -navaratri" 389
  • Total: 386,289

• pongal/sankranthi/makar sankranti:
  • "pongal -food -recipe -puja -sankranthi -makar -sankranti" 142,000
  • "sankranthi -food -recipe -puja -pongal -makar -sankranti" 36,500
  • "makar sankranti -food -recipe -puja -pongal -sankranthi" 17,700
  • Total: 196,200

• Shivaratri/Shivratri
  • "shivaratri -puja -recipe -food -shivratri" 67,300
  • "shivratri -puja -recipe -food -shivaratri" 44,500
  • Total: 111,800

• Ganesh Chaturthi
  • "ganesh chaturthi -puja -food -recipe" 98,400

• Janmashtami
  • "janmashtami -puja -food -recipe" 68,500

• Ugadi
  • "ugadi -puja -food -recipe" 65,000

I think it is fair to include only four festivals. In light of the results from 1) Encyclopaedia Britannica, Encarta, and the Google Search, I propose the following compromise:

The most widely celebrated include the Hindu festivals of Diwali, Holi, Durga Puja/Dussehra, and Pongal/Sankranthi. (in that order and with those spellings).

Unfortunately, Ganesh Chaturthi and Ugadi don't cut it. In order to include Ganesh Chaturthi, one would need to include Shivaratri (which is included in Encarta, while Ganesh Chaturthi is not; and which has more Google hits.) Similarly, in order to include Ugadi, one would need to include Janmasthmi (which is included in Encarta, while Ugadi is not; and which has more Google hits).

I feel that this is fair. I also feel that if further changes are made, or if people resort to more novel hermeneutics, then admins need to step in and restore the peace. But the India article cannot include everyone's each person's favorite Hindu festival.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

1. Can you please provide the hyperlinks to your google searches? ....and..
2. What is your logic for using strings like "ugadi -puja -food -recipe", "janmashtami -puja -food -recipe" etc.,. I hope you arent under the impression that there is a dish called "ugadi" and a dish called "janmashtami" on the lines of Pongal-the festival and Pongal-the dish. Sarvagnya 05:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

1. You don't need hyper links. Simply type: ugadi -puja -food -recipe in the Google box and see how many hits you get. The number of Google hits will appear on the top right hand side of the page.
2. The reason why I have to have elaborate strings like "ugadi -puja -food -recipe" is that all results need to be standardized. In other words, even though ugadi doesn't have a double life as a food preparation, in order to not give it an unfair advantage in the search, it has to be "weighed down" with the same handicaps as pongal. Since for pongal, I need to type: "pongal -food -recipe" (in order to tease out the festival from the food), I have to do the same for ugadi, even though I know that ugadi is not a food preparation. Similarly, the reason why "-puja" is there is that in the dussehra/durga puja/navaratri searches, I have to type: dussehra -durga -puja. So, the "-puja" ends up in all the searches in order to standardize the search. That way no one festival will have an unfair advantage.

If you have any other questions about the search strategy or about Google's page rank algorithm, I'll be happy to explain. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

PS Alternately, you can also go to Google's Advanced Search Website and type: "ugadi" in the top box (titled: with all of the words) and type: "puja food recipe" in the fourth box (titled: without the words) (don't use the "-" signs here, and don't use the quotation marks ""). Next click on "Google Search" and you will get approximately 65,000 hits. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

@Fowler So you are using google as the yard stick to measure the popularity? Ok, letz search Angelina Jolie, we get 361,000 hits where as for Angelina Jolie pussy 1,330,000; what an irony! Angelina Jolie's pussy is almost 4 times popular than Angelina Jolie herself. Stop the crap and talk sense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.217.43.138 (talk • contribs) .

Your language might constitute vandalism/obscenity, but in case it doesn't, you have your facts wrong. The Google search for "Angeline Jolie" yields 5,160,000 hits and not 361,000 as you indicated. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, there's no need for such vulgar examples. You might help your argument more by getting a book or encyclopedia ref. Thanks. Saravask 19:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Quick note on Encarta's list: Rath Yatra is no more a 'festival' than the Brahmotsava at Tirupati or even the "Kumbh Mela" - both of which I am fairly certain attract larger numbers than the Rath Yatra at Puri. Brahmotsava even has a govt., of India dedicated site. Not sure if any other 'festival' can boast of this distintion. But then again, Brahmotsavam wouldnt stand a chance in your book. This very listing by Encarta shows that there exists a fine distinction in the way Encarta defines its "List of Hindu festivals" and the way its defined on this article. I request you to stop making specious cases to push for ill informed inclusions and exclusions. Sarvagnya 01:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Encarta and Britannica on India's neighbours and Major Indian Dance Forms

• 1) India's Neighbours:

• Here is part of the first paragraph of Encarta's page on India:

  It is bounded on the north by China, Nepal, and Bhutan; on the east by Bangladesh, Myanmar (formerly known as Burma), and the Bay of Bengal; on the south by the Palk Strait and the Gulf of Mannār (which separates it from Sri Lanka) and the Indian Ocean; and on the west by the Arabian Sea and Pakistan.

• Here too is part of Encyclopaedia Britannica's India page:

  Neighbouring countries of particular concern to India are Pakistan to the northwest and China to the north, both of which have intractable border disputes with India, and Bangladesh, which is surrounded on three sides by Indian territory. The other nations on India's frontier are Nepal and Bhutan to the north, situated between India and China, and Myanmar (Burma) to the northeast.

• Neither of these entries mention Afghanistan as a neighbour. I feel this evidence should be enough for the Wikipedia page as well. As user Nichalp put it succinctly on a previous talk page:

"Wikipedia represents both (ie all) points of views: The administrated and claimed territories."

• I am therefore removing Afghanistan from the list of India's neighbours, but leaving the footnote in.

• 2) Major Indian Dance Forms
• Here is the entry on major Indian dance forms from Encarta's India page:

Dance is a highly developed art form in India and is important as a pastime, in worship, and as part of Sanskrit dramas. The major classical dance forms are bharata natyam, kathak, manipuri, and kathakali. Bharata natyam, which is based on the Natya Shastra, is probably the most significant of these forms. It incorporates many of the precise movements, hand gestures, and facial expressions for which Indian dance is famous. Each movement and gesture the dancer performs has its own meaning. The kathak dance style originated in north India and emphasizes rhythmic footwork (under the weight of more than 100 ankle bells) and spectacular spins. The manipuri dance form, which is named for Manipur, where it originated, is known for its graceful turning and swaying. The kathakali form is a dance drama, characterized by mime and facial makeup resembling masks.

• Here too is the Britannica entry:

The performing arts also have a long and distinguished tradition. Bharata-natya, the classical dance form originating in southern India, expresses Hindu religious themes that date at least to the 4th century AD. Other regional styles include orissi (from Orissa), manpuri (Manipur), kathakali (Kerala), kuchipudi (Andhra Pradesh), and kathak (Islamicized northern India). In addition, there are numerous regional folk dance traditions.

Neither of these entries mention Yakshagana. I feel that to include it in the Wikipedia India page, which does not include either Orissi or Kuchipudi (both mentioned in Britannica), would not be fair.

I am therefore removing Yakshagana from the list of major Indian dance forms listed in the culture section.

Again: I am removing Afghanistan from the list of neighbours in the lead, but leaving the footnote in, and I am also removing Yakshagana from the list of major Indian dance forms in the Culture section. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Your use of encarta and britannica to establish 'non-notability' is a specious argument. While every inclusion in Encarta or Britannica may be indicative of 'notability', a non-inclusion does not imply 'non-notability' or even lesser 'notability' by any stretch of imagination. Ganesh Chaturthi is the closest that comes to a truly nationally popular festival. It may not be the Number 1 festival in any state except Maharashtra but it is easily the #2 or #3 festival in an overwhelming number of states of India. Your use of Google and your logic for using the strings you've used even more ludicrous.

As for why Google fights are stupid, here are some results,

• Britney Spears vs M S Subbulakshmi - Singers both. But BS wins hands down. MSS is not as 'notable' as BS. Okay. We are comparing apples and oranges. So lets compare apples and apples/oranges and oranges.
• MSS vs BJ - MSS wins. Okay, not apples and apples enough? Lets dig further..
• MSS vs GNB[4] - both Carnatic music legends. But MSS wins hands down. GNB wouldnt find a place on a list of 'notable' Carnatic musicians. Okay, apples and apples enough but not contemporary enough? Let's look further...
• BJ vs GH - Apples and apples. Both legends of Hindustani music and even from the same gharana if I am right. Both contemporaries. But BJ wins hands down.
• SG vs RD[5] - some cricket now. Never mind the fact that both are as contemporary as contemporaries can be. Both are in exactly the same 'high profile' profession playing for exactly the same 'high profile' teams. Yet, RD wins by a landslide, not even a simple majority.
• SK vs SD - Time for some movies now. Both contemporaries. Both embroiled in high profile criminal case outside their profession. Both equally 'notable'. And yet, SK wins by a landslide.
• DB vs ZZ - Time for some soccer. DB wins by a landslide.

Hope you see the futility and specious nature of your arguments. This filibustering of even common knowledge, common sense edits really borders on wiki harassment. As for your knowledge of Google page rank technology, I request you to share it with Saravask and explain to him that there is a reason why www.telupu.com appears on the first page when you search for 'sankranti'(in te.unicode)and that there really wouldnt have been any necessity for me to do any 'digging' to 'dig out' that site. Sarvagnya 23:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. I don't know anything about Google fights. Never used them. As far as I know, they have nothing to do with Google. I don't know what te.unicode is and no www.telepu.com appears in my Google window. My latest understanding is that we don't want descriptions to get too "listy" and feel personally that to add Yakshagana to the list of four dance forms already mentioned doesn't make sense (especially, when Odissi and Kuchipudi are not mentioned); however, this whole exchange has gone well beyond the point of diminishing returns for me. If you want to add Yakshagana or any other dance form, please add with abandon. Moreover, if you think I am harassing you, please feel free to complain to the powers that be. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Hindi page

Could someone help me out to fix the problem to fix infobox on the Hindi page. I have experimented it on sandbox. But it is very clumsy. Please do help. Regards, Shyam ^(T/C) 10:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Flora and fauna

... needs to have its first paragraph pruned. Requesting editors to use {{inuse}} while editing that section. Goal should be to have sample flora/fauna lists read as smoothly as the second paragraph of Australia#Flora and fauna and not be overly "listy". All input welcome. Thanks. Saravask 05:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, please read the following:

• Talk:Kerala/Archive01#Flora_and_fauna:_Capitalize_names_or_not.3F

I'd prefer that we not capitalize species' common names here, since in popular books and literature it is not common. Capitalization is only common in the scientific literature, and this is Wikipedia, not Science or Nature. Other views welcome. Saravask 05:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The pruning of the first paragraph has been accomplished. All inputs are still welcome though. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Error in the number of states and map

The number of states is given as 29, which could be wrong depending on whether one considers Delhi as a state. Excluding Delhi the number of states is 28.

In any case, the map with states is wrong - the numbering of states and the labels dont match for most states.

Somebody please correct this.

Seems ok to me. Maybe you need to clear your cache (Purge India page). As for the labelling, are you using Linux? There was a known bug with Konqueror. Lastly, Delhi cannot be considered a state unless there is a Constitutional ammendment. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)