Talk:India/Archive 18

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

Punjabi cinema?

Pardon my ignorance, but will somebody please explain how Punjabi cinema is a 'strong' cinema industry? Or is someone also counting all the 'hindi' movies that come out with liberal doses of punjabi thrown in? And why on earth is the wikilink for Punjabi cinema(??) pointing to some movie? Is that the only movie that's been made in the history of Punjabi cinema? I am surprised that a new ip user is bitten when he/she tries to make some edits and I am given hell when I try to retain them, but many edits over the past few days pass unscrutinised. Somebody please explain. Sarvagnya 05:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not an important industry as yet in India. Rgds--Darrendeng 06:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
It should be removed. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Bro I've learned one thing about Wikipedia...Yes u get info fast....But there are alot of people who go nuts & ku ku if u make changes they dont like....It doesnt matter if u have evidence....or worst.....LOGIC....They just want the article there way....If u dont believe me....Just look down at the next dispute about LAND OF THE ARYANS.... ARYAN818 22:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

No mention of LAND OF THE ARYANS?

Most Indians, (along with Iranians, Afghans, etc.) are of Aryan heritage. Most of the evidence that Aryans came from India.....is in India.....not Euorope....In ancient times the land was known as Bharat or land of the Aryans,....and yet...this article acts like India's oldest civiliazation was the "Indus Valley" people.....I mean India's history goes longer & deeper then that and I think there should be mention of its Aryan heritage ARYAN818 22:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, why don't you add it then?--SUIT 04:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
No it is not necessary. See the comments in the header. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
See thats why I dont add it...Cuz people like NICHALP are just going to erase it anyway ARYAN818 22:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Revolutionary changes to the article

I think it is a bad idea to make revolutionary changes to an FA without consulting other editors, in particular when they are unsourced. Doing so tends to decrease the quality of the article, and as an FA is supposed to be of highest quality, the article may be de-FAed as a result. The same applies to adding on sentences, as it may decrease the flow of the article if not done carefully, and over time will result in a loss of an FA. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Indian Military section.

Military of India

Main article: Military of India

India maintains the third largest military force in the world. The armed forces of India consists of the Indian Army, Indian Air Force and the Indian Navy. There are auxillary forces like the Indian Paramilitary Forces, the Indian Coast Guard and the Strategic Forces Command. India is a declared nuclear weapons nation. The Indian Army maintains the second largest active troops in the world. The Indian Navy is the fifth largest in terms of manpower and the Indian Air Force is the fourth largest in the world. The President of India is the supreme commander of the Indian armed forces.

Expand it here and later can be added to the main article. Chanakyathegreat 04:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Current draft is too choppy =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

will scripts be removed from this article as well seeing as they do not help?

Wikipedia:Vernacular_scripts--D-Boy 06:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Ayyavazhi Discussion

moved to Talk:India/Ayyavazhi—Preceding unsigned comment added by BostonMA (talk • contribs) 19:02, December 3, 2006

Repetitive Edits in India Lead and InfoBox

I just wanted to point out that there is one kind of edit that keeps reappearing in the lead on the India page. It is the sentence:

India emerged as a modern nation-state in 1947, when the subcontinental populace expelled all non-native traders in an intense movement of social reforms and forged it into a single nation.

This edit is identical to edits made by user:Himalayanashoka and IP user:202.56.248.6 in September and October. The latter users were also tampering with the info box, inserting "Indus Valley Civilization" instead of "UK", etc., which resulted in multiple blocks for them: user talk:Himalayanashoka and user talk:202.56.248.6. Now the identical edit is being made by a new IP: 202.83.106.103. My concern is that this user (or users) refuse to engage in debate, but keep inserting the same text or making the same info box changes, resulting in extra work for other editors. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC) (Corrected Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC))

I have blocked the user who just tampered with the infobox. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
This line has been put to rephrase the line "Colonised as part of the...." It is pathetic to see that the language used is very Eurocentric and not at all Indocentric whereas the article is Indic. The line "Colonised as part of the...." is highly derogatory and Eurocentric and must be presented in a Indocentric manner wothout changing the meaning and hence the term "expulsion" instead of "colonised". Pls discuss so that it can be changed. User:Himalayanashoka
Why is it derogatory? Please provide concrete proof and not your personal biases. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Formation of India Information

There has been lot of edit redits on the formation of India information. This is finally being put here again in the Talk Page. India as a country did not suddenly appear one fine night in the mid of August 1947. It has always been there existing as a continuous territory. Even China and other European countries have had chequered history but they always trace their existence to recorded yore. A country like France which was occupied by Germany does not celebrate its Independence Day from Nazi Germany. "Colonised" is an Eurocentric term whereas Indians called it "Quit India" or "expelling the non-natives". Indic articles should not present Eurocentrism views but present as viewed from India. Japanese history never admits of WW2 atrocities while it is known and studied worldwide. The lexical presentation of a country article must be such that it presents a positive but factually correct picture. I thus strongly feel that the words such as "Colonised" should be rephrased and "Formation" be restored to the earlier one and not just "Independence". Please discuss. Himalayanashoka 13:01, 06 Dec 2006 (UTC)

Where are your sources? Per Wikipedia policy, we need citations, no matter how cogent the argument. Please cite a reliable Indian history book or journal article that uses "expelling the non-natives" and that doesn't use the word "colonised" or "colonial". Wikipedia doesn't take any one view; both the colonized and the colonizer are represented. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
The word "Colonised" or "Colonizer" itself is Eurocentric and derogatory. So don't put Eurocentric views on an Indic site. Indic sites must be interpreted from an Indic point of view or should be fully impartial without derogatory words. Otherwise please agree for an Independence Day for France from Nazi Germany. Wikipedia has always represented an impartial interpretation of history. Textbooks in India (NCERT/State boards) always mention the non-natives/British as occupiers and non-bonafide residents trying to take over the reigns of governance. The word colonizer is not mentioned. The NCERT books also mentions that most Indian kingdoms deliberately gave over the reigns to foster development very much aware of the fact that as in the past any non-natives will be thrown away or absorbed. And this is what happened as always.
To not to divert from the Formation topic, India as a country always existed. Of course the map has not been the same. This is true for China, Europe, NAmerica as well. So there has to be a Formation column starting with the Indus Valley Civilization. The IVC is very much connected to the Indian Vedic culture (pls refer wikipedia article). It was this Vedic culture which gave rise to the Indian writing scripts, languages and culture over a period of 4000 yrs. This did not happen overnight on 15 August 1947. India still follows most national symbology and Hindu laws, derived from the time of Emperor Ashok's reign and not the non-native incursions. So essentially the IVC and Emperor Ashok's empire must be included in the formation part. Himalayanashoka 16:41, 06 Dec 2006 (UTC)
This article is about the "Republic of India". Period. That settles it. Please come back when the Govt of India declares something else as the independence day. Thanks. --Ragib 08:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Comments like this with "Period and that settles it" is NOT acceptable. So... does the history of Germany starts only when it became a proper democratic country after 1945, or France after the Fifth Republic?? You are from Bangladesh, a country which only came into existence in 1971. So you will have a certain mentality shaped by your local textbooks of which date to begin your history. You will not understand this. This article is not about "Republic of India". If its is like this please remove all the formation history in France, and particularly formation information in China. Himalayanashoka 16:50, 06 Dec 2006 (UTC)
I'm definitely NOT saying that India's or Bangladesh's history began when they became independent in recent history. In fact, I have argued about this a lot, and will definitely state again that the history of countries extend to the distant past. However, they did became officially independent on the dates the respective govt recognize as their independence days. You have to respect the Govt of India's decision to observe 15th August as the independence day. Thanks. --Ragib 08:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Now you sound reasonable. Its precisely because of your stated reason, that the formation part essentially needs to be put. Also the concepts of Independence is Eurocentric. France celebrates liberation from Germany in a different way rather than as Independence even though they were nothing short of being governed directly by Germany for quite sometime. What I mean to say is that in both the sites (.IN, .BD) emphasis has to be put on the rich continuing less documented history rather than the immediate visible documented history. I believe the admin should now unprotect the IN site to put in the formation info and rephrase "colonised" with "expelled". Himalayanashoka 17:15, 06 Dec 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia, unfortunately, is only about well-documented history. See No original research. As I said earlier, you can make the most eloquent and heartfelt arguments, but we still need the citations, chapter and verse. Please provide them. Not "NCERT books," but something like the ones below, which, for example, use the word "colonial" on the page numbers given:
Again: please provide the citations in the format described; unless you do so, you will be wasting your time and ours. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Fowler&fowler, please do not give references of only European books here in an Indic article. If you want to contribute and argue then you read some Indian history books (NCERT). Do not contribute to this page or this article if you only have foreign publications and do not know anything about Indic history and perception. Please do not waste your time with the India article and please concentrate on other articles pertaining to your domain of knowledge. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Himalayanashoka (talk • contribs). at 03:51, 7 December 2006
Himalayanashoka, the onus is on you to cite your sources. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Himalayanashoka:

  • Why is colonised a POV?
Colonised is a eurocentric POV because history textbooks in India always emphasizes on expelling non-natives, foreigners, British. So the proper Indic term is "Expulsion" not "Colonised". Do not try to follow whatever European textbooks write. Read some Indian history books and please give their reference, since I see that you are a regular contributor to the India page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Himalayanashoka (talk • contribs). at 03:51, 7 December 2006
Who said I am quoting European text books? And please, there's no need for that condescending attitude. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • India as an independent unified nation-state was never formed before 1947. It existed was a collection of kingdoms before that.
You should say just before the British arrived. Before there was a whole country called Hindustan, a whole Maratha empire, a whole Mauryan empire. Have you read Germany's history that it was known as the Holy Roman empire before becoming Germany? Your above statement is factually wrong.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Himalayanashoka (talk • contribs). at 03:51, 7 December 2006
Agreed, but they were all nations, not a nation-state. Please read the definations of both. In the history section, we have documented the history of India since it was first inhabited by man. I fail to see why you are still agitated. You apparently have not read my comments closely. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • To answer your question, YES the nation-state did appear overnight.
How do you say that India sprang up overnight? Have you read other countries histories how they have come up? Have you ever read the history of India textbooks in your school? Please do not come up with stupid illiterate fingerprint statements. Your statement is factually wrong. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Himalayanashoka (talk • contribs). at 03:51, 7 December 2006
Please remember one of Wikipedia non-negotiable policy no personal attacks. You first need to provide sources to support you view. I stand by my statement, the nation-state was formed in 1947. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Reply - Himalayan was commenting on the content, not on you. There's no need to beat a man when they're down.Bakaman 04:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Baka, Am I not reading correctly? "Please do not come up with stupid illiterate fingerprint statements" is a personal attack. It was not about the content. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 04:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Himalayn was attacking nichalp's statements using "illiterate fingerprint" as an adjective. Anyway, the poor dude got owned in the argument anyway, misquoting wiki policy doesnt seem like a proper gloating technique. Perhaps nichalp could have encouraged him to look at WP:CIVIL, the applicable policy.Bakaman 00:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

=Nichalp «Talk»= 13:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Himalayanashoka: You still haven't given us the citation. Again, the format is: author, year, title, publisher, and page number. I would add that, in general, high-school history text-books, like NCERT books, are not the most reliable sources for a Wikipedia Featured Article. College-level or research-level texts or journal articles are preferable. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, then where's the article for pre-Independence India. Also just remember, this article is entitled India, not Republic of India in a similar way to People's Republic of China as opposed to the China article. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 05:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
This is what I meant to say. When we say the India page it means right from zero to present. Should the France page be separated from the Fifth Republic (1960s), another one with Independence from Nazi Germany. All the facts presented in the Formation part of India page is linked in Wikipedia without requiring further references, and presented in a factually correct manner. In case we decide to change to the Formation part then we should change the pages of China, France, Germany too... Himalayanashoka 06:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
All I'm trying to say on this is that, please take the issue with the Govt of India. As long as it celebrates August 15 as the Independence day, you can't change that in this article. Thanks. --Ragib 06:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
This date of 15Aug47 was never changed in the Formation Infobox. But just as in the China page, France page, Germany page there is info related to formation, India must have a similar info, particularly with documented history going so far. CN, FR, DE were never geographically the same. Similarly India was also not the same. And it need not be repeated again that the whole culture has spawned from the Indus Valley Civilzn (ref Wkpd artcls).Himalayanashoka 06:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Himalayanashoka: Apparently "European POV" authors are not the only ones who use the word "colonial," here are two Indian authors:

"... part of the costs of transition to industrialism in western Europe were paid for by India, China, and the other colonial countries, whose economy was dominated by the European powers. It is obvious that there has been all along abundant material ..." p 300.
"Another feature of the (Natal Indian) Congress was service of Colonial-born educated Indians. The Colonial-born Indian Education Association was founded under the auspices of the Congress." p 151.

Still waiting for your citations ... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler as I have told earlier these references are from a period when Eurocentric thoughts had been imposed on the various parts of the world. This is no longer the truth and is 'not original research'. In any case to satisfy Wikipedia criteria and to denigrate Eurocentric POV.
Gandhi: 'Hind Swaraj' and Other Writings (Cambridge Texts in Modern Politics) by Mohandas Gandhi, John Dunn, Geoffrey Hawthorn, and Mahatma Gandhi (Paperback - Jan 28, 1997) Page 26 "... the revolutionaries' view that physical expulsion of the British from India is the necessary and sufficient ..."
Once again I may say that the India page must follow a Indic view or it has to follow a completely neutral view. Eurocentric views imposed at a certain period in history and thus its documented records, are not acceptable now. The sentence in dicussion should read "India emerged as a modern....expelled all non-natives...a single nation". The non-natives include the UK(GB), PT, FR who were thrown out by both non-violence and force.Himalayanashoka 07:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
The onus is on you to cite your sources. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is getting silly. Himalayanashoka a few points:

  • We have cited our sources. We are waiting for you to cite yours. Without that, and it seems you are still to do so despite repeated reminders, what you say will be your personal version, which we cannot accept. If you fail to do so, it will be considered to be trolling.
  • Please do not be condescending to other users. Support your statements with credible sources and keep the discussion going without resorting to calling editors disparaging names. Continuing to do so will get you blocked.
  • See the defination of colony: In politics and in history, a colony is a territory under the immediate political control of a geographically-distant state. -- how is this statement a POV?
  • The history section mentions key events that occured in the territory that makes up the modern nation-state.
  • The modern nation-state was formed in 1947. Please see the defination of nation-state vs nation.
  • 'Expelled' makes little sense. They weren't forcibly thrown out.

=Nichalp «Talk»= 08:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is important and not silly.
* Appropriate source has been cited (see reply to user:Fowler&fowler above). Its not about you personally have to accept. Nobody is cared about your personal opinion even if you have contributed to the site.
* It was not condescension. It was a befitting reply to wrong words such as "Period" "YES" etc, despite of whatsoever contributions one has made.
* As I have said earlier, "Colony" is a Eurocentric term and highly derogatory from an Asiatic or Indic view. One fails to see it because it has seeped deep. What you have given above is a dictionary meaning. Dictionary meanings are always neutral. It is how one interprets. In an FA Indic page one must write "Expulsion of non-natives" rather than the filthy sounding and derogatory "Colonised by..." The term "British" should also be properly denigrated in an Indic page without any POV.
* History: I once again say that it is the most recent history that's in one's mind. The less documented rich history must be emphasized. So the Formation part should be agreed upon with mutual consensus.
* You are correct about the term nation-state. I fully agree with you that the modern nation-state was formed in 1947.
* "Expelled" is a term perfect for an Indic page. It is to present an Asiatic/Indic view to others, when they read an Asiatic/Indic article. "Expelled" does not mean that one is thrown out forcibly. A diplomat also gets expelled, but it does not mean that he is beaten all the way to the airport.

Himalayanashoka 09:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Himalayanashoka:
Unfortunately, you didn't quote the complete sentence from the book Gandhi: Hind Swaraj and Other Writings completely. The book uses the word "expulsion" on two pages. Here are the full quotes:
  • p 28. Footnote: "Here Gandhi attacks the revolutionaries' view that physical expulsion of the British is the necessary and sufficient condition of swaraj."
  • p 73. "Editor: ... freeing others. Now you will have seen that it is not necessary for us to have as our goal the expulsion of the English. ..."
Note that in Hind Swaraj, Gandhi is the "Editor" and his interlocutor, the "Reader." Your citation in fact makes exactly the opposite point--that the physical expulsion of the British was not the sine qua non of independence.
Please provide a citation that supports your argument. If you think all writing from Gandhi's time is constrained by the "European POV," then provide your own modern untrammeled sources. But Wikipedia needs sources, reliable ones. Until that citation arrives, all your eloquence, as I have stressed before, will come to naught.
Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I very strongly suspect about your POVs. You seem to be bent towards searching and imposing only Eurocentric POVs to an Indic article to give it a negative and Euro-dominant image. It is also for you to search for Indic views, if you weant to polish up the article in a positive way. Gandhi's views at that time is definitely constrained by Eurocentric POV. I again emphasize that the switch of the terms "Expelled" and "Colonised" does not further need any reference and search for the usage of words in books, since an Asiatic/Indic page must represent an Asiatic/Indic view. An Indic article will not be written from Eurocentric view with highly derogatory sentences such as "Colonised by..." This is not about eloquence, but factual truths required in an Indic page. No references is needed to switch the two words mentioned. The sentence should now be changed to "India emerged...expelled all non-natives....a single nation-state". The term "non-natives" is to denigrate the word "British" without any POV. Himalayanashoka 10:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Himalayanashoka: OK, here are four sources. All Indian authors. All modern. All use words like "colonial" (which occurs on dozens of pages). All books are searchable on the websites. The last quote is lengthy because it makes an important point. Please read it carefully.

"The unprecedented expansion of the scope and scale of the colonial state followed the brutal repression of the rebellion of 1857-58 and the formal incorporation of colonial India into the British crown."
"Noting the successful transplantation of cinchona in the Nilgiris and looking forward to 'similar happy results ... [in] other hill districts of Southern India,' Markham suggests, "Thus will the successful cultivation of the quinine-yielding chinchona-plants confer a great and lasting benefit upon the commerce of the whole world." Here the imperial scientist-explorer is the agent of civilization; through him nature's benefits are conferred upon mankind. The scientist speaks and acts on behalf of nature, and is willing to go to great lengths to defend it against the actions of those less scientifically savvy than himself. Thus we are to understand that the local skirmishes over property rights that mark the initial phase of the chinchona project are fought—although they might contravene the laws of less advanced nations—in the name of all humanity, including the natives of colonized nations, who, although not truly able to know and to nurture nature, are still worthy of receiving the fruits of civilization."

The last quote is important, because although it uses the word "colonized," it is clearly resorting to some form of irony. Merely using "colonized" does not mean that one supports or condones any acts committed in the name of the word. Similarly, the sentence beginning "Colonised by the British East India Company..." does not mean that Wikipedia thinks it was a good thing or bad thing, but simply that it happened.

Now it is your turn to provide some sources for why we should use words like that use the word "nonnative" generically for the British, and "expelled" for the Indian independence movement. I look forward to your citations.Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Fowler, Ragib, please don't feed the trolls. No point continuing with a pointless discussion. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I have unprotected the page. Please remember the 3RR. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't like terms like "non-native expulsion". First of all, I have never heard it used in any scholarly textbook or anywhere until HimalayanAshoka came up with it. Secondly, the term evokes connotations of xenophobia, which the Indian Independence struggle was most certainly not. It was a peaceful struggle largely involving civil disobedience to negotiate the Independence of India from the Raj."Non-native expulsion" sounds like something from a rally of Neo-Nazi skinheads. I do not like it. I am ambivalent about the "colonized" word issue. Hkelkar 11:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Hkelkar, Thanks for your opinions. They are valuable but I strongly disagree with you on the xenophobia and neo-nazi part. In fact the non-natives British were like pre-nazis. You very conveniently forget their inhumanness during the occupation. I still feel that the word "Colonised" evokes feelings of Euro-dominance or Eurocentrism. I would be glad to hear any well-framed sentence which will show a strong Indic view. In any case the word "Colonised" will not be allowed to appear in the India page, and will be have to switch to another word such as "Expelled". "Non-native expulsion" does not sound like something from a rally of Neo-Nazi skinheads because of the fact that the occupiers were tresspassers trying to snatch power. The term "Non-native expulsion" at most could be changed to "Non-native traders' expulsion" or "expulsion of non-native traders" or "expulsion of non-native occupiers".
Hkelkar, This discussion also covers the inclusion of the 'Formation' information in the Infobox. Pls pay attention to User:Fowler&fowler when he is trying to minutely differentiate betwen BritishEIC and BritishCrown in the India page. People do not seem to have any argument over this. As I said, the term British itself has to be denigrated as "non-natives" or even more appropriately "non-natives traders" in the India page without deviating from facts.
Himalayanashoka 05:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Tibet

Tibet, which is currenty in control by China, is fighting for its freedom and has never agreed to this takeover. It is relevant to say, that the Tibetan governement in exile considers its country to be its country. Such as India considers Kashmir to be apart of the Indian Union. If we want to respect that Kashmir is apart of India, then we have to respect the fact that Tibet deserves the same treatment. It does not matter that China is in control of Tibet; that does not make it right nor justfied by the power of the gun. So, I claim that India shares a border with Tibet as it should and it could even state it is a so called Autonomous region of China but in order for us not to be overwhelmed by the negative Chinese influence, we need to admit this onto the India page. India shares a border with Tibet as it shares a border with Afghanistan. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jayjrn (talk • contribs) 05:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

We are differciating between a nation-state and nation when listing the countries tha border India. The ground situation is that the nation-state of PRC, which administers Tibet borders India. For his part, the Dalai Lama, the temporal and political head of Tibet has stated that he does not seek independence for Tibet [1] =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Only Hong Kong and Macau can be separated as separate entities from the PRC. Other regions must follow the national Chinese boundary. Thus, India does not border Tibet, it borders the PRC. Also, Wikipedia is not a place for you to promote your personal agenda. And I don't know what world you live in, but the power of the gun and actual occupation is indeed the number one justification of territorial claims. Thus, Tibet's chance of independence from China is several thousand-fold less than Taiwan's. --Mamin27 23:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Photographs on the Page

Photographs on the page don't give a balanced picture of mordern India. We should try to bring out the fact that India is such a unique country with so many culture and also that it is on road to progress. According to me, we are missing on visuals on most of topics about india. Can something be done about it? Also i would appreciate if someone can help in understanding how we upload pictures on wikipedia. --sticksnstones 13:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to contribute to the article. There are certain criteria which must be followed before you add images to the page.
  1. The image should be free -- viz- free for commercial use, and free to make derivatives without conditions.
  2. Image should be of a high resolution >1000px
  3. Image should be colourful and be representative of the section that it is placed in.
  4. Images should be regionally balanced. All regions of India should be represented on this page.
  5. Please note, most of the images on the page are Featured Pictures

To upload picture, please make sure that they are *your* images, and you licence it as I've mentioned it above. Click the "upload" button on the menu to the left. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

disambiguation

I edit a lot of historical articles, and it is quite unsatisfactory to have India be the article on the Republic of India (rather than geographically India). "Ancient India" confuses a lot of editors into insisting on a term "Ancient Pakistan" (just now, here). I know this was discussed before, but the present situation will not do; see also here: there is enough confusion to make it desireable to implement a solution analogous to China (the article on the cultural region, not the contemporary PRC). It's an English language problem, Bhārat Gaṇarājya (or even just Bhārat) would be unambiguous. This is a historical accident, but it is strictly a misnomer, since Ινδια is the area of the Indus, which is now not even part of the RoI at all. dab (𒁳) 17:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

China is a different case. If the Chinese would decide, their article would probably be called Zhongguo, or Zhōnghuá Rénmín Gònghéguó (the official name for "PRC"). China is a name mainly the foreigners use. The Chinese refer to their country as Zhōnghuá Rénmín Gònghéguó or PRC (see the official site of the PRC, and see the millions of google results for People's Republic of China"). Furthermore, there is also the Republic of China (=Taiwan), which has China in the name. (Pakistan, on the other hand, has not "India" in its name).
India, on the other hand, is usually referred to as India (see the offical site of India [2], see the relatively small number of google results for "Republic of India" (less than half a million), see the site of the President of India [3] (not of the Republic!), see the Prime Minister of India [4] and practically every offical or non-official site calls it India anyway (from the CIA factbook to the Embassies of India to the Yahoo Directory, ...). It's not only the Indians who call it India, its also the foreigners (like the USAID: [5], and the U.S. Consulats in India.) Even the Indian banknotes call it India. And the Russia article is also not at the "Russian Federation". Anyway, there is a disambiguation page, and it's linked from the top of the article, so I don't see the problem. --RF 18:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
That's not true. The Chinese refer to China as China in English. It's not just what foreigners use. No Chinese would say that the name for China should be Zhongguo in English. The Bank of China is called the Bank of China in English, not Bank of Zhongguo. So that's a bad example. --75.31.250.243 07:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
An Internet search also shows that "Russian Federation" has very many results, about 70 million, much more even that People's Republic of China", but the article is still at Russia. And many of the Google results for Russian Federation are not trivial ("Embassy of the Russian Federation", worldbank), unlike the mostly trivial ones for "Republic of India". -RF 21:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Pardon me,but is Maharashtra still a part of India? No mention about Maharashtra in addition with Bombay terminology. No Bombay, its Mumbai now. Have we forgotten that India is not just North or south, East and west Indian states deserve some place here.Marathi film industry is ignored, I hope people remember India's official entry to Oscars was Shwaas,a Marathi movie, 2 years back. Mrtag 07:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This article is about the political entity which has inherited most of the Indian subcontinent after partition, commonly known as India. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

And Maharashtra and Marathi (Bombay?) has no relavance here? Mrtag 08:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I know, this isn't just about India. Per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countries#articles.27_scope I also suggest keeping the article on Russia at Russian Federation, that's another good example, since Vladivostok is in the Russian Federation but not in what we geographically or historically think of as "Russia". I know the RoI is mostly referred to as "India" just as the RF is mostly referred to as "Russia", but as an encyclopedia, we should be correct and precise, and as I pointed out, both cases lead to perpetual confusion. As Nichalp says, this article is about a political entity, while the term "India" has much wider application. The RoI has inherited most of India, it is true, but, as we all know, not all of it. A comparable case would be keeping USA at America because the USA "are commonly known as 'America'" dab (𒁳) 09:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed.This article is of RoI. But what's Bombay? It has no political existence. Its Mumbai as declared by Government of India along with Government of Maharashtra.
And inclusion of Marathi film industry is absolutely necessary. Indian film industy's foundations were laid by Dadasaheb Phalke.And no he is not a 'Bollywood' director,his movies are part of Marathi film industry. Marathi films are as significant as Bangla or Telugu. India is beyond mindless bollywood movies and North-south masalas. Mrtag 11:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreed Brother Mrtag. But for inclusion of Marathi film industry we first need a page with all deatils created then it can always be linked to main page 'India'. Can you please contribute in creating a new page. Apurv1980 14:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, the same rule should be applied to all country pages. It needs to be consistent. It is not right to single out only a couple of country pages - which will only lead to controversies. A practical rule could be that all country pages must be under the official and full name of the country. Such a rule could be formulated and then be consistently applied to all country pages. --RF 22:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Very true...Unfortunately there aint any page for Marathi cinema. I will find a source for it.Mrtag 04:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Dab, their is no real answer to this. You have some valid points. However, the fact is that you are going to have LOT MORE confused people when you start referring to the term "India" as Ancient India or as a geographical entity because the reality is lot different. In fact, I challenge your position that the current setup causes a lot of confusion (yes I went to the link you provided). I dont think "confused" is the right term - petty might fit better. My opinion is that it really does not matter either way but be prepared for - LOT MORE - confused people along with - LOT MORE - pettiness if this change goes through. So I reject this proposal on the belief that it will make the situation worse and it does not reflect the reality. Someone should check how the other enyclopedias address this before over-analyzing the issue. --Blacksun 15:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

States and Territories section

Can anyone help me understand why the above section is blank? Sometime back (version) it was named "Administrative divisions" and had a list of the state names. Is there any plan to bring that section back? Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 22:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I have added it. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
See this and the subsequent revert. Saravask 20:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Nichalp, Saravask. I was not sure whether it was vandalism or intentional. That section is really helpful to the article. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)