Talk:India/Archive 22

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

Ugly Pic of Demographics

Ok...what is that picture under demographics???

I have lived in India for nine years in a city of 18 million, and i NEVER saw ANYONE looking like that.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE CHANGE THAT PICTURE! Its not representative of India at all.

And someone please request this page to be unprotected. 69.142.114.141 21:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Nikkul

ropeutrekjfie9rjwuioerwniowrnuy9ertnryjifaerntjioyg aertnuifaerytnui hruht uryert rut rtjheraufg rhrfgurhfjyrjkyrt;jhp rtjhp9rejpuirtn uiyrtjkhnuy;jkyewjkyewrjh jihu8eyr 78yewrjhuityer uieryfwe Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the picture is "ugly" or anything. Just that it is the picture of a very small group of people in a very remote part of India that China makes claim to anyway. Should there not be a picture that is more representative of the Indian people? Khazadum 07:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, that is a separate question and needs to be discussed here. I don't think you will ever come up with a representative picture and deciding what is more representative is not exact science. My memory (from last October) is that user Ganeshk had invited people to contribute high-def pictures for the demographics section and this picture was selected. My own suggestion as that time was to have a suite of pictures-in-waiting (as it were) and to keep changing the demographics picture (from the pictures-in-waiting) every 3 or 4 months; however, no decision was made on it. As for the India-China problem, you do have a point, perhaps others should weigh in on it. I don't really have an opinion on it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with your view that there is a point in India-china problem argument. There is no relationship between India-China problem and picture which is supposed to be used in India article. Khalistani organizations claim Punjab...ULFA claim Assam... Does it mean we are not supposed to use Punjab/Assam related pictures in Indian portal articles?. Pakistan and China claims Kashmir... Does it mean we are not supposed to use Kashmir related pictures in any India related article?.
I do feel pictures selected for Indian article does not go well with subject. We don't have to go only for featured pictures. We can select high quality pictures which suit well with the subject even if it is not a featured picture. There is a potential for improving better pictures for History,Culture(Tajmahal picture is OK) & Demography sections. I support changing current picture in demographic section. But reasons given for changing picture are not convincing.(Ugly & India-China problem).--Indianstar 14:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry I said that it was ugly, and I'm sure that the Apatani tribals are very nice people. But I really really really dont think that most people Indians have holes in their noses.

I also dont think that most Indians live in Toda huts. I strongly urge someone to delete those pics because they are illegitimate to the topic of India as a whole and specifically the topic of the demographics in India as a whole —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nikkul (talk • contribs) 17:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

What sort of dwellings do most Indians live in? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see what you mean by that is "doesn't represent India". Are people from the north-east not representative of India's tribal culture? What sort of insensitive comment is that? =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how that pic represents India, as only a select few live in huts like that. Most of India lives in small, brick houses with cots and a lil rug. Also, those people who live in those huts are surely representative of India's tribal culture. But is India's tribal culture representative of India as a whole?--Nikkul

I'd say it represents India because it represents India's significant internal diversity. It confounds the stereotypical picture. However, perhaps we ought to have a contrasting picture - someone from an urban area, perhaps in the south. BovineBeast 12:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I like BovineBeast's comment and suggestion. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with BovineBeast too. I really do think that the picture under discussion is representative of India's cultural diversity. But if others think a different picture can better represent India's culture, it can be included too. --Madhu 17:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Let us have bharatnatayam dancer for demography.Bangalorevenkat 14:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. I support any Indian image. Be it Apatani or any other. My viewpoint is that its a beautiful image. Chanakyathegreat 03:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This entire discussion because of the objection raised is a clear indication towards the racist(mildly though it may be) attitudes of "mainland" Indians, and I, as an Indian, accept it humbly. The systematic ostracisation of N-E people and people with even mild Indo-Mongoloid features is not going to prove very healthy. I propose the senior editors of this article to add this to the "to-Do" list. Personally I find the picture very sharp and high-quality and obviously, beautiful too. Maquahuitl 15:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Indian Economy

Western analysts indicated that it will take another hundred years for india to catch up with western world.

Chart in economy section is based on GDP. Per capita income of Western nations will be higher than India/China even in 2050.This model was developed by Goldman sachs in 2000 and accepted by many leading economists. So far this model has been proved perfect fit with reality.(Infact India and China's growth rate was higher than original prediction).--Indianstar 10:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

World Hunger - India

Nearly 50 percent of the world's hungry live in India, a low-income, food-deficit country. Around 35 percent of India's population - 350 million - are considered food-insecure, consuming less than 80 percent of minimum energy requirements.
Nutritional and health indicators are extremely low. Nearly nine out of 10 pregnant women aged between 15 and 49 years suffer from malnutrition and anaemia. Anaemia in pregnant women causes 20 percent of infant mortality. More than half of the children under five are moderately or severely malnourished, or suffer from stunting. vkvora 17:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
are you suggesting some change to the article in this respect? dab (𒁳) 16:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Demographics Picture

The demographics picture needs changing because-

60000 people represent the Apatani tribe & India has 1000000000 people

60000/1000000000 *100% = .006% of the population. That means only .006 out of every 100 Indians look like that.

Obviously, this picture does not represent India. I think we should replace this picture with someone that looks more pan-Indian. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nikkul (talk • contribs) 17:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

What is a pan-Indian look? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
a picture of any one Indian will represent 1/1000000000 = 0.0000001% of Indians "looking like that". But I agree that posting a mugshot under "Demographics" is a bit gratuitous. Better exchange it for something like Image:India population density map en.svg. dab (𒁳) 10:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
See section below. I have added your population density map there, Dab. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

We dont need any more maps. Im sure someone can go to an Indian cultural show and click some pics of people in Indian costumes dancing or something and then put it up as demographics. Even the South Indian dance pic below is better than the tribal woman69.142.114.141 12:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Nikkul

Perhaps a photoshop job of 28 (or however many states India has) people from every different state of India.Bakaman 02:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
how about no picture at all? Why the hell does every paragraph need some cheesy picture associated with it? "Demographics" is about numbers, not faces, costumes or dances. The best choice of illustration would be the population growth curve. Failing that, leave it empty and add another image of some cultural landmark or something. dab (𒁳) 16:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

No need for any change in the Image. Apatani's are Indians and hence the Image suits the demographic section correctly. Chanakyathegreat 02:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Is disheartening to see that Arunachalis, who are one of the most pro-Indian people in the N-E are being frowned upon. Maquahuitl 15:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Please add your pictures here

Please add your pictures in the "Pictures" subsection below and your comments in the "Comments" subsection. Please note that:

  1. The image has to be free; in other words, it should be free to be used for any purpose including unrestricted redistribution, commercial use, and modification.
  2. Generally, high-resolution images are preferred.
  3. Featured WP images are even better.

As I mentioned above, user:Ganeshk had done something similar in Oct 06 (See here) and the Apatani picture was selected for the demographics section. Changing pictures in some of the India page sections twice a year may not be a bad idea. A word of caution though—only one picture per section (sometimes two) is the norm (see discussion here), so be prepared to be disappointed if your picture is not selected, or if the consensus here is to not change the current pictures at all. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

Please don't remove pictures, it will mess up the numbering. Please click on the India page section links in the captions (below) to assess appropriateness of the pictures for the respective sections.

Laradutta.jpg

Image1 (Demographics section) added by user:Nikkul this image won't do; it is copyrighted and therefore not free

Image3 (History section) Mohenjo-daro in Sind, Pakistan added by user:Indianstar

Image4 (Geography section) WP featured picture. Tibetan Plateau with Everest, Makalu, Chomo Lonzo in background (user:Indianstar)

Image5 (Geography) Arravali Hills (user:Indianstar)
Pangong lake by martinl.jpg

Image6 (Geography) Pangong Lake, Ladhakh. WP featured picture. (user:Indianstar)

Image7 (Culture section) Bharatnatyam Dancer (user:Indianstar)

Image8 (Demographics/Culture) City market in Bangalore (from October 06 discussion)

Image9 (Demographics/Culture) Ranganathan street in Chennai (from October 06)

Image10 (Demographics) Population growth curve. (user:Dbachmann)

Image11 (Demographics) An Indian Woman (user:Nikkul)

Image12 alternative for Image2. Uploaded by User:Hajor
Sari fabric.jpg

Image13 (Culture) "Sari Fabric," WP Featured Picture, (user:Fowler&fowler)

Image14 Apatani tribal women. Current picture in demography section. Wikipedia featured picture.
Indian-bride.jpg

Image15 Indian bride before her wedding

Image16 Map showing the literacy rate of each district in India.

Image17 (Demographics) Main bazaar, Delhi (taken from the Delhi page, an FA).

Image18 (Demographics) Old Mysooru market area. (user:Sarvagnya}

Comments

United Kingdom, Australia articles has good images which creates more interest in article contents. India article should also have attractive pictures. --Indianstar 10:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

As of now, Image1, Image2, Image3 and Image4 are all problematic, in my opinion; the others are OK for consideration. Image 1 and 2 have copyright problems. Image3 is an image of Mohenjo-daro, which, while a part of the subcontinent's history, is now in Pakistan; a Lothal image would be better, in my opinion. Image 4 is an image of the Tibetan plateau with peaks like Makalu, Everest, Lohtse, Nuptse, Ama Dablam, and Chomo Lonzo (all either in Nepal and/or Tibet, China); there is not one square inch of Indian territory in there, so I certainly don't feel comfortable including it on the India page, even though the Himalayas do bound India on the North. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Lothal image has copyright problems. Image 1 must have been added for joke. We have issues with mentioning Sardar vallabhai patel name in article, but people want to add Lara Dutta photo??. Why not Mallika Sherawat or Bipasha basu??--Indianstar 23:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea who any of these people are. I am assuming they are actresses or singers, but clearly they don't qualify for the India page, in demographics, culture, or in any other section (in my opinion), but it's not my decision alone. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
You know so much info about India!!. But surprising to know that you are not aware of Mallika Sherawat. Jackie chan will be able to tell about Mallika sherawat.It is disappointing to know that Mallika sherawat does not deserve place in India article.--Indianstar 08:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Well if the picture is good enough, why don't you put it up for [{WP:FPC]]? And I certainly have objections to Malaika being put up on the India main page. She does not represent India other than being a sex symbol. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
The most well-known actor, at least in North India is obviously Amitabh Bachchan. A good image of a contemporary actress to add would be Aishwarya Rai since she has acted in Bollywood and other South Indian film industries except that we don't have any photos of her! GizzaChat © 11:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I was just joking....Taken seriously??. If you see my initial sentence, I ridiculed adding photos like Lara dutta even for consideration when Sardar vallabhai patel name could not be mentioned in this article. I don't favor adding any individual's images in India article.--Indianstar 12:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we should use the Shilpa Shetty image because it is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.0 License. And more Indian women look like Shilpa than the tribal women shown currently. N ikkul 18:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

That it is available under a free license has nothing to do with appropriateness. It is also questionable whether your last assertion holds at all. The demographics section photo should show the diversity in culture and population of the country. Movie stars are not really representative of the population, of ANY country. --Ragib 18:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Hmm.. representing the diversity in culture and population of India in a single image?!.. that sounds challenging. The current image for the demographics section is not at all helpful as it represents a very small section of the Indian populace. I would prefer an image of the Kumbh Mela or any other image of a major social/religious gathering in India. This discussion reminds me of the music video of "Mile Sur Mera Tumhara" broadcasted by Prasad Bharti during the early 1990s. The depiction of India's cultural diversity was amazing. --Incman|वार्ता 20:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


Rahib, Demo is a Latin prefix meaning people. Hence, an image in the demography section should represent what most of the people look like. The pic of Shilpa has nothing to do with her being a movie star. That is why the caption says "An Indian Woman" and not "Shilpa Shetty, the famous movie star" Moreover, the pic looks more like a typical Indian woman than the current demography pic with the women who have holes cut in their noses. The reason she is up there is not because she is a movie star but because she looks like a typical Indian. I dont see how the fact that she happens to be a movie star can make her not look Indian. Since it was one of the few Indian uncopyrighted pics on Wikipedia, I recomended the pic to be given consideration. I also think the bharat natayam dancer should be under culture. I also feel that the two pics of people in the Chennai and Bangalore markets are too unclear. No one is facing the camera in either one and so you cant see much about the people. pz out guys --Nikkul

Well, I'm not at all an advocate of keeping the tribal image there. (Seems like there was a consensus about the photo back in the past). Shilpa Shetty looks like an "average" Indian woman? That's too much of an overstatement. A movie star is not a representative of a population. I agree with Incman's comment that the tribal image is also not really a good picture. Since I haven't taken any part in the discussion that put it there, you might look up the people who did, and look into their rationale. Thanks. --Ragib 22:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I never said she looks like an average Indian woman, because most Indian women dont look like that. BUT, she looks MORE average THAN the tribal women. A movie star is not at all representative of a country of 1 billion people. But the tribal women are even less representative. Let me state again...the pic looks more like a typical Indian woman than the current demography pic with the women who have holes cut in their noses. Please do not twist my words. Its bad taste. Thank you. --Nikkul —Preceding unsigned comment added by nikkul (talk • contribs) and —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.151.32.254 (talk • contribs)

I like user:BovineBeast's comment in an above section, "I'd say it (the Apatani image) represents India because it represents India's significant internal diversity. It confounds the stereotypical picture. However, perhaps we ought to have a contrasting picture - someone from an urban area, perhaps in the south." How about the Apatani image along with the Chennai street scene image for the demography section? I like the contrast between the two images: one is of self conscious individuals, the other is of a workaday crowd; one from the northeast, the other from the south; and one tribal, the other very much urban. We may need to reduce their thumbnail sizes to accommodate them in the (small) section. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the previous comment is that the Apatani image does not represent all of the north. And I dont think having two images is possible on an Indian wikipedia page because apparently, the Laws of the Wikiproject India explicitily forbid any more than one image per section because that, apparently, is the way to gain featured status, although I feel otherwise. Nikkul 16:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The History section has two images. I'm going to add the crowd scene. And although it's impossible to represent all of India in any one image, it's certainly possible to give a sense of the diversity using two contrasting images. BovineBeast 14:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
i noticed that the toda tribal hut does not relate to what is being discussed in the cluture section because it does not talk about homes or tribes. Let's get a better picture. I dont know if its just me, but all the pictures on this page seem very dull. Nikkul 15:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi BovineBeast, I have temporarily disabled your addition, only since we need to make a collective decision here. However, your post above will add another vote for including two images: a) Apatani (the current image) and b) the street scene in Chennai. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


On my user page, i have coded what I feel the page should look like. Check it out. It might not be optimal, but its better than the current one, I feel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nikkul

Nikkul 16:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


Here is what we have to realize- When someone comes to the India page and sees the tribal image, he or she naturally assumes that is what most indians look like because that is what the india (as a whole) page dictates to that person. And that is entirely false. Indians do not put black things in their noses. Indians do not dress like that. Most Indians do not look like that. I am almost offended that that image is there because it does not show the average indian look.

If the image was on the India's tribal culture page, then I would be totally fine with it. But the apanti image can not represent India as a whole because as I said earlier, .006% of the population looks like that. The image might be beautiful to some. It might show Indias inner beauty to some. But this is not a travel brochure to the Arunchal Pradesh region.

Our job on this wikipedia page is to show people what most Indians look like. Here is a more true picture of an Indian. http://www.rasika.org/images/oda.jpg http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/specials/vivah06/images/200_7.jpg http://www.rasika.org/images/jay_lt_blue_solo_lr_copy.JPG

Obviously, these are from the internet, but I would rather see an image like on of those than an apanti woman. Also, maybe you guys dont see it the way I do because a lot of India editors live in India, but in America, everyone uses Wikipedia. And this includes business leaders who are deciding to shift their jobs overseas. And, trust me, they probably wikipedia search a nation to get a background. And if you are a company ceo and youre scrolling down the india page, i think that the apanti image is going to scare them away, because it absolutely frightened me the first time i saw it and it still does (no offence, im just saying). And the chinese editors see that. And thats why they advertise their pages like crazy. and im not saying we should advertise, but im saying that we should give people the right impression of India, and the apanti image does not because it says that most indians put holes in their noses and live in tribes. Nikkul 23:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

In case you haven't noticed, wikipedia is not really a brochure for CEOs. --Ragib 23:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Nikkul, Since your talk page is currently unusable I am leaving this comment for you here. Please take a look at wikipedia guidelines on subpages for the proper way to create major revision forks; especially with respect to dealing with categories. And, I don't want to press this point but if you really meant it when you said, "it absolutely frightened me the first time i saw it and it still does (no offence, im just saying)" - may be some introspection would be in order. Thanks. Abecedare 23:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

incase you havent noticed, my friend, an Indian does not look like this: Image14 (gallery)

Summary of Previous comments taken from above[main points]: Ragib Well, I'm not at all an advocate of keeping the tribal image there

User:nikkul Indians do not put black things in their noses. Indians do not dress like that. Most Indians do not look like that.

IndianstarIndia article should also have attractive pictures.

IncmanThe current image for the demographics section is not at all helpful as it represents a very small section of the Indian populace.

user:Khazadum don't think the picture is "ugly" or anything. Just that it is the picture of a very small group of people in a very remote part of India that China makes claim to anyway. Should there not be a picture that is more representative of the Indian people?

user:Fowler&fowler As for the India-China problem, you do have a point,

User:indianstar I do feel pictures selected for Indian article does not go well with subject. We don't have to go only for featured pictures. We can select high quality pictures which suit well with the subject even if it is not a featured picture. There is a potential for improving better pictures for History,Culture(Tajmahal picture is OK) & Demography sections. I support changing current picture in demographic section.

user:nikkul But is India's tribal culture representative of India as a whole? —Preceding unsigned comment added by nikkul (talk • contribs)

To be precise, I'm not for or against having the tribal image in the demographics section. However, I'm totally against turning it into a "brochure for CEO's" by decorating it with film star images. This is NOT a brochure. --Ragib 23:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
To user Nikkul, please don't count my first post (about India-China) as evidence for deleting the Apatami image. As you know, I am on record below—have voted, and will do so again if need be—for including the Apatami image as well as the Chennai street scene.
As for your repetitive references to "black things" in their noses for the Apatami, those, by the way, are "ornaments" (in case you haven't heard the word before). So, stop writing like you are in junior high school and show respect to people who don't conform to your notion of "normality" or "Indianness." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Nikkul, I don't see why you fear having the picture of the Arunachal Pradesh tribal woman on the main page. The image is question has been assesed to be of featured quality by neutral reviewers. If the person from Arunachal Pradesh is not Indian, or not a tribal, then I'm sorry your assessment of the people of India is incorrect. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Our function here not to entertain ceo's. But i do agree that tribe picture is irrelevanttIndianhilbilly 13:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


Nichalap, the fact that the picture gained featured status does not mean it represents India in the fairest way. I do not fear having the women, i just feel that the image does not belong since its such a small percent of the population. Its like... putting a picture of terrorists on the demographics section of Wikipedia Pakistan...yes there are terrorists in Pakistan, but are all pakistanis terrorists? no. Similarly, yes there are apanti tribals in India, but are all Indian's apanti tribals? no. To tell you the truth, I think that only the South Indian dancer comes even close to describing the people of India. Nikkul 13:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is another great picture: See Image15 (Gallery)

and one to represent the south: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Indian_bride_in_white.jpg

Nikkul 14:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you do the honours of getting your selected images featured? That way'd we'd have a better pool of quality images for our articles. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

none of these images are "mine" per say, as I live on the other side of the world, I can not really take pics of India. But i do really like the indian bride image-nikkul

It does not have to be yours, you can nominate any picture that is striking. Latching on to the phrase i do really like the indian bride image, seems to be the real cause of the dispute here. "One's man meat is another's poison" holds true here. Please see the comments for your preferred image: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Indian bride portrait. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

So whats wrong with the bridge image? I think most of us agree that the apanti pic does not show India as a whole. And though it might show india's inner beauty and all, most people who visit the India page are not going to think, "wow this pic must only represent India's tribal culture." or "wow, this pic shows India's inner beauty." most people who come to this page will not be like you and I. They wont know what Indians look like and they will be here to learn. Thus, the apanti image is faulty in showing them India, because it will make an average person assume that all indians look like that. unlike u and i, most people who visit this page do know see Indians every day, and showing them an image that represents only .006% of the population and an image that does not look Indian is giving them faulty info. (and like i said before, its like the terrorist & pak thing.)--nikkul

Ridiculous! From the straw poll below, I don't see who the "most of us agree" people are. And if you do monitor the page, there is no "set" look for an Indian, we are very diverse in looks and appearance. Secondly, the images on the page are somewhat regionally balanced. Any thoughts for also including an image from NE India, which in previous page archives have laments that the region is mostly neglected. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


Well, maybe you didnt read but here it is again: User:Ragib: Well, I'm not at all an advocate of keeping the tribal image there

User:nikkul Indians do not put black things in their noses. Indians do not dress like that. Most Indians do not look like that.

User:Indianstar:India article should also have attractive pictures.

user:Incman:The current image for the demographics section is not at all helpful as it represents a very small section of the Indian populace.

user:Khazadum: don't think the picture is "ugly" or anything. Just that it is the picture of a very small group of people in a very remote part of India that China makes claim to anyway. Should there not be a picture that is more representative of the Indian people?

user:Fowler&fowler: As for the India-China problem, you do have a point,

user:indianhilbilly: But i do agree that tribe picture is irrelevantt

User:indianstar: I do feel pictures selected for Indian article does not go well with subject. We don't have to go only for featured pictures. We can select high quality pictures which suit well with the subject even if it is not a featured picture. There is a potential for improving better pictures for History,Culture(Tajmahal picture is OK) & Demography sections. I support changing current picture in demographic section.

user:nikkul But is India's tribal culture representative of India as a whole?

Also, I do not think that alliances and/or sockpuppets are the way to make any article better. Nikkul 01:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from quoting others partially, and thus misrepresenting the meaning. I have clarified that I am neither an advocate of the photo, nor against having it there. Also, your comments about sockpuppets/alliances is quite objectionable. Just because your opinion isn't a majority, nor logical, you can't start name calling others. Thank you. --Ragib 02:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The picture for the Demographics section shouldn't be of any people, tribal or otherwise. It is impossible to accurately represent India's demographics with one or two pictures of people in India. Use either a visual from the main Demographics of India article or simply don't use pictures at all for that section. The population density or literacy maps are fitting considering the current text of the section, so perhaps one of those should be used in this article instead of the picture of people. What do y'all think? The Behnam 03:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Im not Indian, myself, but i have seen A LOT Of Indians, and I do have to say, none of them looked like the tribals shown on the India wikipedia website. Coollemonade 16:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Ya. If y'all are going to insist upon keeping a picture that has nothing to do with the demographics of India, I'm can't stop you. However, I hope you consider choosing one of the demographics charts, because I haven't seen any good argument to choose a picture of specific people to represent India. Even if you collage a bunch of different people you won't be able to represent the demographic well. Choosing a picture that is about a demographic is much more appropriate. I tell you this as an outsider; the article is better with a relevant picture (aka not the current picture). It seems that you have consensus for using a different picture than the current one, so that is a start. Please do consider a demographic visual, thanks. The Behnam 18:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with coollemonade.XavierIcI 03:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

A ridiculous discussion, I feel. So a picture of an Apatani tribal woman who doesn't look remotely Indian is favoured over a picture of Shilpa Shetty, someone who actually looks Indian but is not favoured because she is an unrepresentative movie star? I only came across this discussion while following the image links (I'm also the biggest contributor to Shilpa Shetty) and I strongly disagree with a good number of rationales being employed here. For me this is a complete no-brainer; Shetty is more representative of "Indian looking people" than a tribal woman and there should be no objection to using a freely-licensed picture to illustrate the point, at least until a supposedly "better" image is found. Ekantik talk 04:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Though, to be fair, Image:Amitabh_Bachchan.jpg could also be used as it is also freely-licensed. So take your pick. For the record, I was instrumental in getting both the Amitabh and Shilpa images freely-licensed for Wikipedia. Ekantik talk 04:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposals for inclusion of different images in different sections

I am setting up a "proposals" and "votes" subsection, so that we can keep track of where things are in the discussion. Fowler&fowler«Talk»

  • Demographics Section
    • Proposal 1: Keep the Apatani image (the current image) and add the Chennai street scene image (Image9). This is what the Demographics section looks like with the two images: See here


    • Proposal 2: Remove the Apatani image because it does not represent all of India at all and get another image of an average Indian perhaps in a traditional indian dress
      • Votes for: (please add your names) XavierIcI



    • Proposal 4: Do not use a picture of a person or people (because that cannot possibly represent India' demographics). Use a demographic visual, such as a map or chart, instead (hence, the demographics section).
User:Sarvagnya Sarvagnya
      • Votes against: (please add your names)user:huniebunie(already there are too many maps)
    • Proposal 5: Leave Demography section without any image. There are too many maps so maps cannot be added. Any individual's picture including Apatani tribe should not be put in Demographic section. Crowded places is not a correct image representation for Demographic section. We can either put some charts or some graphics(People with many cultural backgrounds within India map)..


  • Geography Section
    • Proposal 1: Add image of lake panong keep the other pic as well


  • Culture Section
    • Proposal 1: Add south indian dancer and move taj mahal to history (mughal dynasty) because its more historic to an Indian than it is cultural and remove toda hut because it does not go with wut the paragraph is saying.
      • Votes against: (please add your names)


  • Military Section
    • Proposal 1: Add airforce pic (the more detailed, uncopyrighted one) and/or delete the current one

Why Air Force picture? The Agni-II gives India the most important capability to India of a retalitory nuclear strike. Agni is used by the Army and the IAF. The Navy will also have a sub launched Agni-III. Let the Agni-III come, then Agni-II can be replaced with the Agni-III image. Chanakyathegreat 03:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Chanakya. The flyby/flypast image is too generic and too low-res. The missile picture has specifically Indian details. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • History section
    • Proposal 1: Remove existing picture. Move Tajmahal.

Socks?

I'd really like to assume good faith, but Huniebunie (talk · contribs), XavierIcI (talk · contribs), Coollemonade (talk · contribs) all edit one other's user pages, and seem to act just like Nikkul (talk · contribs) in pushing their own images in the demographics section. The last thing we need here is sockpuppetry, or a group of meatpuppets pushing some agenda. I apologize in advance, but the mutual editing of user pages of these users and the replacement of images in the article DOES look quite interesting. --Ragib 02:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Huniebunie, xavierIcI, Nikkul, Coollemonade
It is clear from your user and talk pages that you are "part of the group of four college wikiusers who have decided to better wikipedia in hopes of getting an computer internship". I think that is great - wikipedia in general and the India Project and particular can always use more dedicated editors . However you should perhaps be aware of wikipedias policies regarding (what is called) meatpuppets as well as wikipedia's consensus process before you all vote on the same question and then use that as a justification to change images on a featured article when clearly there is no such consensus. I assume that you were not aware of these policy nuances and therefore made the understandable error - I hope you will join in in the discussions and help improve the India page in cooporation with other editors here. Thanks. Abecedare 03:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, first of all, let me just say that we are four different people. I am sorry that we happen to know each other outside of wikipedia. And I am further sorry that (i think) coollemonade made a link connecting us together. At that time, i did not know how to make interwiki links, and that is why she editted it. And if that is not allowed on wikipedia, then i appologize in advance. I can not speak for the others, but the reason I am doing this is simple. Sometime in the future, I am going to print out my history log and show it to an internship in hopes of making it in. I have done a lot of research in the past about India and I feel I know much about the nation. That is why I started contributing to this page. Being a new user, I had not read the concensus link, and i did not know the procedure for it. So i am sorry about changing the pic. Second of all, we do not act like nikkul. Just because he was not lazy and made an account first does not mean that we are trying to emulate him. He is an editor. As am I, as are you, as is anyone else. For example, I completely disagree with his claim that we should jazz this page up b/c ceo's come here a lot. This is an encyclopedia, and it should show a fair article of India. In terms of demographics, it should give the right information and show a just picture (if there is one there). And this is where my thought comes in. I do not think that the pic is a fair representation of india. If the France wikipedia page were to have an African immigrant's French born son on their page, i don't think that the pic would stay there long. Isnt the son a citizen of France? yes he is. but he'd be the minority. and the pic would go. I think that we should switch pics every now and then, which someone else had mentioned up there. As a wikipedia user and as a resident of this world, i think that i should have my vote on something that i feel right about. And i am sooo sorry that it happens to be what someone else feels as well, but i cant change my thought because someone else feels the same way. And my vote counts just as much as anyone else's. And i dont think that i should be treated any differntly because of my opinions than someone else who disagress with me. I am an editor of wikipeida. i am here only to make this site better. Whenever i am on this name, i help make the india related sites better. I also edit other sites (non india related) with my computer's ip address. So overall i do not feel that my vote should not count because i feel a certain way that others might disagree with. And thanks for letting me know the polocies and providing me links. If any one has any question about me, please ask it on my talk page b/c this is not the place to continue this discussion. I understand that when people support something that you do not, it is human nature to suspect that they might be cheating, but at the same time, I am partially offended. We are not some alliance or anything and we dont vote together at all. I vote on how I feel and the rest do the same. if you would like to talk to the others, you can go to their talk page, but they might take time to respond b/c nikkul & coollemonade are on vacation. and xavier....well lets just say all college students are lazy. Anyway, i hope i have cleared things up. I vote on how I feel and that's the way it is. And im trying to get 100 edits done so that you do not suspect that I am a sockpuppet, but unfortunately life doesnt come for free. And I have school and job to worry about, but im working on the 100 editsHuniebunie 12:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

National anthem : too long, slow speed.

The .ogg file on the website saying its national anthem of india is contrary to the indian constitution. The national anthem should only last for 52 seconds if sung correctly. The one here lasts 110 seconds. Please post the original. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Doctorsrk (talk • contribs) 03:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

I agree. The audio file is about 50% longer than prescribed, while for something like national anthem, the guideline should be strictly met. Also, the audio file might also be a copyright violation, as it does not mention the source. I have tagged the audio file at commons with {{nsd}}, and the file may be deleted from the commons. Similar media uploaded by him had been deleted in the past. I suggest removing the link to the audio file till we get an authentic replacement. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 16:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Dead Interwiki Links

Alot of the interwiki links appear to be almost deadlinks. Almost 40 of them lead to speedydelete pages or pages that are simply empty or have an untranslated English(!) text on them. I had removed those, but (understandibly) they were readded by A4bot. What could be done here? — N-true 02:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

They should be left alone, since they, like redlinks are harmless. Those pages will be translated eventually. We Wikipedians face more dire concerns than a few untranslated or blanked iw pages. Also, leaving them allows any speakers of those languages to get to those pages (from here) and recreate, translate, or expand them—after all, this is one of the most popular pages on this wiki, and draws many types of people with different language skills. Thanks. Saravask 04:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

AIDS in India

I discussed this in passing at the Mumbai talk page, but does anyone think that AIDS information should be added to this page, as India is the country with the highest number of HIV/AIDS affected people on Earth (see AIDS article, 5.7 million infections, 0.9% of the population). While percentage-wise it is not as high as some African countries, I still think it deserves a sentence or two here. Any thoughts? Wikipedia brown 18:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

nonsense. prevalence of AIDS is about average, after Russia and before Argentinia. Of course a larger population means that 0.9% corresponds to more infected people, but it likewise means that 99.1% corresponds to more healthy people. dab (𒁳) 21:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
So are you saying AIDS is not a big deal in India? Or is it just not noteworthy enough? It might surprise you that a number of sources mention AIDS to be a major crisis:
http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/102256034.html "HIV/AIDS is a major public health problem in India"
http://www.avert.org/aidsindia.htm "The crisis continues to deepen ..."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3886883.stm "(India) has one of the highest infection rates - :and more than five million HIV/Aids cases."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/08/60minutes/main610961.shtml -- "AIDS Out of Control In India"
http://www.time.com/time/asia/covers/501050606/story.html "India's AIDS crisis is huge and growing"
http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/global_health/aids/Countries/ane/india.html "the HIV epidemic in India will have a major impact on the overall spread of HIV in Asia, the Pacific, and around the world".
(all emphasis added is mine)
The last reference is a good rebuttal to your argument: "Although the overall average adult prevalence rate is 0.8 percent, there are considerably higher prevalence rates in some geographic areas around trucking routes, the brothel-based commercial sex industry, and in vulnerable populations. Transmission of HIV within and from these groups drives the epidemic, but the infection is spreading to the general community. "
And so I finish with ONE question for you: Just when does this become noteworthy enough to mention on Wikipedia's article on India? Wikipedia brown 02:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
AIDS is of course noteworthy feature of India which is cited by so many newspapers/journals/columns which needs mention in the article. Even if % is less compared to African countries, quantity of people affected is large enough.(India is second highest donor receipient from Bill gates foundation to fight Aids.). Even some of the other problems of India like Kashmir issue/Caste issue needs atleast 1 sentence in the article. (Earlier Featured article removal candidates discussion emphasises that these kind of negative points does not find mention in the article). Some of the positive points of India like its achivements in space research its efforts to become permanent membership also need to be mentioned in the article. Though there is a near consensus, i fear to add contents to avoid edit war. I am not able to understand why these contents cannot be added to India article when similar information is available in other country articles.(Many of those country articles are also featured articles or Good articles). It seems we love to maintain status quo... even if there is a proof that current contents are factually not accurate representation of India.(Like Indian dress...I can give other examples).--Indianstar 05:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree, we can put it in the demographics. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Let's try to build up some momentum and agreement on this before adding anything into the article then. We should make sure everyone sees this discussion and has time to react and respond with their opinions so that the chance of an unnecessary edit war is minimized. Let's give it another week. Assuming there are no major (valid) objections, I think we should try to come up with the sentence wording here. Wikipedia brown 07:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
By the way Indianstar, why don't you add the Kashmir conflict, Caste issue, and Space Research issue to the To Do list at the top of the page? I'll go ahead and add this until we come up with a resolution. Wikipedia brown 09:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I support mentioning AIDS in demographics. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
of course we can mention AIDS in the demographics section. And the demographics sub-article should discuss public health more widely. I was objecting to the proposition that we imply that India has the "highest number of HIV/AIDS affected people on Earth" which is silly, since it is just a corollary of India's high population. We could just as well say that India has the highest number of people not affected with AIDS (short of maybe China). But, if we're going to discuss public health, malnutrition (200 million) is a rather more notable point than Aids (10 million). dab (𒁳) 15:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we should not simply focus on AIDS, but rather add a couple of sentences on health issues in India in the Demographics section. These would include "persistent malnutrition, water-borne diseases (such as, dysentery), infectious diseases (such as, malaria) etc and AIDS". In order to present an accurate summary of a complex topic, we should also point out the notable successes, such as "increased life-expectancy since independence, small-pox eradication, polio's near eradication and qualified success of vaccination and family planning programs". Of course the exact list of topics, language and references need to be decided yet. Here are some possible sources (there are many, many more available): [1], [2], [3]. Abecedare 17:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Like I always say, this page should represent the majority of India. Fortunately, AIDS affects only 5000000/1100000000=.004% of the population. That means not even one hundredth of one whole person out of every 100 Indians has aids. Its a very very small fraction. If you are so intent on mentioning something bad about India's health, you would rather mention the child malnutrition which is about 54 percent. Nikkul 21:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Please check your math or read [4]. Also please look up WP:AGF, before adding comments like "If you are so intent on mentioning something bad about India's health". Thanks. Abecedare 21:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree both with Dab and Abecedare. The lead mentions "persistent malnutrition," so it would certainly make sense to have it and other public health issues mentioned in demographics.
In fact (and I haven't thought carefully about it), it might even make sense to have a small section on "Public Health and the Environment," where one paragraph could be devoted to: public health successes and challenges (as Abecedare mentions above) and environment-related successes and challenges (for example the use of "Compressed Natural Gas" in urban transport (a success), pollution in the rivers (e.g Ganges) or the coastal ocean (a challenge). I wonder what people think. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
We have a "Public health" section in Venezuela (not written by me), and I remember that Australia had a (poorly written) "Environment" section for a while (apparently it was recently removed). So it's not without precedent. Either way, we need to at least touch upon issues like widespread malnutrition (most—over 400 million—of the world's malnourished children are Indians)), anemia (60% of Indian women afflicted with it), TB (50% of Indians infected), and other sobering data. Saravask 01:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Since this section is becoming quite long, I've opened a separate section below on the creation of a "Public Health and Environment" section in the India page. Please comment in that section below, if you would like such a section. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Demographics Picture

The picture for the Demographics section shouldn't be of any people, tribal or otherwise. It is impossible to accurately represent India's demographics with one or two pictures of people in India. Use either a visual from the main Demographics of India article or simply don't use pictures at all for that section. The population density or literacy maps are fitting considering the current text of the section, so perhaps one of those should be used in this article instead of the picture of people. What do y'all think? The Behnam 03:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

This is being discussed in a section above. I have pasted your comments there. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Talk:Indian_mathematics#Request_for_comment:_Reliable_Sources_for_Indian_Mathematics Feedback is requested for a problem on the Indian mathematics page, where two users have a disagreement about what constitutes reliable sources for claims in the article. 05:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Defense Strategy

I'd suggest India should immediately and secretly develop "minimal" weaponry that has potential to destroy the earth, because

1. It is very inexpensive to develop such technologies.

2 . India can use it to negotiate with superpowers. Sounds strange but current superpowers bully during negotiations. God and religion are distinct. 09:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Please use this page for discussions on the article, not personal opinions. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thailand in the vicinity of India

What is the opinion on adding Thailand into the list of nations in the vicintiy of India. Proof:http://go.hrw.com/atlas/norm_map/thailand.gif

Chanakyathegreat 03:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Does India have a border with Thailand? Otherwise, adding that information would be misleading and redundant. --Ragib 04:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
No, it should not be added. None of the geography books I've read mention it. Measuring the distance on Google earth, Thailand is 500 km from Indian territory, whereas Indonesia is 175 km. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
One island of India is within 175 kms of another island of Indonesia. Is it necessary to mention Indonesia as bordering country? If that logic is applied Britain and France control many islands all over the Globe. Dozens of country all over the world will become its bordering countries. --Indianstar 11:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
It's not a bordering country but in the vicinity of Sri Lanka, Maldives and Indonesia.. Andaman and Nicobar Islands are integral parts of India, unlike the islands you mention which are overseas possessions of the two countries. The political status of these islands ofcourse differ. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Lead section

Someone has injected this comments into the lead section. it currently battles high levels of poverty, persistent malnutrition, and environmental degradation. It need to be removed. I cannot find a similar one in any other nations (eg:People's Republic of China) lead section.

Chanakyathegreat 03:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Instead of making a completely irrelevant comment like "I cannot find something similar in China", your argument would be better served if you had bothered to tell us why these things are not true. This is an encyclopedia. Go sit down and think about what that means before wasting our time. --Blacksun 11:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

23% of people in India are said to be under poverty which is a lower amount. The statement high levels of poverty is correct if the poverty level is atleast above 50% of the population. 23% cannot be called as high level. If the statement is made to state that the poor people in India are in millions, then also the statement cannot be high level since there are 77% of the population who are not under poverty, which is a very huge number.

Another is environmental degradation. The environmental degradation in India is not as severe in U.S.A or China. All the nations in the world today face one or other kinds of environmental degradation. In all those articles I cannot find the lead section containing the same sentences.

Chanakyathegreat 13:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The link "high levels" (of poverty) is to List of countries by percentage of population living in poverty. The list is based on World Bank, IMF, and UN statistics. India is ranked 16 is the list of countries by percentage of population surviving on less that $2 a day (that percentage is 79.9%). The official Government of India poverty line is set artificially low, so in the nationally-defined poverty line list India turns up higher. Although a dollar may go farther in India than some other places, poverty lines set by individual countries are not good economic indicators. The Indian poverty line (which is the inflation-adjusted amount that would have bought 2400 calories in food per person per day in rural areas and 2100 calories in urban areas in 1973) is now Rs. 540 per month, or $12 per month (at the Rs 45 = $1 exchange rate), or 40 cents per day. This assumes that the entire income of Rs. 540 is being spent on food. With this definition of the poverty line (ie. 40 cents per day), the proportions of Indians below the poverty line is 23% or 25% (depending on what statistics one quotes). The UN Human Development Index figure of "79.9% living on less than $2 per day" is more descriptive than "23% below the poverty line," unless one says, "23% below the poverty line of $0.40 per day." Even so, the latter gives only a picture of the most dire statistics. So, yes, India still battles high levels of poverty. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Environmental degradation is common to any country in the world. Why it has to be mentioned in India article alone?.But What Fowler says about poverty is correct. India's poverty measurement differs from international poverty measurement. Also high level of poverty does not mean above 50%.--Indianstar 21:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the environmental degradation is not so relavent here, especially when it is a universal problem and not one specific in scale or kind, to India. Poverty, true it is a problem, and a big one. But just like to add, that the artificial correction concept is not new, it is used in the PPP method of GDP. But yes, that also does not change basic ground reality. The line as it now stands, inplies all those problems are of "high levels". It might be better to make the line more neutral like "It battles poverty, ..." and do away with subjective terms like "high levels". the link is there for people to see, they can draw their own conclusions of the largeness of it. Can mention any other problem if it is missing from the currecnt sentence. But environmental degradation, I feel can be removed.AJ-India 21:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Public Health and Environment Section

In the AIDS section, it was suggested that we might consider having a small section on the India page on Public Health and Environment (which would include AIDS, but also other public health challenges and successes (like eradication of small-pox) and the same for the environment). I wonder what people think about this section. As Saravask observed in the AIDS section above, some to the data is sobering, but it needs to be a part of the India page.

It would be great if other editors could comment on the creation of such a section. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Its possible. However, regarding AIDS, their is lot of controversy on the figures that are often circulated in the mass media. Their was a recent study that argued that AIDS numbers are inflated. 1 Their are also concerns expressed by the health officials in India that exaggeration of such numbers is leading to much needed funding to fight diseases such as Tuberculoses diverted to AIDS. In short, I think that it might be a tough job to have a small and concise paragraph about this in the main article. --Blacksun 10:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
A section on public health is not needed. (WP:Country) The information can be added in Demographics. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, that sounds good. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

References for Information on Public Health and the Enviroment

Here are some references. Please add others. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't support creating Public health section or mentioning other infectious diseases in India article. We are not trying to create inventory of diseases or travel warnings. AIDS has been identified as potential risk for overall India's economic growth by few economists,so I supported mentioning in India article. Other infectious diseases are mostly seasonal,temporary,not fatal(when treated properly). Other infectious diseases are part and parcel of any developing country. (Many people emphasise infectious diseases more frequently in these talk pages as if India is the only country which has these kind of diseases). AIDS does not distinguish developing or developed country like other infectious diseases.(Prevalence rate in US 0.6%, Bangladesh 0.1%). Most of the featured country articles does not have Public health section. It is sufficient if we mention AIDS in demographic section as suggested by Nichalp. --Indianstar 11:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I do not think that AIDS is so pervasive in the country as to be mentioned on the wikipedia page. BTW, none of the other countries with similar %age of AIDS victims is reporting it on theirs <read Russia, US to some extent>. Infact, if we need to mention AIDS, we should do it in a more holistic way - as in discuss the general health issues faced by the country, the research in the field, the quality and cost of health service, etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abhask (talk • contribs) 18:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

OK, that's fine. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

motto is not "truth alone triumphs"

motto of country is: satyam+eva jayathe

eva in sanskrith used to emphasise. its does not mean "alone". so "truth itself triumphs" or just "truth triumphs" would be better. help me by your version of motto, im not much good in english emphasising words.

The Government of India's India Image Portal, which aims "to provide comprehensive, accurate , reliable and one stop source of information about India and its various facets including its Government, heritage, economy, news, online citizen services etc." translates the phrase as "Truth alone triumphs" [6] - so I guess we have to stick with that. Abecedare 07:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)