Talk:India/Archive 24

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

Grammar Mistakes

I have found a couple of grammar mistakes in this article, including the following :

1. According to http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/grammar/g_comma.html , commas should be used "to separate three or more words." Most of the times in this article, commas have been used to separate the first from the second, the second from the third, etc. but not the last from the second last. Examples include the following (places where commas should be put are in bold print): "Four major world religions, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism originated here, while Islam, Christianity, Judaism and Zoroastrianism arrived..."(second paragraph of introduction) "led by the Indo-Greeks, Indo-Scythians, Indo-Parthians and Kushans..."(second paragraph of history section) "such as the Chalukyas, Cholas, Pallavas and Pandyas..." (second paragraph of history section) "including Portugal, Netherlands, France and the United Kingdom..." (third paragraph of history section) "including INC, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), Communist Party of India (CPI) and various regional parties." (first paragraph of politics section) "including bharatanatyam, kathakali, kathak, kuchipudi, manipuri, odissi and yakshagana" (second paragraphs of culture section) "as ingredients, spices and cooking methods"(third paragraphs of culture section) "coastal states of West Bengal, Goa and Kerala..."(fifth paragraph of culture section) "...to the ancient martial arts, kalarippayattu and Varma Kalai"(fifth paragraph of culture section) "

2. Various other grammar mistakes include the following (bold areas indicate where changes should be made): "...although Cricket is the..."(capitalization mistake: fifth paragraph of culture section) "India is home to two major linguistic families: Indo-Aryan..." (second paragraph of demographics section: perhaps it should be changed to "India is home to the following two major linguistic families:") "India has three archipelagos — Lakshadweep, which lies off the southwestern coast; the volcanic Andaman and Nicobar Islands island chain to the southeast, and the Sunderbans in the Ganges Delta of West Bengal."(why is there a semicolon between the first and second clauses but only a comma between the second and third clauses?); Whenever statistics relating to money are given in USA, the symbol put before the number is US$, which, according to me, should be changed to either USD or plain $, not a combination of both. Johnsmithcba 17:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, You don't know the first thing about grammar. The Serial comma, which you seem to be advocating, is standard for American English, but not for British English (or Indian English). The other stuff is minor and mostly incorrect. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It may be used in American English and not usually in British English, but according to most professors of the English language, even in India, the serial comma indicates formal writing, no matter what type of English it is. Is not Wikipedia a former encyclopedia? Johnsmithcba 18:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is very clear on this (see here), "Proponents of the serial comma, such as The Elements of Style, cite its disambiguating function and consistency as reasons for its use. Opponents consider it extraneous in situations where it does not explicitly resolve ambiguity. Many non-journalistic style guides recommend its use, while many newspaper style guides discourage its use; Wikipedia, by having no consensus, allows either style and therefore enables the avoidance of ambiguity." No ambiguity exists in any of the examples you quote above. If you are saying that the serial comma is de rigueur on Wikipedia, please take it up on the talk page of the WP:MOS, not here. OK? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Replying to your statement, why is it that only some of the series in this article don't have the last comma, while most of them do? Is not that a contradiction, sort of like a paradox? I only picked out the ones that don't have a comma before the last item in the series, but there are even more that do have it. Johnsmithcba 18:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I have corrected the semicolon in the geography and cricket in culture. As for dollars, US$ is accepted, as with USD (ISO 4217). $ is ambigious so we do not use. Please aquaint yourself with the WP:MoS before making further proposals. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW, "the following" is a redundant word. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

One last thing concerning the serial comma. Why is that most series in this article follow the serial comma, but some (the ones that I have listed) do not. Should not it be made consistent, so the whole article either follows the serial comma or does not at all? Johnsmithcba 11:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not an expert in commas, but my understanding is that it is redundant to have a comma and and, as both are meant to mark a separation. And that's what I have learnt in schools.AJ-India 07:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


Per Serial_comma#Usage, the serial comma is also used in British English, for example, in Oxford Univ. Style. --Ragib 07:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of Pune

In the intro section, the page lists the names of important cities. Hre "Pune" must be included, as it is one of the most importan cities (7th largest city, IT capital, and "Oxford" of East) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jaydeep.godbole (talk • contribs) 08:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

Parliament Picture

Does not anyone think that there should be a new picture of the Indian parliament replacing the one given now in the Politics section, one which would picture it in the daytime and would give it a bit more closeup of it? Universe=atom 16:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Same suggestion given on the same page ref:Sansad bhavan pic not good. Please discuss there. --59.182.34.192 10:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

For whatever its worth, I uploaded a derivative of that picture on commons. A little closer up.. What do u guys think? Sarvagnya 11:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It's nice, but what about the following picture: http://www.iloveindia.com/images/parliament.jpg Universe=atom 17:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Univers=atom - that pic on the iloveindia site is most probably copyrighted by the site or by somebody else. we cant use that on wikipedia. Sarvagnya 18:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then where can we get a better picture of the parliament, considering that the current one should be removed. If one can not be found, perhaps there should not be a picture of the parliament altogether but instead another picture relating to Indian politics. Universe=atom 14:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The current one was contributed by me and was a much better picture than the previous one (where only a third of the pic was the parliament building and the rest was a Maruti van and the road. Flickr is the place to get good pictures. You can always find a pic and ask its owner to change the copywright. Thats how many of the images are brought to wikipedia. Nikkul 12:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Etymology of Bharat

Why does etymology section does not discuss etymology of word Bharat? Can somebody have a look at it?

And the sentense "The Constitution of India and common usage in Hindi also recognise Bharat ......" should be "The Constitution of India and common usage in Indian languages also recognise Bharat ......" Bharat is the name used by most of the Indian languages(in GUjrathi, Marathi, Tamil, Bengali, Telugu, Malayalam, Tulu, Konkani,Kannada and Hindi). We should also include the etymology of Bharat. It is wrong to say India is the common name used but it is only used by Enlish speaking Urban Indians. Do not forget that 70% of Indians live in rural areas.

~rAGU

there is a full discussion at Etymology_of_the_names_of_India#Bharat. dab (𒁳) 13:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Additional main-sub-articles

Should not there be added additional links to main articles in the government section? For example, the following:

Government of India

   Main Article: Government of India
        Sub Articles:
        -Politics_of_India#Central_and_State_Governments#Legislative_branch
        -Politics_of_India#Central_and_State_Governments#Judicial_branch

I am suggesting this because in the "Government of India" section, it talks about all of the three branches. Should not there be links to sub-main-articles for each of the three branches, leading into a more detailed account of each branch. Universe=atom 19:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

External Links Section

Why is it so that in the External Links section, the second link in the "Government" sub-section overlaps the audio file template? Universe=atom 15:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, it's my mistake. The computer I was looking at had a lower screen resolution. It's ok with computers with normal view settings. Again, sorry. Universe=atom 13:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

I feel the introduction of India is not very effective. It is only in the second paragraph that Indus Valley civilization is mentioned whereas the first paragraph talks about India being the seventh largest country in size and that it shares international boundaries with many other countries. I believe that introduction should be the "first things first" way and it is a fact (one of which all Indians are truly proud of) that India is the cradle to one of the 4 (or 5 if we count Greece) ancient civilizations.

When I was not satisfied with the "India" introduction, just out of curiosity, I checked the article on China (one of the other great ancient civilizations) and found it so strong that am reproducing the stronger bits here:

"... (China) is a cultural region, ancient civilization, and nation in East Asia. It is one of the world's oldest civilizations, consisting of states and cultures dating back more than six millennia..." "China is one of the world's oldest continuous civilizations. It has the world's longest continuously used..."

The first extract is from the 1st paragraph. Even the 2nd para starts with emphasis on China being an ancient civilization (the second extract).

We should highlight Indus Valley right in the first para instead of relegating it to the second paragraph. Thanks Kunjite 18:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Kunjite (talk · contribs), India is a featured article and the "flagship" of the India-related articles on Wikipedia. It has been stabilized over many years and incorporates the work of many people. Since you are a new comer to Wikipedia—the above post is your first edit—why don't you familiarize yourself with how country pages are written and read WikiProject Countries. Since you seem to have many ideas on how to improve articles, why don't you sign up on the WikiProject India page and help with some articles that really need help? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
The first paragraph of the article says what is India (a country in South Asia), its significant ranks (population, size etc) and the geographic location and boundaries—this is needed in order to give the reader an impression of the country. Next paragraph deals with history (including Indus Valley Civilization)—after the reader gets an idea of the location, (s)he gets to know about sgnificant history. This structure maintains the flow. So, it'd not needed to change the lead.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, got your point of view on the introduction/lead Dwaipayan. Kunjite 20:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Grammar Mistakes II

Since most of the corrections of grammar mistakes that I make in this article are reverted, I shall list them here. Please express your views, for that is the only way I can know if the mistake should be corrected, or if it is a mistake at all.

  • "Since 1959 criminal trials have had no jury in India." (last sentence of "Government" section) Should not a comma be added after Since 1959, since it is a nonessential prepositional phrase?
  • "The legislature of India is the bicameral Parliament, which consists of the upper house called the Rajya Sabha (Council of States), and the lower house called the Lok Sabha (House of People)." (third paragraph of "Government" section) Should not the comma between (Council of States) and and be removed, since it does not connect two independent clauses?
  • "In the 2004 Indian elections the Indian National Congress won the largest number of Lok Sabha seats and formed a government with a coalition called the United Progressive Alliance, supported by various left-leaning parties and members opposed to the BJP." (last sentence of "Politics" section) Should not a comma be placed after In the 2004 Indian elections, since it is an adverb prepositional phrase in the beginning of the sentence.
  • "In recent years, India has played an influential role in the ASEAN, SAARC, and the WTO." (second paragraph of "Military and Foreign Relations" section) Should not a the be placed before SAARC because article consistency should be maintained in a series. (in common words: there is a the before ASEAN and a the before WTO; why should not a the be placed between SAARC?)
  • "India has a labour force of 509.3 million, 60% of which is employed in agriculture and related industries." (fourth paragraph of "Economy" section) Should not the word people be added after 509.3 million, for in this case, 509.3 is an adjective describing million. Million, though, can not stand alone as a noun; instead, numbers are usually adjectives describing an object.
  • "Textiles, jewelery, engineering goods and software are major export commodities." (fifth paragraph of "Economy" section) The well disputed serial comma is here. Let me make one fact clear, though. Most of the series in this article follow the serial comma, and this is one of the rare ones that do not do so. So, why leave it like this?
  • "It has unresolved territorial disputes with China, which in 1962 escalated into the brief Sino-Indian War; and with Pakistan, which resulted in wars in 1947, 1965, 1971 and in 1999 in Kargil" (fifth paragraph of "History" section) Same thing as above (serial comma.) Also, although this is not a grammar mistake, why is that the years 1947, 1965, and 1971 are wikilinked, but the year 1999 is not?
  • "Many classical dance forms exist, including bharatanatyam, kathakali, kathak, kuchipudi, manipuri, odissi and yakshagana." (second paragraph of "Culture" section) Same thing as the previous one.
  • "The cuisine of India is extremely diverse, as ingredients, spices and cooking methods vary from region to region." (fourth paragraph of "Culture" section) Same thing as the previous one.
  • "In the Indian Ocean, India is in the vicinity of Sri Lanka, Maldives and Indonesia." (first paragraph of introduction) Same thing as before. (Let one more thing be cleared, though. In the same paragraph (first paragraph of introduction), there are two other series before it, and all of them follow the serial comma. Why should this be left out.)
  • "The many notable Indian writers of the modern era, using both Indian languages and English, include Rabindranath Tagore." (third paragraph of "Culture" section) There is just something about this sentence that is odd. Perhaps it is that the subject is plural, but the predicate nominative is singular. In other words, perhaps more writers should be added along to Rabindranath Tagore. This, though, is unsure of; please give it a second thought if you change it.
    • The sentence structure is flawed. So how will you reframe it??--~KnowledgeHegemony~ 08:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • "India's national sport is field hockey even though cricket is the most popular sport in India." (sixth paragraph of "Culture" section) The dependent clause should be separated by a comma from the independent clause (in other words, a comma should be put after field hockey)
  • "India is home to the age-old discipline of yoga, and also to the ancient martial arts, kalarippayattu and Varma Kalai." (sixth paragraph of "Culture" section) This sentence has two grammatical mistakes. First of all, a comma should not be used to separate two items in a series, as it is currently doing (in other words, the comma after yoga should be removed.) The second mistake is the following: a comma should not be placed before essential appositives (in other words, the comma before kalarippayattu should be removed.)
  • "In 1998, the BJP formed the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) with several regional parties, and became the first non-Congress government to complete a full five-year term." (second paragraph of "Politics" section) A comma should not be placed between a compound verb (in other words, the comma between regional parties and and should be removed.

For now, that is all. If you find the previous examples as mistakes, please change them, for I have already tried to do so but have failed, since people have reverted my changes and told me to discuss changes in the talk pages, as I have just done so. Universe=atom 18:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Universe=atom I appreciate your efforts. But it would be better if you state it pointwise.
It makes it presentable and more legible. Personally on grammar I am not a an expert so I'll better keep mum.

--59.182.18.175 08:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, but what exactly do you mean by "pointwise?" Universe=atom 10:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

By point-wise 59.182.18.175 means write every mistake you think exists using this format
  • mistake #1
  • mistake #2
  • mistake #3
  • mistake #4

--KnowledgeHegemony 06:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I have edited my mistakes to make them point-wise. Please tell me your opinions on the mistakes, for if I do not receive any opinions, I will go ahead and correct all these mistakes. Universe=atom 15:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Please revert India To its best version!

There has been a lot of activity since the 'protected' template was removed which has resulted in some undesirous changes and also vandalism. --59.182.20.146 13:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree; perhaps the semi-protection should be put back. Universe=atom 15:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Hallelujah! It's put back! Universe=atom 10:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

New Pictures

Instead of the current picture of the Toda hut in the culture section, and the picture of the peacock in the Flora and Fauna section, how would the following pictures look, each respectively replacing their counterparts mentioned above:?

PICT0633s.jpg

Some traditional cuisine of India

the Bengal tiger, a traditional animal of India

Average temperatures in India; this picture would probably be added, not replace another picture

Please give your feedback. Universe=atom 15:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

What is wrong with the Peacock picture? It is the national bird of India and it is also considered sacred in Hinduism. Toda hut image in the culture section IS starting to seem bit out of place though the more I think about it. --Blacksun 09:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with the Toda hut. It look rather beautiful. Include some more ;pictures if you wish but dont remove that one. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 10:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I too am in favour of retaining the Toda Hut and Peacock pictures (note that both of them are Featured Images). Also please read the extensive discussion on the images included in the article in Archive 22 and Archive 23 (see in particular these discussions on Toda Hut and Peackock images). While reading the comments, keep in mind that users Indianhilbilly, XavierIcI, huniebunie, Coollemonade and Bangalorevenkat were all later found to be socks of Nikkul. Abecedare 11:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Yup. The Toda Hut image is great, and we've already been through an enervating debate over it.

Since the topic has been broached again below, I am reducing the last three posts below Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

someone should fix the first heading "ajay is gay" because some kid thought it would be funny to see their "work" on the internet. I do not know what this should be titled so i will not change it.

There are reasons I suggested these pictures. The peacock, first of all, is of a bit too much close-up. The feathers cover the whole picture; if there is to be a picture of the peacock, perhaps it would be better to make it of a bit less zoom. The picture of the toda hut, second of all, has nothing to do with the context of the text where it is put. The picture of the traditional Indian cuisine, though, would be in place with the text, as there is a paragraph right above the picture that talks about the cuisine. About the picture of the Indian climate, does anybody have any suggestions? Universe=atom 16:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, sorry, but the average temperatures map does not fit in the geography section. Instead, how would the following picture look:

Climatic map of India; this would perfectly be a part of the climate subsection in the geography section

Please give your feedback. Universe=atom 18:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Universe=atom, Your "cuisine image" (which, BTW, is incorrectly labeled: it is not South Indian food and the bread is not dosa, but rather a piece of Naan) was also nominated by user:Nikkul here (see the link provided in "Proposal 2"), and has already been discussed. BTW, I apologize in advance for what I'm about to say, but I hope you are not the same person as user:Johnsmithcba. The reason why I ask is that I noticed that your edits are very similar to his edits, and because this page had a bad experience with sockpuppeteering by user:Nikkul in early March, and we are all wary of seeing it repeated again. Having two accounts is not necessarily a bad thing, but I noticed that both you and Johnsmithcba had voted on the same side for the "Indian collaboration of the week" here. If you and Johnsmithcba are not the same person, please accept my sincere apologies; if you are the same person, I would urge you to use only one identity. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about; also, please do not post comments not relating to the pictures section here but rather on my talk page. Universe=atom 14:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

So, is anybody for or against the image of the climatic map of India (note: this is not the same one as the annual temperatures map)? I think it would it would suit quite well in the second part of the "Geography" section, as the section, along with the geography of India in the first part, also talks about the climate of India (in the second part). Also, replying to earlier statements, the picture of the tiger, according to me, is a bit better than the peacock picture partially because the peacock has a bit too much closeup (at first sight, the peacock does not even look like a peacock; one has to observe it closely or read the text underneath it to find out that it is a peacock). Also, although it does matter about which is the national symbol of India and which is not, equally important is the quality/structure of the picture, especially if it is going to be put in a featured article like India; in this case, the picture of the tiger is of better structure; also, according to me (please note that not everybody may share my views) is more beautiful than the peacock. BTW, Abecedare, echoing what you said in talk archive 23, it does not matter if a picture is featured or not; it should be of good content. On the subject of the picture of the cuisine, I guess the Toda hut is better. Universe=atom 17:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW, the Bengal tiger is also kind of like an unofficial national animal of India. Universe=atom 18:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but the geography section can't take two maps (not enough room). The question of replacing the existing map with yours needs to be discussed first. As for the tiger image above, it is not clear that it is a Bengal tiger. How do we know it is not a Siberian tiger or a Sumatran tiger? I know it is displayed on the Bengal Tiger page, but they make the same mistake as well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Universe=atom 15:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I am suggesting that the following image of the 1000 Rs. paper money be put into the "economy" section, partially because of the long length of the section:

The 1000 Rs. paper money
The 1000 Rs. paper money

Universe=atom 16:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyone got the Agni-III image. The Rupee image can be there in the economic section. I support it. Chanakyathegreat 13:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I could not find any picture of the Agni III on Wikipedia and no visually appealing picture of it on any other website that has a good copyright license. Is anybody else for the Rupee image in the Economy section? Universe=atom 14:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW, Blacksun, the peacock may be the national bird of India, but the Bengal tiger is the national animal. Universe=atom 15:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Wealth distribution in India

Wealth distribution which is fairly uneven is found to be better than the certain developed countries like the United States and the fastest growing economy People's Republic of China. The section is updated accordingly. Chanakyathegreat 07:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Chanakya, how is the wealth distribution in India better than that in the US (or China)? Please discuss and provide evidence here first. I have reverted your edits pending presentation of such evidence. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
As per List_of_countries_by_income_equality India has a better Gini Coefficient compared to China and US. --(Sumanth|Talk) 12:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, by Gini index, India (GI=32.5) is better than not only the US or China, but also Australia, Ireland, Canada, Switzerland, Belgium, France, Italy, United Kingdom, Spain, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Israel, Greece, ... (which are all in the top 20 of the UN Human Development Index; whereas India is 126 on the HDI) and worse than Pakistan, Bangladesh, Kirgizstan, Rwanda, Azerbaijan, ... See UN Report here. I don't know that such comparisons are very useful. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

So you agree that by Gini index wealth distribution in India is better than the U.S. Forget Rwanda and Pakistan. We are not discussing about them. Even if there is no wealth you get equality. Now when it comes to larger economies like India having better equality in wealth distribution is thing that cannot be disregarded. When India in a better postion then the wordings used are not correct. And the next sentence by the Australian reporter who considers 47% Indian school children at the primary level equivalent to Half of India's population and concludes that half of Indian's are not benifitted by economic reforms is very funny. Chanakyathegreat 15:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The data in that table is so outdated that it makes little sense to quote it, for example India's GI of 32.5 is based on 1999-2000 stats since when India's GDP has almost doubled. Secondly, the data for different countries corresponds to different years, and it makes little sense to compare them.
By the way, I agree with C-the-G that The Australian newspaper report is an inadequate source for the main India article; we should instead look for a scholarly study on the topic by a well-known GoI bureau, international body or commercial institution. I'll try to locate something along those lines Abecedare 01:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
BTW, I had nothing to do with the writing of the economy section. I'm just trying to make sure that redundant information doesn't go in. It may be that the data in the UN report above are old (although the UN report itself is from 2006), but I'm not sure what the point of adding a statement like, "Wealth distribution which is fairly uneven is found to be better than the certain developed countries like the United States and the fastest growing economy People's Republic of China" is. It is better to give some real information about income inequality in India than make such comparisons. The US economy (nominal) is $12,455,825 million, which is more than 16 time bigger than India's $771,951 million (2005 figures). The US per capita income (2006) is $44,571, which is more than 45 times larger than India's (2007) $979. What does it mean then to say that India has less inequality than the US? I agree with Abecedare that The Australian is not a reliable source, but its numbers are probably not inaccurate. Here are some reliable sources for malnutrition in India:

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with F&F on the Gini sentence. As for The Australian quote:, I am not contending that that newspaper is a unreliable source or that its numbers are incorrect. Rather I think we can do better by linking to a comprehensive source on the topic that can provide an interested reader more detailed information.
The type of sources F&F listed above are ideal in my opinion, but if we simply aim to replace the Australian article we need a source describing how the recent economic book has affected different strata of the Indian society and not necessarily a data source for malnutrition rates in India. Here are some sources I found:
  1. World Bank, 2006, "India: Inclusive Growth and Service delivery: Building on India’s Success."
  2. World bank, 2003, "India: Sustaining Reform, Reducing Poverty"
  3. Conn Hallinan, "India: A Tale of Two Worlds", Foreign policy in Focus, 2006.
  4. Cornia, Giovanni Andrea (Editor), "Inequality Growth and Poverty in an Era of Liberalization and Globalization", 2004. ISBN: 978-0-19-927141-2
The first source seems most apt to me, especially since it is most recent. I'll browse through it and try to come up with a proposed replacement sentence for "In 2007, The Australian reported that 'India's recent economic gains, while enriching the social elite and middle classes, have failed to benefit almost half of its 1.1 billion people.' This was prompted by a survey finding that 47% of Indian children suffered from malnutrition." Abecedare 04:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, here is my proposed replacement:

Indian economy has grown steadily over the past few decades, but progress has been uneven among social and economic groups, across regions, states and the urban-rural divide. Though income inequality in India is still relatively low, it has been rising and despite significant progress, roughly quarter of India's population still falls under the poverty line and child malnutrition rates are higher than any other country in the world.

The whole passage can be referenced to the World Bank 2006 report listed above (see esp. page 1 and 17-27). Comments, revision etc welcome! Abecedare 05:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. I would suggest a slight revision, if you don't mind.

The Indian economy has grown steadily over the last two decades; however, its growth has been uneven when comparing different social groups, economic groups, geographic regions, and rural and urban areas. Although income inequality in India is relatively small, it has been increasing of late. Despite significant economic progress, a quarter of the nation's population earns less than the government-specified poverty threshold of $0.40/day. In addition, India has more undernourished children than any country in the world: 46% of the country's children under the age of three suffer from malnutrition.

Please feel free to change in any way you want. Your World Bank 2006 reference looks good. Here, BTW, is the latest report (Indian Health Department and UNICEF) on childhood malnutrition from late February 2007: The Times, London: Indian children suffer more malnutrition than in Ethiopia. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


I have replaced the paragraph in the Economy section (diff) as per F&F's revised version above. Some final tweaks that I made:

  • I removed the first sentence, "Wealth distribution in India, a developing country, is fairly uneven, with the top 10% of income groups earning 33% of the income." since it was incorrectly conflating wealth distribution and income distribution and citing a non-standard metric (Gini coefficient is used much more often in this context).
  • I revised the last sentence to point out that India has not only the largest population of malnourished children (which is not surprising given its population), but also the highest rate of malnutrition among children - the latter is shocking and therefore I have left in two reliable sources for the fact.

Further revisions welcome ... as always. Abecedare 18:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The sentence has been corrected and made more accurate. In addition, India has a higher rate of malnutrition in the world among children under the age of three, who are not covered by free meals at school. Chanakyathegreat 13:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Your edit doesn't make any sense. India has the highest malnutrition rate without qualifications, as testified to by the World Bank, UNICEF and Indian Health Dept. Statistics; also, children under 3 don't go to school. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You removed the main part. The reason. Chanakyathegreat 13:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Wealth distribution in India (2)

I am confused by seeing total paragraph. I agree that we have to project positive & negative points, achivements & successes. I have given below my opinions about various sentences in the same paragraph.
The Indian economy has grown steadily over the last two decades; however, its growth has been uneven when comparing different social groups, economic groups, geographic regions, and rural and urban areas
Is there any country in this world whose growth is "even" among all social groups, economic groups and geographic regions, rural and urban areas. Only classification between countries could be in some point between "more even" or "more uneven" which needs to be proved by measurable metrics. As far as I know only measurable metrics is Gini Coefficient which is favourable to India compared to many countries. We can even write that Income inequality in India is less compared to many developed countries. National sample survey 2004-05 has calculated Gini coefficient among various social groups like OBC, SC, ST etc and found it is between 33 to 38 for various social groups. Citation given in the article only says India has succedded in reducing income inequality
Although income inequality in India is relatively small (Gini coefficient: 32.5 in year 2000), it has been increasing of late.
Do we have any citation to prove that it is increasing...We need to have some citation which compares Gini coefficient over the period of few years.
Despite significant economic progress, a quarter of the nation's population earns less than the government-specified poverty threshold of $0.40/day.
This sentence seems to be OK. WE can even emphasise that India's measurement of Poverty is different from UN measurement of poverty. If we measure poverty as per UN definition then more than 70% people will be below poverty line.


In addition, India has a higher rate of malnutrition among children (46% for children under three in year 2007) than any other country in the world.
This sentence seems to be OK. But it is not economic measurement. It can appear in demographic section. --Indianstar 21:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is my take:

  • You are right that the uneven progress is expected by economists and has been also been experienced by China etc. However IMO it remains a significant fact, worthy of being stated in the article.
  • Yes, there are many reliable sources available to attest to the increasing inequality; for example see pages 17-27 of the referenced UN report and the citations within. Also see the references listed above. For some reason, the Gini coefficient for years after 2000 is not yet available, so direct comparison of that metric cannot be made - however several other metrics have been cited in these references.
  • I am ok with including the malnutrition information in the Demography rather than economy section. IMO, that decision finally boils down to the judgment whether the statistic reflects upon the people of India or the economy of India, and for that reason I slightly prefer leaving it in the economy section.

Aside: Although ~25% poverty rate in India is pretty high, it is down from ~50% rate (using same definition) in 1980 hence I think the "significant progress" is as noteworthy as the raw statistic. Also (for my personal curiosity), is there a source for the $0.40/day metric ? According to [1] (footnte on page 2) the GOI standard is based on available calories. Abecedare 22:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

As you pointed out, significant progress has been made in poverty alleviation which can be stated in the article.
It is not $0.40/Day. It is Rs 276/Month or roughly $0.25/Day.[2].
Citations given only discusses Income inequality, it never compares India's position vis a vis other countries. Only metrics available is Gini coefficient and we should go as per that metrix. Scandinavian countries are best performers in the world in Gini coefficient with value around 0.25-0.28. India has Gini coefficient of 0.32. If it is steadily increasing in India, was it closer to scandinavian countries few years back. When we don't have data why should we say it is steadily increasing. India is performing badly in many areas economically. E.g 1) Its World trade is meagre and even small developing countries whose per capita income is comparable to India like Thailand, Indonesia exports more than India. 2) Its achievement in Manufacturing sector growth is pathetic compared to other developing countries. We have lot of things to mention about its failures economically. So,I am not convinced why we should choose Wealth distribution/Income inequality as negative side of Indian economy. Wealth distribution anomalies are universal phenomena. Pareto distribution was discovered mainly because of wealth distribution anomalies and subsequently applied in many areas.
If everybody feels Malnutrition is suitable in economic section, I am OK with that. CIA Fact book and other encyclopedia classifies Infant mortality/Malnutrition etc in demographic section.--Indianstar 23:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Now I am confused. Which of the two part of the statement, "Although income inequality in India is relatively small (Gini coefficient: 32.5 in year 2000), it has been increasing of late.", do you think is unsupported ? Note that the "it" does not refer to the Gini coefficient but to "income inequality". Abecedare 23:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I am saying there is no reliable citation available to prove that income inequality(Which is measured through GINI Coefficient) is increasing of late. Also I feel Income inequality is not worthy enough to be mentioned in this article. It is one of the very few parameters where India's achivement is better. --Indianstar 01:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Indiastar for listing the concrete objections. Here is my analysis:

"There are three dimensions to the increase in income inequality. As discussed earlier, improvements in mean urban incomes outpaced rural incomes, widening the gulf between rural and urban India. Interstate inequalities widened as rich states grew faster than poor states. Within-state urban inequality also rose, reversing a previously declining trend (Sen and Himanshu 2005)." (page 24)

"India’s rapid progress in the 1990s has not been uniformly shared among its people. As documented in chapter 1, income inequality has risen, although India still has a relatively balanced distribution of income by global standards." (page 165)

"This prudent approach has sidestepped major shocks, and the changes in inequality consequent upon these reforms have been modest by the standards of, say, the transition economies. Rural inequality has risen at a slower pace than have urban and overall inequality. The rise in inequality has been the result of three factors: (i) a shift in earnings from labour to capital income, (ii) the rapid growth of the services sector – particularly the FIRE sector2 – with a consequent explosion in demand for skilled workers and (iii) a drop in the rate of labour absorption during the reform period. There has also been an increase in regional inequality, especially in the incidence of rural poverty. This rise in inequality has implied that, despite better growth, poverty reduction has been sluggish." (page 3)

  • "income inequality(Which is measured through GINI Coefficient)". It is true that the Gini coefficient is the most popular measure for Income Ineqaulity, but it is hardly the only one. For example see wikipedia's article on Income inequality metrics or the University of Texas Inequality Project . In particular see the tutorials on the various metrics. Note also that the Gini coefficient for India is calculated based on expenditure, rather than income data, and therefore some economists argue that it underestimates the income inequality for the country. To be clear, I am not proposing that we discuss any of these technical details in the India article - instead we should rely on reliable secondary sources, such as the ones listed above, to filter the conclusions in layman terms.
  • "Also I feel Income inequality is not worthy enough to be mentioned in this article." Maybe, though I feel otherwise. I think World Bank's lead economist Branko Milanovic [3] and members of MacArthur Foundation-funded Network on the Effects of Inequality on Economic Performance will agree with me, while Amartya Sen will probably argue that inequality measure are as important as per-capita metrics, given his pioneering work on inequality and causes of famines. [4]
  • "It is one of the very few parameters where India's achivement is better." I agree! But why should that be a reason to exclude it ?

I apologize for this looong reply, but hopefully I have addressed the points you raised. Regards. Abecedare 03:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Abecedare, You had asked above how the 0.40 cents/day poverty line was computed. I am in a bit of a hurry right now, but here is what I wrote in answer to a similar question in Archive 22 (this page):

The Indian poverty line (which is the inflation-adjusted amount that would have bought 2400 calories in food per person per day in rural areas and 2100 calories in urban areas in 1973) is now Rs. 540 per month, or $12 per month (at the Rs 45 = $1 exchange rate), or 40 cents per day. This assumes that the entire income of Rs. 540 is being spent on food. With this definition of the poverty line (ie. 40 cents per day), the proportions of Indians below the poverty line is 23% or 25% (depending on what statistics one quotes).

I'm sure we should be able to find a source for this. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Subtopics - Sports and Entertainment under Culture

It will be worthy to add these two, keeping in mind the 'cricket loving' and 'film crazy' countrymen. India without mention of Cricket and the film industry is incomplete. How it can be 'sub-topic'ed can be seen in the article- Germany (also a featured article). One can also take a tip of how climate is written under Geography. Just a suggestion...

At least some mention of Cricket and Bollywood or the South Indian film industry. Even the World Book mentions them. --59.182.49.116 15:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

subtopics of cricket n Films not there but they r mentioned in the Culture para!--59.182.30.216 14:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

A seperate section can be created for sports. Like in the FA Japan and Germany. Chanakyathegreat 12:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it gives enough information about sports in its paragraph in the "Culture" section. If not, perhaps some more can be added there (keep in mind, though, the summary style). And remember that if more information is added in the sports paragraph, probably more information should be added to other paragraphs as well, in order to balance paragraph length in the section. Adding information in all of the paragraphs, however, would increase the already border-line-length "Culture" section. So, the decision is yours. Universe=atom 14:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Source

In the second opening paragraph it is rightly stated: "Four major world religions, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism originated here".

But without a source it looks "incomplete". --59.182.33.156 16:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I have a source-origins of major religions by http://www.sacred-texts.com Can someone please insert it!. ~KnowledgeHegemony~ 08:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

New Delhi is a state and not a union territory

Please correct the follwoing mistake : New Delhi is a state and not a union territory in India —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gr rathi (talk • contribs) 19:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

See the faq of the article! --59.182.30.216 13:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Toda hut debate (yet again!)

Ok, the image has been bothering me quite a bit recently, in an otherwise almost perfect article. I think I might have voted for keeping it in the past but it seems to make less and less sense the more I think about it. The tribal woman's image in demographics makes sense and their is good reasoning for it but the Toda hut, despite being a nice picture, seems very out of place in the culture section. The biggest argument in favor of keeping the image, I believe, has been that it is FA image. However, I think it fails miserably in representing any significant culture. I mean, if you want to show tribal culture, their must be better images that can be found to depict that. I believe that of all the potential images that can be picked in the culture section, this would be somewhere at the bottom of the list. It just does not fit in the space it has been put into, imho. Not to mention, I do not think the image is supported by any kind of text in the culture section. How about an image of a popular classical musician or bollywood - things that are actually mentioned in the culture section. --Blacksun 09:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

No where in the culture section does it mention housing. and also, the toda people do not represent all of south india, which used to be another arguement for the image. Nikkul 13:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The thought that there is not text on the Toda Hut is exactly what caused me to write the New Pictures comment. I am in favour of removing the Toda Hut (even though it is a nice picture) and replacing it with something else. For example, the cuisine image would look good; please look in the comment "New Pictures" for the discussion on it and the Toda Hut and reply. Universe=atom 14:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

(reproduced from above)

I don't see anything wrong with the Toda hut. It look rather beautiful. Include some more ;pictures if you wish but dont remove that one. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 10:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I too am in favour of retaining the Toda Hut and Peacock pictures (note that both of them are Featured Images). Also please read the extensive discussion on the images included in the article in Archive 22 and Archive 23 (see in particular these discussions on Toda Hut and Peackock images). While reading the comments, keep in mind that users Indianhilbilly, XavierIcI, huniebunie, Coollemonade and Bangalorevenkat were all later found to be socks of Nikkul. Abecedare 11:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Yup. The Toda Hut image is great, and we've already been through an enervating debate over it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
No it is not great. Their is no text supporting it. In the past that has definitely been used as a criteria for removing some of the other images in the article. It makes no sense for a random Toda hut image to be there and do not even try to propose adding text for it in the article as their are far more significant things that have been turned down for the sake of space. Furthermore, the fact that people keep bringing it up should IMPLY that MAYBE their is a NEED to CHANGE it. It is not something critically significant to the article. In fact, given its lack of significance to the overall article, it is an entirely a subjective choice. I would imagine that a subjective choice that keeps causing problems should be given a long and hard look at instead of attempting to dismiss it as "yet another enervating debate." --Blacksun 08:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
However, no matter how good a picture may be, it does not fit in the article if there is no text on it. Does anybody see any text in the "Culture" section about Toda Huts, or even Indian homes in general, or do I need better glasses? Universe=atom 17:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
That is an easy fix. I have changed the caption. The hut image is not about homes, but rather about (traditional) art and design—a topic discussed in the first paragraph. Speaking of captions, some other images too could use more informative captions (without going overboard, of course). Compare Australia, for example. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
That is quite a stretch, dont you think? Furthermore, we already have an image of Taj for that architecture part of the culture section. I would think that it would be far better use of space to represent something else like dance or sports (for instance) than put another "building." Compare Australia culture section. If you really want murals their are plenty of famous temples, some even world heritage sites, with murals. --Blacksun 09:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is it a stretch? It certainly is about art and design. As for your other assertions, I can only repeat what I said above: we went through a long enervating process in mid-March and a majority wanted both the Apatani and Toda pictures in. I understand that there is no explicit WP policy, but we can't keep having these debates every 6 weeks because one or two persons change their minds. Let's wait a little longer before we revist the issue. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Sari fabric.jpg
Sari fabric showing fine brocade work.
PS. I would in fact ask the question, why is the Taj Mahal image there? Taj Mahal is on every Indian website and is an instantly recognisable (and somewhat cliched) symbol world-wide. That image doesn't add to a reader's knowledge of India, whereas the Toda hut image does. Why not replace the Taj Mahal image with the "Sari fabric" image shown on the right? The Sari image is a Wikipedia featured image, and the brocade shown is a syncretic art form with links to Mughal art etc. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I dislike both of them. Taj image for what you stated and Toda image because I do not find it relevant to the section. Not to mention that tribal images are over-represented in the page currently. However, in regards to Taj image, the fact that it is ubiquitous gives it relevance that is hard to ignore. Encyclopedia has to be relevant - it is not our job (nor do we have the ability) to decide what is and what is not interesting. To me the issue is clear - their are images far more directly relevant to the text and we already have another architectural image in the culture section + a tribal image in demographics. --Blacksun 13:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
What is wrong with the Taj Mahal image? I think it fits in the article because, other than giving the reader an idea of why so many tourists visit India each year, it also gives the reader an idea of Mughal architecture at the time; by the way, it is also in perfect place in the text, where it talks about architecture and also mentions the Taj Mahal in particular. The Toda Hut image, though, seems to make some sense now, since the caption changed, but still, nothing in the entire "Culture" section mentions anything about it, though (it is between the festivals, sports, and clothes of India paragraphs; above the clothes paragraph is the one about the cuisines, above which is the literature one, above which is the music, above which is the one where it talks about the Mughal architecture and the Taj Mahal). As it can be seen, the picture is still a "solitary island" in the text where it is put. BTW, perhaps the caption should also mention something about the tiny door, as it does in the image page. Regards, Universe=atom 15:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I had already once in the past whined that the Taj pic was an eyesore. Really. It is an eyesore seeing it popup anywhere and everywhere from hotel menus to tourism brochures to wikipedia. Now I realise that the 'eyesore' part has more to do with the front elevation that we get to see in 999 out of 1000 Taj photos. Couple of years back my desktop had an awesome Taj wallpaper where it was pictured from atop and at an angle. I've been searching for that but have never been able to find it. I'd be grateful if somebody can find a good picture of the Taj in a different 'pose' and upload it on GFDL. Sarvagnya 09:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, there are two pictures on flicker.com that I like. Both pictures were taken by a gentleman called Captain Suresh, who seems to be a good photographer. The first one has a group of boys playing cricket on the sandy river bank with the Taj Mahal as a backdrop (see here). (It has the advantage that it combines sport and architecture, both of relevance to the culture section.) The other, my personal favorite, has some women and girls resting and seeking shelter from the mid-day sun, again with the Taj gleaming the background (see here). The second picture too combines architecture with apparel (sari and salwar kameez), both themes of the culture section.) If there is enthusiasm for either of these pictures, we could try and get the gentleman's permission and then nominate the chosen picture for Featured Picture consideration. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


Even after 2 to 3 months, I still dont see why small tribes like the Apantis and Todas get favors when it comes to pictures rather than the MAJORITY which forms India. I have serious doubts that most Indians wake up in toda huts.

1400 Todas / 1000000000 Indians = .00014 % of Indians are Toda.

Why should they get half of the culture section's images? Is their culture followed by the majority of Indians? This is an encyclopedia. It describes OVERALL indian culture. The toda image is TOO SPECIFIC. Nikkul 01:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is a logical way to solve this problem of the Apatamis and the Toda Hut. First, we have to ask ourselves about where the image will be going. Well, the answer (the Toda Hut) is the "Culture" section. Now, what does the word culture mean. Well, it means way of life. So, a picture in that section should be about the way of life of most Indians. Now, since no one image of people, houses, etc. can represent India (reminder: population: one billion), there should be an image of traditional Indian items that everyone (or most people, for that matter) use, like, for example, the image in the cuisine section of the culture section in United States. (That, BTW, shows traditional items of the US, all in one image.) About the Apatami image, perhaps something like here would be better. Regards. Universe=atom 09:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Finding it difficult to replace two images. Why not the

Golden temple and in the demograhic section a chart that shows the poverty reduction graph or a population of India map.

Chanakyathegreat 13:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The Indian population chart in the "Demographics" section is a great idea; however, does one like that exist? If the answer is no, perhaps the chart in the beginning of the "Demographics" section of United States could be used as a guide to make one. Universe=atom 14:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The map already exists.[5] Now how many here support placing this image in the demograhic section. Chanakyathegreat 03:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Support: I think the population density map suits well in the "Demographics" section because it shows a great illustration of the main topic of the section. Perhaps it can even be nominated for FA status. Universe=atom 10:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Err This is regarding Toda hut image in the culture section. I think we should stick to that instead of debating about multiple images. --Blacksun 12:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Ajanta Caves

The Ajanta caves image is barely distinguisable and is a very poor representation of Indian history.Nikkul 12:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Do you think that sharpening the image contrast would help? Or is a totally different image required? Saravask 14:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I think that the Ajanta Caves image is fine. Universe=atom 15:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Ive tried looking at the image from several computers, and it takes a few seconds to make out wut the image is showing. It's very unclear/ indistingishable (spelled horribly wrong). Nikkul 12:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps ancient paintings were supposed to be in those indistinguishable brownish colours. Universe=atom 08:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Nikkul, I apologize in advance and I don't want you to take it the wrong way, but I'd like to warn you that a number of people are very suspicious that you and Universe=atom (and Johnsmithcba) are the same people. I hope you are not trying to set up a "fake" exchange here to prove otherwise. Be aware that Wikipedia has some sophisticated means to root out sockpuppeteers. Again, you are very welcome to contribute, but please don't repeat what has not worked in the past. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Fowler, I encourage you to do a checkuser on my account and universe=atom and johnsmith. Infact, I will even be a contact if you'd like. Please go ahead. I encourage it very much because I know how wrong your assumption is and I'd very much like to prove it. But until you do a checkuser and until you are found correct, please refrain from blaming. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nikkul (talk • Nikkul 01:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, please stop blaming others of being sock accounts just because you have reasons of your own. Instead, use official means, such as checkuser, and check me nikkul with and johnmitcba, johnsmitcba with me and nikkul, and nikkul with johnsmitcba and me, and whoever else you think is sock of other account, because I know that I am innocent and am not a sock of any other account. Also, just because I agree or disagree with another person does not mean that you can go around accusing people of being socks, with absolutely no evidence behind your claims. Instead, I am again asking you to do a checkuser and give me an opportunity to make others stop picking on me as a sock. Universe=atom 08:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Got this great image from flickr- I think this should replace the ajanta caves one since they both come from the same time period relatively.

Nikkul 13:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The rock paintings of Bhimbetka will be suitable for the history section. There are many paintings and the best one can be selected. Chanakyathegreat 12:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

One more image [6] of the Konark sun temple. Chanakyathegreat 13:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Copyrighted bank note image

The Bank Note image is not free, and is copyrighted. Fair use claims are not applicable to trivial mentions of the note, as done via the caption in this page. I have removed the image, as it is not necessary for this article.

--Ragib 17:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank god! I didnt find it appropriate anyway. Nikkul 01:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Impropriety apart, I see no copyright statement on any Indian Rupee note.AJ-India 03:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The President of India

Please note that the president & the prime minister of India are both Doctorate. They need to be called Dr.A. P. J. Abdul Kalam & Dr.Manmohan Singh, respectively. 61.17.98.39 09:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Abhishek Math Good suggestion! Done! --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 09:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

India = Aryavart?? Condradiction!

Recently it was added tht India is also called Aryavart. Whereas the article on Aryavart says it is wrong to call the whole of India Aryavart. They condradict ? --~KnowledgeHegemony~ 15:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I checked Etymology of the names of India as well. I have removed the statement from the article. ɤіɡʍаɦɤʘʟʟ 19:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Navigation section

In the "Navigation" section that I recently merged out of the "External Links" section, the first template is the International Ties of India one, which lists all the international organizations of which India is part of. Then comes the Countries of Asia template; then, the Countries of South Asia template; then, the G15 template; then, the BRIC template. I was wondering if the templates of major organizations of which India is part of (e.g.: ASEEAN, WTO, SAARC, UN, ect.) should also be separately put (like the G15 and the BRIC, both of which are currently separately put). Regards. Universe=atom 18:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Fine. But it isn't looking very good, there's a lot of white space. But maybe it will look fine if more info is added....just for aesthetic sense can something be done to it...Ignore this if I m asking too much.

--~KnowledgeHegemony~ 07:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Restructuring:Etymology bits

A third name, Hindustan (Urdu/Hindustani:هندوستان/हिंदुस्तान, Hindi: हिंदुस्तां), (/hin̪d̪ust̪ɑːn/ (info)) (Persian: Land of the Hindus), has been in use since the twelfth century. It is commonly used to refer to India in Urdu/Hindustani. In Hindi, its usage is mainly for poetic effect.

Personally, I find Hindi-Urdu-Persian-Hindustani thing very confusing...

Moreover, non- Indians may also find it so.. I guess. Any suggestions?

--59.182.6.215 08:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me explain . The typical Urdu (and Hindustani) name is HindustAn(iAS) but Hindi speakers normally use it as HinDustAM. Hindi speakers dont say "Khan"( the Muslim title) they say "KhaM"(IAST), nasalizing the last "n" .We can remove the brackets and form a proper sentence. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 11:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

"Military and Foreign Relations" section

In the "Military and foreign relations" section, the first two paragraphs are about foreign relations of India, while the subsequent paragraph talks about the military. This is in direct contradiction of the name of the section, which, at first sight, would suggest that the information about the military would come before the information about the foreign relations of India. Of the following tasks, which one should be executed: Change the name of the section to "Foreign relations and the military" (as it is in Australia [FA]), OR change the text and make the paragraph about the military come before the two paragraphs about the foreign relations? Regards. Universe=atom 18:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

indic text tag

the {{IndicText}} tag is being added and removed repeatedly. Lets discus peacefully ?

  • I support its inclusion because not all readers will have configured their sytems to support indic scripts . i myself had the same problem when I first started reading Wikipedia and it was thanks to this tag that I came to konw how to configure it. If placing it at the top of the infobox is a problem , cant we put it below the infobox?--Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 05:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Every sentence Deepak wrote above matches my experience and opinion too. Abecedare 06:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Of course. It's a must.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: It was originally in the "External Links" section, but I moved it to the top of the article because the reader should know before reading the article why they see all these question marks or other symbols. Below the infobox would not be good because it would not look good, or at least according to me, because templates like these should be on the top. Examples where it is on the top include Flag of India and China. Universe=atom 10:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Indic Tag Placement

I support having the Indic tag, but not at the top. It drags the whole info box down and makes the article much harder to read. Even tho most would like the tag in the article, I dont think most people would like it at the top. Lets discuss other options of placement. Nikkul 19:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess it wouldnt hurt to place it below the infobox! Any disagreements? --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 05:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I think that it should be over the infobox. Universe=atom•Talk•Contributions• 13:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be below the infobox. Above it is too distracting. Nikkul 00:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale!

Referring to 3rd template on top of this Talk page
When one clicks on [show] this is what it shows:-

→This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team. [hide]

  • Additional information:
    • FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale.
    •  ??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.
    • This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
    • This article is a vital article.
I am confused!?! --~KnowledgeHegemony~ 12:10, 10 May 2007


I have filled in the missing field. Abecedare 14:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Citations Needed

 Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.

I have added several {{fact}} templates (citations needed) to several places in the article. If possible, please give references. If references there are not needed or if a reference has already been provided for that piece of data near it, please do not hesitate to remove the {{fact}} template from there immediately, as I am not sure where references are needed and where they are not. See United States for the places where I think in an article references should be put. Regards. Universe=atom 15:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the WP:SS page ? In particular the following bit:
"There is no need to repeat all specific references for the subtopics in the main "Summary style" article: the "Summary style" article summarizes the content of each of the subtopics, without need to give detailed references for each of them in the main article: these detailed references can be found in the subarticles. The "Summary style" article only contains the main references that apply to that article as a whole."
Also look at the previous discussion on the same topic initiated by Johnsmithcba. Hopefully you will read that and self-revert soon. The multitude of "citation needed" tags you have added after statements that are easily verified through any reference on India (including the ones listed on the page in the General References section) are unnecessarily defacing a featured article. Abecedare 15:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Though 'The multitude of "citation needed" tags you have added after statements that are easily verified through any reference on India (including the ones listed on the page in the General References section) are unnecessarily defacing a featured article. as stated by Abecedare above is true.
Those 'facts' should be verified, but ofcourse as you said in the main article. --~KnowledgeHegemony~ 18:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, U=a, you can't make the changes first and then bring them up on the talk page later. If you persist in these unilateral edits, we will begin to consider your changes instances of vandalism. As I have already told you before, this page doesn't need your help. The changes you make create a lot of work for others (in undoing them). That was true with your compulsive and en masse addition of fact tags (when you clearly don't understand what the summary style is about). Similarly, your "grammar mistakes" corrections are for the most part either incorrect themselves or merely bookish changes, that anyone with a working knowledge of modern English would not make. As I have said repeatedly earlier, there are lots of India-related pages that need help, and yet, you still keep insisting on working on a page that is a long-standing featured article and doesn't need help; why don't you help with the pages that need help? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

"Sorry, U=a, you can't make the changes first and then bring them up on the talk page later." - sayz who? Stop browbeating new users. Also, you dont own this page. Nor has anybody appointed you the official watchdog around here. One of the most basic things on wikipedia is that anybody can completely rewrite your or anyone's edits. Read up on WP:BOLD. Read up on WP:VANDAL. Basically, read up on every basic policy and guideline on WP before you start pushing newbies around. What U=A did was anything but vandalism. It is perfectly alright for users to make a change first and then take it to the talk page. And above all, U=A left an edit summary saying exactly that. And even on the talk page he has mentioned that he is not exactly wedded to his edits and that people could revert him if something was wrong. Learn to assume good faith. It takes some time for newbies to learn the ropes. Dont fault them for trying to do too much too quickly. Its infinitely more difficult to motivate users to join an encyclopedia building project than to kill their enthusiasm. Thanks to people like you, WP loses tons of well meaning new users all the time. Sarvagnya 20:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I submit that Universe=atom is not an example of a newcomer needing help and guidance, but rather someone who has a Wikipedia:Main article fixation. He has been editing for about a month now, and started out by Wikilinking every other word in sight on the Taj Mahal page, including (as you will observe here) one memorable edit where he linked words like "grave," "red," "marble," and "husband," (in four sections) and summarized by ("Introducing 132 more internal links"). Since those edits couldn't be simply undone (on account of later changes), user:Nemonoman had to spend an hour fixing them. When U=a was cautioned on his talk page, he responded by simply blanking the talk page and pretending to start anew. A month later, undaunted, he continues to make these en masse edits (be they so-called "grammar mistakes" or fact tags). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Universe=atom, Here are some of the comments posted in the RfC, Adding New Material to the India Page, we had on this page in early February 2007. The comments in the collapsible navbox below are from experienced editors who have been working on Wikipedia articles for many years.

Thanks, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not at all asking you to try and mentor him. I am only pointing out that you have no right to browbeat him, push him around and in general, treat him disrespectfully. It is uncivil. And please stop dumping entire talk pages into one comment. Giving the relevant diff will do. Or atleast wrap them up in the retractable boxes. And can you point out which one of Ragib or dab or any of the others there condone being incivil and browbeating newbies to keep the article squeaky clean? And where was it ever decided that editors who edit this article have to first discuss it on the talk page? Do you realise that such a proposition is nonsensical and would be in violation of some of the most basic guidelines of the 'encyclopedia that anyone can edit'?(If you want to make your proposition a policy, you go discuss it first at the village pump!)

And what makes you think that a user who is only a month old ought to first read through reams and reams of archives before getting down to edit? As for excessive wikilinking, its perhaps one of the commonest mistakes that overly enthusiastic newbies are prone to. I have done it myself long long ago. And saying that those edits couldnt be undone because of intervening edits is funny. All you need to do is to put up an underconstruction or inuse tag, revert the wikilinks and then bring back perhaps the 'few' intervening edits. It will all be done in a few mins. If this is too much mopping up for you to do, then wait till somebody else cleans up or you could even ask the guy(U=A in this case) to clean up himself. As for the {{cn}}s, I can see where they're coming from. I myself added a "cn" recently to this article which U=A reverted. I reverted and asked him why and he said it was a mistake and that he didnt know what "cn" was. I explained it to him. And now, since he's learnt something new, he's very enthusiastically used it here. That is the way you'd see it if you assumed good faith. You owe U=A an apology. First, you rudely insinuate that he is a sock and now you try to bully him with rules you made up yourself on the fly. If you think he is someone's sock, go file a CU against him. Until then, be courteous and learn to assume good faith. Sarvagnya 22:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Universe=atom, I apologize if I hurt your feelings, but please do read the comments on adding new material in the collapsible navbox above. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
And thanks, Sarvagyna, for the collapsible navbox. I didn't know about it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry for all the misunderstanding that my addition of fact templates has caused. What I said in my edit summary was that please refer to the talk page regarding my edit. In the talk page, I clearly stated that I was not sure of my edit and made it clear that if anyone thinks that they are not needed, they should not even give it a second thought but just revert it. I did not intend to give any hidden or subliminal message. Also, F&F, what do you mean by your statement, As I have already told you before, this page doesn't need your help. Four your information, I have each and every right to edit Wikipedia as any other out the four million users, whether he may be a plain IP address or an influential administrator. In the same paragprah, you also stated that my "grammar mistakes" corrections are for the most part either incorrect themselves or merely bookish changes, that anyone with a working knowledge of modern English would not make. If you think that my corrections of grammar mistakes are incorrect, please do not just simply revert them, with only you foolishly thinking that they are incorrect. Instead, go check a grammar manual and find out your own mistake about grammar. If you have a problem with the grammar mistakes that I correct, first look at your own grammar. For your information, when I usually make a grammar correction or suggest grammar changes (like in another section in this talk page), I usually give a professional grammatical explanation of what I think is wrong; then, I give an ordinary explanation, so ordinary-grammar-slacking people can understand it. In the same paragraph, you also included the following statement: ...you still keep insisting on working on a page that is a long-standing featured article and doesn't need help; why don't you help with the pages that need help? First of all, who do you think you are? Second of all, you do not have any right whatsoever to bully me about what articles I should edit and which articles I should not. As for the over wikilinking that I have previously done, I admit that it was wrong. However, soon, after being told, I realized my faults and edited carefully. I was also told to go to some wikipedia manuals and read the rules. Yes, I did that, found out some new things (including the link to names of places in other languages, which I put in the India article), but, of course, I cannot read every single rule and memorize each one of them. As for blanking my talk page, F&f, WHY DIDN'T YOU PUT THE SECOND PART OF THE STORY?!? Immediately, after being told that blanking your own talk page is considered wrong on wikipedia, I kindly asked for someone to revert my decision, as I did not know how to do so yet. So, Neonoman kindly did so (unlike some other rude users who would probably not even give a thought about doing so) and even left me a kind message about it. So, as it can be seen, yes, I made several mistakes in wikipedia, but I tried to learn from them and even asked others to help me by explaining some stuff (such as the fact template, kindly explained by Sarvagnya), because nobody (not even F&f) is perfect. As for your comment on my being a vandal, F&f, do you even know the meaning of the word vandal, considering that you think of my being a vandal? A vandal is, according the official wikipedia definition, any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Do you think that I deliberately tried to ruin the India article when I included a precise summary of what I was doing and even asked others to revert it if they thought it was inappropriate? As for your accusation of my being a sock, I encourage you to file a CU against my being a sock of any account you make up out of the blues. Until then, please talk in civil manner to all users. Regards. Universe=atom 17:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW, F&f, why did you revert my wise edit of putting some pictures to the left (in order to balance the sides in terms of pictures) and of making some minor grammar mistakes. In addition, you even included in your edit summary the following message: rv all undiscussed changes by Universe-atom. If you persist in this fashion, it will be seen as vandalism. Do I have to discuss every single minor edit in the talk page? Do you ever do that? Did you know that I can spit the same stamement into your face? Can't you ever just shut up and stop accusing others of vandalism (when perhaps your own revert may be considered vandalism by others) and STOP CONSIDERING YOURSELF AS THE KING OF WIKIPEDIA!!! I am sorry if I hurt your feelings, but I mean to be courteous. Warm regards. Universe=atom 17:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW, yes, I shall keep on editing any articles that I wish, no matter what. If people consistently stand in my way (by not being courteous and by reverting all my edits because of prejudices), I shall report them in. Universe=atom 17:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Moving Some Images to the Left Side...

Recently, I have moved the images in the "Politics," "Geography," and "Economy" sections to the left, in order to give a better balance between the two sides in terms of images. This edit, though, has been reverted by F&f, saying that it was "undiscussed". (BTW, I do not have to discuss every single edit, that I make, in the talk page.) So, does anybody else support this decision? If sufficient support is provided, I shall again put the images to the left. Regards. Universe=atom 18:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of what some self styled watchdogs might thing, you dont have to ask for permission every time you want to so much as sneeze. Go ahead and edit in good faith. Be bold. But always make use of the "preview" button before you "save". Sarvagnya 19:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the imperative to be bold. However with heavily edited articles such as this one , from a large number of users , there should be some discretion: Go ahead and make an edit by al means. If is reverted once (which signifies that there is a disagreemnent) , and you feel it should be put back it is better to discuss on the talk page than to start an edit war. In my own case for heavily edited articles, or contested content I prefer putting a message on the talk page first and waitng for a response before I make a change. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 04:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I dont condone edit wars either. But many times, it may be easier to show people what you propose to do it and then discuss it, than spend hours just explaining to a revolving audience what you even intend to do. Like I said, edit in good faith... meaning you're not going to add nonsense. If it is resisted(read reverted), then, you can always take it up on the talk page. The problem arises only when some people decide resist it just beacause you got some esoteric grammar wrong or some such trivial issue(which can easily be fixed by them without having to resort to stonewalling on the talk page). Sarvagnya 06:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Images aligned to the left at the beginning of a section makes it harder to read the text. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

No, they do not. I have reverted your edit (of the images) because it creates a better and more appealing balance between the two sides (left and right) in terms of images. Universe=atom•Talk•Contributions• 17:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Not exactly, and I have reverted. The Manual of style recommends a R-L combination, starting with a right-aligned image. The balance, which is optional btw, only applies if there are more than one image in a section. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, I guess. Universe=atom•Talk•Contributions• 17:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Navigation section 2

Do we need all the navigational templates in this section. IMO only Template:Indian ties should be retained and all others are unnecessary clutter that should be removed, for the following reasons:

  1. If a user is interested in knowing what other countries are in Asia, South East Asia, UN etc, he can as easily click on the links provided in Template:Indian ties as the hide/show button in the respective template.
  2. While Template:Indian ties provides information about India's membership status and is therefore relevant to this page, the other templates provide information that is more relevant to someone interested in the organization than in the specific member country.
  3. Where does it end ? Will be have ~75 navigational templates corresponding to the organizations listed in Template:Indian ties (and that list culled from [7] surely is not a complete list) ?.

I'll wait for other editors to chime in before making any changes in the section. Abecedare 07:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I have two different suggestions. First, perhaps the Navigation section could be made like the one in United Kingdom#Navigation, which gives two unofficial heading-coloured subsections, one for the Geographic Locale and one for the International Organizations (please visit it for further details). My second suggestion would be to do the following: chop off the templates about the international ties of India (WTO, ASEAN, etc.) (but now the specific {{template:India ties}} one, though). The ones which tell the geographic locale could perhaps be retained if this suggestion is followed. BTW, I have stated a reason (of why I put several templates about the ties) in the other "Navigation Section" discussion on this talk page. Regards. Universe=atom 15:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the response:
I think using Template:Indian ties is a better idea thanfollowing the United Kingdom#Navigation model since the latter is (1) more cluttered, (2) less scalable and yet carries (3) significantly less information (~10 vs ~75 organizations) and (4) incorrect information (Monarchies is not an international organization).
Is there a reason for wanting to geographical locations separately, rather than as part of Template:Indian ties as is currently the case ? What additional information does that provide the reader ? Abecedare 18:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I think there are some reasons why there should be some separate templates about the geographic locale of India. First of all, the name of the {{template:India ties}} template is misleading (geography is not part of the international ties of India). Second of all, if the {{template:India ties}} is the only one to remain in the section, there would be too few templates in the Navigation section to retain its status as a separate section; then, perhaps it would again have to be merged with the "External Links" section. About the separate international ties templates, what do you think about perhaps retaining the five (or six, for that matter) templates about the most important international ties of India? Regards. Universe=atom 19:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
To address your points individually:
(1) The name "India ties" is not misleading IMO because the template itself demarcates, Asia, South-East Asia etc as geographical and geopolitical ties.
(2) We shouldn't retain the numerous organization templates that provide no additional informational, just because we want to fill in space and fatten up a section. You are right that it would be better to delete the Navigation section altogether (which anyways is non-standard and not prescribed by WP:LAYOUT) and remerge the "Indian Ties" template with the external links section as was the case until recently.
(3) Isn't trying to determine the 4-5 most important organizations, just asking for trouble ?! There is unlikely to be a reliable source which will help us make the decision, and that will only set-up endless and unnecessary debate between well-meaning editors trying to decide whether SAARC is more important than IOC or ILO or ASEAN etc. Even this would have been justifiable, if there had been a encyclopedic (rather than aesthetic) reason for including those templates - but that doesn't seem to be the case.
Abecedare 20:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Agree with you. Only Template:Indian ties should be retained.~KnowledgeHegemony~ 08:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
OK: I have removed all templates except the {{template:India ties}}. Also, I have remerged it with the "External Links" section. Any other suggestions of changes? Universe=atom 10:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Article History:India

I changed the

size to normal from small on the *this* talk page. As I felt that it was important to 'highlight' the fact that India is a featured article and that it is a previous 'Today's featured article' too.

But if you feel that the previous version was better please revert it, without any hesitation. --~KnowledgeHegemony~ 16:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

On the lighter side :-)

What the hell:[8]?

India has always led in the educstion because THEY ARE SMART.

We lead in "educstion" because we are smart!!!!! --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 04:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hehe~KnowledgeHegemony~ 06:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


Space Technology

I sincerely feel the need to add info on India's space research developments and satellites launched by it. But where should I? --KnowledgeHegemony 17:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, most other countries have a section for technology or something similar, but no no no, not here because this page is a featured article and god forbid anyone add another section that this featured article...because of course that would be a disaster!!! Since this is a featured articles, all the images must remain boring, all the sections must remain brief and any attempt to change this will be shunned. That is what Ive learned about this page. The bureaucracy here is worse than in India. Nothing gets done. Only arguements. Good luck. Nikkul 00:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Chill, being Indians we all want to improve this article. Don't be disheartened! But do keep in mind being a 'featured' article nobody wants to risk messing it up. That's why we need to slow down edits as 'haste makes waste'. Good suggestions will always be supported. Even I think your suggestion on quality of images is quite valid.

--KnowledgeHegemony 08:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but it can be discouraging when no one responds.... --KnowledgeHegemony 14:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that a section of that sort is required. After all, India has not made that many major contributions in that field, or has it? Universe=atom•Talk•Contributions• 14:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not asking for a new section. But just inclusion of some facts.KnowledgeHegemony 15:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

For example? Universe=atom•Talk•Contributions• 17:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Facts like India is one of the few nations which has launched its own satellites. It has its own launching station at Sri Harikota. Very few nations have achieved such feats. See:Indian Space Research Organisation

KnowledgeHegemony 09:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. I am in favour of it now. However, in which section will you put it? Universe=atom•Talk•Contributions• 13:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
That's the problem.--KnowledgeHegemony 14:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
One would generally think that the best solution would be to put it in the "Military and Foreign Relations" section, in the military part. Personally, though, I feel that the "Culture" section would suit better. Universe=atom•Talk•Contributions• 14:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why it is necessary to say that "India is one of the few countries..." USA, France, Japan, Europe and China are some of the others: It's unnecessarily adding an imbalance on the page by highlighting the positive aspects and toning down the less positive aspects. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

That is a point. The article should be balanced in terms of POV. Universe=atom•Talk•Contributions• 17:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Demographic Image Problem

The Apanti image is too specific to be an appropriate and representative image for the demographic section. Since only one in a couple thousand indians follows Apanti customs, it is not fair to use that image to represent all of India. An image should represent the text. The apanti image may be fit for the tribes of india page, but since tribes are only 8 percent of the total population, it is not fair to the other 92 percent to have the tribal image used to represent that 92 percent. Let's try to find a solution.

Yes, I've pretty much written a book about this particular problem myself. Many of the other users here agreed in principle to using a demographic visual like there should be in the demographics section, but we never got around to choosing one. I think that it is about time. The Behnam 15:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I think there is and always has been a majority in favor of not having that image. What has divided everyone was the replacement. Let's first decide to not have that image there. And only after we have a no image demographics section should we vote for a replacement.Nikkul 12:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Nikkul, please don't go down that path again; that approach is clearly disruptive given past discussions and your personal actions. The process towards replacement which will avoid an edit war, is to (1) find/create a better image, (2) make sure that there is consensus for your choice on this talk page. I would also highly recommend that you read the archived discussions - the ones you (and your socks) participated in and the ones that occurred while you were blocked. Thanks. Abecedare 14:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Abecedare, I am not going down any path again. I have already read all discussions and since nothing has been done about anything, I am bringing this up again in a civil manner. The approach you are talking about has already been tried and has failed desperately. I think that most of the users do not believe that the apanti image should be there, and I say that after reading the past discussions. That belief has brought us together. What has separated us is the fact that four or five users bring their own images and then no clear majority exists. So let us talk about the Apanti image for right now and whether is should stay there. Nikkul 23:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, What is wrong with the Apanti image is that it does not represent India in its entirety, and no one can argue that. Nikkul 23:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Well the fallacy inherent in that argument has been discussed before, so I won't repeat it here.
Anyway, is it your point, that the India page is better without any image in the Demographics section, than with the Apatani image (since that is what you are proposing to do by removing the Apatani image even before a replacement is found) ? If so, I would recommend that you initiate a request for comments, and see how many editors share your POV. Finally please note that it is Apatani, not "Apanti" Abecedare 23:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll try this again. In the past, maps were rejected because there were already a good number of them, and a simple population graph was rejected because it was, well, simple. So, I will suggest this graph instead, which has more substance to it and isn't unappealing. Hopefully this option can resolve the subjectivity problem in that section and bring this article in line with similar sections in other articles. As has been the principle, it is most relevant to use a visual displaying demographic information in the Demographics section. Anyway, here is the picture taken from the article Demographics of India:

Chart showing the percentage of population in India below poverty line.
Chart showing the percentage of population in India below poverty line.

The Behnam 23:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I would support it if you updated the information and provided citation for current information presented in the graph. I know that their has been new information regarding percentage of population below poverty line in the past couple of years.--Blacksun 11:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The Behnam, I do agree with you in that a chart of some sort would be the only possible option, however, if we all start putting in our own replacement images, nothing is going to happen. Thats why i urge you to hold off on the replacement and vote just on whether you feel the Apatani image is relevant. We can talk about the replacement later on. If we do it now, nothing will ever happen as shown in the past. Nikkul 14:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think that if a replacement is found first, people may be more open to replacing the picture, for as I recall from last time, people didn't want to get rid of the picture without having a replacement first. I'll contact the author of the chart to see if there is better information to be had, though I personally think it fine the way it is. The Behnam 14:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
The map is fine, although I think a map of India showing percentages below the poverty line by regions would give more information about "demographics" in contrast (say) to the "economy." Maybe one could do both, i.e. represent the variation in poverty in both time and space. The caption should also explain the "poverty line" though. See the discussion here (end of the section). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


Okay, let us solve this problem once and for all (please sign the appropriate column).


I hope this will solve the problem once and for all. If sufficient "Retaining" support is reached, the image will be kept. If sufficient "Removal" support is reached, we can discuss on what new image to put before removing the Apatani image altogether. BTW, after this discussion is over, perhaps a copy of it can by put in the talk page's FAQ. Thank you. Universe=atom•Talk•Contributions• 18:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Just vote. No comments here, Just retain or reject


People in favor of RETAINING the Apatani image:



People in favor of REMOVING the Apatani image:

  1. Universe=atom•Talk•Contributions• 18:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


Universeatom, I have moved your voting thing down to a new section so that it does not intervene in the comments section here. Hope you dont mind thanks. Nikkul 00:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC) No you haven't, this is very much a part of the discussion. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
We have already been through that kind of a vote (in March) here (see section end), where it was decided to keep the image by 14 votes to 11. The issue of having a chart instead of an image (as suggested by The Behnam, Dab, Sarvagyna, Blacksun, and others) is a different one, and could be discussed here again.
Cursorily looking at different country pages, I notice that most European countries have charts. However, many South American countries do have images in their demographics sections (as do some Central Asian countries). Also, both Britannica and Encarta (the last I checked) had images in their India demographics/people sections. I can do no better than to quote dab (this talk page, 10:30 12 March 2007): "Do you suppose the "typical Swiss" looks like this? People in industrial countries look the same worldwide, they wear suits and cram themselves into suburban trains. "Demographics" images should point out the peculiar, not the boringly average. I think people protest "we are not savages" rather too much -- it makes them look provincial. Nobody even remotely suggests the average Indian lives in tribal societies. The point is merely that India has a precious store of ethnic diversity not yet completely wiped out by industrialisation and globalisation." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, user dab fails to realize that this is an encyclopedia not a myspace. We show the truth not someone's opinion of what boring is and what peculiar is. Also, an image does not have to represent the "boring" average at all. Don't most Indians celebrate Diwali? We can have a diwali picture (which is not boring at all, but is very common in India). Chart wise I like the religion chart since most people dont know the breakup of India in terms of religion. Please click this link: Nikkul 00:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Indische_religionen.jpg

As a matter of fact the pictures in Featured German Encylopedia article on India are way more capturing. The photo of ex-PM Indira Gandhi and the lady in traditional clothes are of proffesional- quality. It will be apt add the former 'along' with the Apatani image.

Even the graph posted above by user:Nikkul is quite good. --KnowledgeHegemony 07:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that the religion graph placed earlier by Nikkul should be placed in the "Demographics" section because its information does not match with the text. I think the best option would the population map that I placed earlier but which was removed. Anyways, before we start arguing and potentially fighting about the replacement, let us first decide (once more, as I hear) if people here want to retain or remove the image. So, I request everybody here to cast their votes before trying to find a replacement. Thank you. Universe=atom•Talk•Contributions• 14:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The reason the images on the German India site are good is because I have placed many of them there, and unlike here, they have been accepted. Keep in mind that the german India site is also a featured article. Nikkul 15:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Universeatom, Judging from past discussions, I think its better to vote on replacements now because many people will want to keep the image till a better graphy is found, and that vote will be cast as a keep even though it does not necessarily mean that. The link to the past discussion is up there somewhere. Nikkul 15:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. Considering that the word demographics means "the statistical data of a population" 1, I have found a perfect image for the section (which was, BTW, put there previously by me but was reverted). It is the image on the right, or wherever it happens to be on your monitor.
The population density map of India. A perfect replacement...
The population density map of India. A perfect replacement...
This image represents the basic idea, or theme, of the section, the ENTIRE population. It gives a basic overview of the entire section, as that is what the section is supposed to be based upon (the literacy rate, education rate, etc. are all based on the population of a country). Thank you. Universe=atom•Talk•Contributions• 17:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

See the funny thing is: we're already getting divided by the replacement images, so nothing is going to get accomplished since there wont be a clear majority. But if we talk about just removing the Apatani image, some will vote keep till a replacement is found. And even though that means remove after replacement is found, it will be counted as a keep and those four or five votes (keep till replacement is found) will determine the vote as show before. So the only way to actually get something done is to vote on keeping or removing the Apatani image while not counting any vote that is keep till replacement is found (because that can also equal remove after replacement is found). Any comments???

Actually if we find a replacement image, and all agree to it, then we might be good because the last vote, most people voted remove or remove after replacement is found (which equals keep till replacement is found) so if we all decide on an replacement image, we should be good. I dont know sooo confusing. Nikkul 00:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

So, are you saying that we should all vote on keep or remove before deciding on a replacement. If so, why is not anyone voting? Universe=atom•Talk•Contributions• 13:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Universe=atom, the reason no regular editor is voting or participating in this rehash-of-a-debate is because this issue has already been discussed to death and the consensus established that the Apatani image should be retained unless a clearly superior image has been found/created. See the link that F&F provided above and note the discussion about what type of replacement image would be preferable. Also read WP:Consensus#Asking the other parent, from which I quote:

A good sign that you have not demonstrated a change in consensus, so much as a change in the people showing up, is if few or none of the people involved in the previous discussion show up for the new one.

Seriously do you believe that repeatedly discussing the Apatani image is the most productive use of our precious time on wikipedia ? In contrast, please see the amazing effort User:Fowler&fowler is investing nowadays in improving the Indian mathematics article. Hope we all can emulate that! Regards. Abecedare 16:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

If the Apatani people get their image put on Wiki, what about Kashmiri people? Marathi people? UP people? Tamil Nadu people? They deserve to have their image on the site as well. Why are the Apatanis favored? it really is ridiculious. Note that Kashmiri, Marathi, UP, Tamil Nadu people are multi-million strong. Nikkul 01:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


The Apatani image does not represent Indian demographics as a whole, and no one can dispute that!