Talk:India/Archive 25

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Demographics Image Poll

A Note to fellow voters:

Though Wikipedia's primary method of determining consensus is discussion, not voting. Editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys may actually impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, if at all, and may not be treated as binding.

How to vote

Sign with "# ~~~~" on the end of the list of the article you want to vote. Opposing votes are not counted; see approval voting. Only a single vote is valid.

Replace
Support:-

1. Nikkul 16:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
2. Sarvagnya 18:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
3. Universe=atom^{•Talk•Contributions•} 14:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
4. Chanakyathegreat 09:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep without any changes(ie.leave the article as it currently is)
Support:-

Keep but add another along with it
Support:-

1. KnowledgeHegemony 15:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
2. Vishnuchakra 20:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This is stupid! =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Frankly speaking I have no problem with the Apatani tribal lady image. A free image of this quality like the Apatani one is hard to get. We all should feel fortunate. It alone gives an incomplete outlook. But now lets drop the issue(came to this conclusion seeing the archives).

Still, I feel we should be more open to improvements to this already very good article. As far as the text is concerned its excellent. But if you compare the pictures to that of Australia, Germany, Japan and Pakistan this article lacks images. Not a single picture of any landscape in a natural resource rich country as India.

• There is not a single picture of the Himalayas.
• India being an agricultural nation we could have a pic of tea-garden(since its the largest producer of tea) or some paddy field of farmers tilling a field or some farmers sowing rice
• Not a pic of any river, lake, waterfall.
• Picture in culture depicting popularity of Cricket.
• Picture to depict Bollywood or any Indian film industry. When we all know films play a major role in our culture!

Atleast one of these could be included.

--KnowledgeHegemony 16:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

This debate will never end will it? The reason why the Aptani image was chosen was because 1. It comes from NE India giving the page a regional balance and 2. it is a featured picture. So by all means change it, BUT get a suitable replacement for NE India without disturbing the regional balance or section relavence and 2. Get the image featured! =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Who cares if it is a featured picture or not? We need pictures, and the topic, not the merits, of a picture should be looked at. Universe=atom^{•Talk•Contributions•} 17:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see the archives of past discussions. That should answer why. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Nichalp, do not call our efforts stupid. They are completely relevant. The term Demographics certainly does not mean "characteristics of .00006 percent of a population" Also, there is no regional balance unless you consider a hut to represent the culture of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala and Tamil Nadu. Also, please read the discussion about attachment to featured images.

Also, an image has to relate to the text. There is no mention of tribes in the demographics section The India article summerizes. The demographic section summerizes the demographics of India. The demographics image should also summerize the dems of India. The Apatani image is too specific Nikkul 21:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Really Nikkul, how many polls does it take make this effort stupid? The last time you were banned for bringing on sockpuppets and accusing me of harassment. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I am a frequent reader of Wikipedia. I dont edit, but my schoolwork requires me to use the site a lot. I have just realized that the talk pages of each article are more interesting than the article itself. Anyway, when I read an article, I do not see any difference between a featured image or a normal image (that shows a lot). So i just wanted to comment on that since you people are discussing this and since editors probably dont see it through a readers perspective. Anyway I respect what you do. Thanks 68.36.160.96 19:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

According to Nicahlp - "...The reason why the Aptani image was chosen was because 1. It comes from NE India giving the page a regional balance and 2. it is a featured picture...". This is the most ridiculous thing I've heard in defense of that image. The "featured pic" pitch is a joke. As the previous arguments(which Nichalp ask us to refer) show, the consensus was "relevance first, featured next". And saying that the pic has been added just to provide regional balance is condescending and borders on bad taste. It almost like somebody pointing out... "Hey... this article is lopsided in favour of the more high profile regions... it doesnt talk much about NE..." and Nichalp responding..."hey.. dont worry.. we'll throw in a pic and be done with it." Talk of systemic bias!

As for the replacement, I feel the demographics map that was suggested recently would be a more relevant pic for the section and the Apatani pic needs to be replaced. Sarvagnya 03:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing funny about having a featured picture. It represents a level quality that we can certainly do with. Have you even read my proposals in a previous talk page archive on why I mentioned it? Please do before accusing me of what not. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes, perfectly good pictures can not be featured because they are a tad bit smaller than the required resolution. This is why they dont get featured status. But does that mean that they are any less good?? Not at all. I think we're all on the same page except user:nichalp Nikkul 14:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by a tad smaller? Do you know what a featured picture is? Please try and get some featured. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Nichalp: A reading of the archives of a talk page is not needed to judge common sense. It is not at all important whether a picture is featured or not. We have to look at how it relates to the text and what it actually is. For example, a picture of a piece of crap can be featured. Does that mean that we should include it in the "Culture" section just because all Indians, sooner or later, have to excrete waste products? Universe=atom^{•Talk•Contributions•} 18:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is. Featured pictures cut down subjectivity. Please let me know if you read the recent archives first. If not, I won't waste my time typing the same stuff again. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Nichalp: By your comment "Yes it is," do you mean yes to the comment on the featured crap or yes to the comment of the reading of the talk archives? Universe=atom^{•Talk•Contributions•} 17:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW, Nichalp: Yes, I just read the archive that you were probably talking about. There, you point out why a picture should be featured to be on this article, which is a comment on which I partially agree and partially disagree. However, in the same comment, you also put that the pictures should be regionally balanced and should relate to the topic. This comment, which is you own, contradicts your own favorite picture (Apatani). Talk about wasting time on typing! Universe=atom^{•Talk•Contributions•} 17:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Aptani was never my favourite image. I only defended it's featured status and regional balance to the hilt. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

No please don't. You, Nikkul and Sarvagyna have already done that a few times on this page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

F&F, can you please specify what exactly you are talking about? Universe=atom^{•Talk•Contributions•} 20:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Spoken article?

While the article claims to have a spoken version, all I can hear is the Indian national anthem playing. Did somebody replace the original recording?--Seraphiel 10:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, is there something I am missing? Did I play the wrong file?--Seraphiel 06:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything wrong. Did you play the right file? Image:India.ogg? =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I followed this link from the article itself. And it seems to be playing the same file that you just linked to. I tried again, and all I can hear is a rendering of the Indian national anthem with some extra stuff added. No voice recording at all.--Seraphiel 16:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the spoken article link from the article now.--Seraphiel 10:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess you are playing the wrong file. I can hear a spoken article. --(Sumanth|Talk) 10:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

How can that be? Did you try the link I pasted above?--Seraphiel 10:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I downloaded the file [1] and played it in Windows media player (you need install a plugin for that).--(Sumanth|Talk) 10:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

What difference does it make if I stream the file (using Wikipedia's built-in Java based player) or download and play it? It should give the same output, right? Why is it that I hear the national anthem playing?--Seraphiel 10:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Streaming doesn't seem to work for me. It shows some error and doesn't play the file at all. Someone else needs to check this--(Sumanth|Talk) 10:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

So can someone with Java installed try out the link above?--Seraphiel 10:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Demographics Vote Results

The proposed replacement - This pic is as good as FA quality. It is .svg. It pertains to "Demographics". It also shows state borders and capitals which is a bonus.

From the vote taken a few weeks ago [2], here are the results:

Those Who Favor Replacement [11]: The Behnam, Sarvagnya, Abecedare, Nikkul, Effer, Sumanth, Haphar, Blacksun, Indianstar, Naresh, Ambuj Saxena

Those Who Favor Retainment [7]: Fowler&fowler, Ragib, Ekantik, Gizza, Saravask, Nichalp, Madhu

It's certainly not as black and white as you put it. Please read the comments carefully before assuming that people voted in entiretly for removing/keeping. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

No. Nikkul was closer. Though, it certainly wasnt as black and white Fowler had counted it last time around. Sarvagnya 09:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Counting again

I took a closer look at the previous vote and here is what I found.

The results of the previous vote were as follows -

Remove: Users The Behnam, Sarvagyna, Ekantik, Nikkul, Effer, Sumanth, Indianstar, Naresh, Incman, and Khazadum. + Chanakyathegreat. universe=atom, Total votes: 12.

Conditional keep(ie., "remove if replaced by a graph") - Users Ragib, Abecedare, Ambuj.Saxena, Blacksun, dab. Total: 5

Keep: Haphar, Gizza, Nichalp, Saravask, Madhu, Fowler&fowler, Chanakyathegreat, Maquahuitl, BovineBeast, and user:129.125.7.218. Total votes: 9

Now since we have a very good replacement in Image:India_population_density_map_en.svg, it is fair to count the "conditional keep"s as remove.

That would bring the tally to,

• Remove - 15 17
• Keep - 10 9

Unless there are any objections in the next few days, I will replace the existing Apatani pic with the pic above. Sarvagnya 08:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Chanakyathegreat has just voted in favour of replacing the pic. I have updated the scores. Sarvagnya 09:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Adding a map of India will solve all problems since it includes all of India. This debate going on for such a long time. Beats all records of negotiations. A.K Anthony can be proud that his department is much better. Chanakyathegreat 09:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too keen on the map of India. It seems, well, sterile. I'd rather, as I said in the last debate, have two contrasting pictures of Indian people. BovineBeast 13:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, even my views match Bovine's. That's why I voted for Keep but add another pic too. --KnowledgeHegemony 14:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Nichalp will argue that this will disturb the regional diversity...but there is none unless a hut represents the culture of AP, TN, Kerala, and Karnataka. Also, if we want regional balance, we can change another image in another section and make it an image from the north east. There is no condition that only the demographics image must be from the north east to preserve any sort of regional balance that apparently exists.Nikkul 14:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I totally support the addition of the Population Density map and the replacement of the Apatani image with it. Nikkul 14:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the population density map is a good replacement because it shows the demographics of all of India, instead of just a small corner. Also, the votes show that most people are in favor of replacing it. So, the times are just right to do so. BTW, does anybody think that it is good enough to be nominated for Featured status? Universe=atom^{•Talk•Contributions•} 16:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

KH - I am afraid, adding an extra pic is not an option here. Grave concerns have been expressed over article size and 'unnecessary bloat' and it is feared that adding any more content/pics to the article will take it past the tipping point and the article may self destruct. Sorry. If you want an extra pic, start a new discussion about it and in my humble opinion, such a discussion may take the good part of the next six months to bear fruit. There are far too many filibusters around here. Thanks. Sarvagnya 18:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Some people just think that they own this page and that this page is their property. So, according to me, such a discussion will never get anywhere. Universe=atom^{•Talk•Contributions•} 18:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I am about to replace the Apatani image with the population density map due to the recent vote. If you have any objections, speak now or hold your peace forever. Universe=atom^{•Talk•Contributions•} 18:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! MUBARAK HO! THE PROBABLY-LONGEST-NEGOTIATIONS IN THE WORLD HAS BEEN PEACEFULLY RESOLVED AFTER LONG MONTHS OF DISCUSSIONS! CONGRATULATIONS TO EVERYONE HERE! Universe=atom^{•Talk•Contributions•} 20:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

 :) Sarvagnya 21:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank god. Nikkul 01:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Hallelujah! I never knew if this would happen. Thanks all. The Behnam 18:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Delhi is a state since long

I am surprised to see Delhi as 'Union Teritory' under the section 'Administrative divisions'

Delhi has been a State since many years and I am surprised not to see it in States list.

It says article got updated on 26 may 2007. Even then delhi is not a state according to this article.

I hope it gets corrected soon.

Thanks,

Nitin

nitinoct@yahoo.com

--Nitinoct 06:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a recurring question. Please see the FAQ section. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW, Manorama Yearbook 2003(don't have the latest) while stating the administrative divisions states-

• the States separately
• the Union Territories separately and
• Delhi separately as National Capital Territory(NCT).

It does not consider NCT a part of Union Territories.

--KnowledgeHegemony 15:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It's an error on their part.

• As per Part I, Article 1 of the Constitution of India, the sudivisions can only be 1. States 2. Union Territories 3. Acquired territories
• As per Part I, Article 2, the Parliament may admit new states when it sees fit.

=Nichalp «Talk»= 17:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

SORRY, I went through Manorama again and realized I comprehended it incorrectly even they regard NCT a part of Union Territories.

--KnowledgeHegemony 06:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It wouldn't be a bad idea to insert a note about the official status of Delhi.

--KnowledgeHegemony 14:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Constitutional status of Delhi- Stating Delhi a Union Territory from WikiSourceKnowledgeHegemony 15:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Pics from the NE

Has anyone thought of getting pictures from NE India featured? I'm sure our resident scout Nikkul can get some good ones. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Why only the NE??KnowledgeHegemony 06:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing that he'd like to counter bias...--Seraphiel 10:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we should first think about getting pictures from NE. Then we can get them featured (which is not a requirement). I think we should replace the Ajanta caves pic with one from the NE to create regional balance since BSE already represents central india. Nikkul 11:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

What's the harm in gunning for featured status? =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Nikkul, BSE (Bombay Stock Exchange) is in Western India.--KnowledgeHegemony 06:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Since Ajanta Caves and BSE both represent Western India, and since there is no pic from NE India, we should replace the Ajanta Caves image with a historic pic from the NE. Once we do have a pic, Nichalp, we should try to get it featured. Nikkul 11:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Following are some beautiful pictures from North-east India (even though some are from near-Northeast India and they do not relate to history):

thumb|The Himalayas in Sikkim

The Vaishno Devi shrine in Jammu, India

thumb|250px|Gurudogmar, India, a high Himalayan lake at an altitude of 5,148 meters

This is a glacier between Delhi and Ladack. It is in Western India, though.

I know that all these images relate to the Himalayas, but that is what Northeast India is famous for. Also, please add more images relating to NE India if you find more good ones. Thank you. Universe=atom^{•Talk•Contributions•} 15:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

None of the above images are from NE India, geographically speaking. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Indian Copyright Law

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Notice board for India-related topics#Indian Copyright Law =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

TODA HUT

Problems with the Toda Hut Image:

• There is no mention of housing in the culture section at all
• Toda Image does not represent the culture of Karnataka, Andra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, and Kerala
• Toda Image does not represent all of South India
• Toda Image does not represent culture of all of India

The reason why the Toda image is there is because no other picture represents South India. Unfortunately, the Toda image does not represent the culture of South India. We should change the Toda hut image and replace it with an image that represents more of South Indian culture.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nikkul (talk • contribs). at 11:51, 30 May 2007.

I do not see why it occurred to you that it should represent southern India at all. It is a fine picture representing a little known culture in India. But I do have an apprehension about the image. I cant get a perspective on its size. The door seems too small to let humans inside. Can someone clarify?--Seraphiel 16:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess it shows the back side of the hut.--(Sumanth|Talk) 11:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, personally, I do not have any affinity to regional balance. But one of our "fine" administrators insists that regional balance be conserved. Because of this, it is said that the Toda image represents South India since no other image is from South India. But the problem is that the Toda image doesnt represent Indian culture since most Indians dont wake up ina Toda hut every morning. Nikkul 02:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

If anyone is interested in what official guidelines have to say about these matters, it should be noted that WP:Images#Image choice and placement says nothing about the supposed 'need for regional balance.' The Behnam 06:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

To an extent, it is a matter of common sense to have the main zones of the country represented. Also their are relevant Wikipedia policies on such matters that tend to give examples of East versus West but the logic applies. Fact of the matter is that lot of "mainstream" Indians cannot even relate to parts of country like North East. At a time when those parts of the country are facing rebellions, it would certainly be best to underscore them being an integral part of India by representing them in the article or so I would think? --Blacksun 11:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You will find little support for your cause by being sarcastic and condescending towards a member of as high a caliber such as Nichalp. He IS a fine administrator and has certainly contributed more than most of us. Toodles. --Blacksun 11:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't push my luck if I were you Nikkul for fear that I might awaken some sleeping giants. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

PS To Seraphiel, The is indeed designed to be small to keep wild animals out, so says the Toda people page, which also gives the width of the door to be 3 feet. I agree with you that in this particular image the door seems to be only about a foot or foot and a half wide (upon comparing it with the adjacent patch of grass). It could be that the Toda doors are a foot and a half wide and people have to squeeze through, or that this particular hut is a "demo" hut and therefore smaller in size than a functional one. But, yes, the caption should say something about the door. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Most of the poor in rural India live under thatched roofs. So a hut (whatever type it is) would be representative of a major chunk of Indian population. --(Sumanth|Talk) 12:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW- a little off this topic, I replaced the BSE pic with another(which is without wires hanging and the satellite). The new pic is taken from a different angle hiding the ugly satellite. worth mentioning both pics were taken by NichalpKnowledgeHegemony 16:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Nikkul, your proposals are as usual ridiculous and baseless. If as you say the Todas are not part of India culture, then they do not deserve to be on this page. So what are they? Aliens? Why are you on a witchhunt to purge images from rural India? =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

As Behnam, pointed out there is no wiki rule which says regional balance has to be maintained. Whether Australia article has pictures for North, South, East, West, Northwest Australia?. Whether United States article has pictures for all regions?. Those articles has pictures which represent the country as a whole. Tajmahal/BSE Building/Parliament has to be kept because it represents India not because it represents north or west. Let us not allocate regionwise Quota. Toda Hut is beautiful picture, I understand its artistic value... but it was here for such a long time.... Let it be replaced by another beautiful picture. Nikkul, I suggest you to put forward your points instead of passing sarcastic comments against people who contributed more for this project.--Indianstar 14:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The issue is not if the image represents N,S,E,W but having all regions of India adequately balanced while still being something very unique to "India". There may be no official rule about regional balance for images, but there is certainly a project Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias which deals with this for the article scope. Nikkul could very well read the project details. I still reiterate with my proposal that images should be featured, regionally balanced and pertinent. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Images should be pertinent and featured and I have no adversity towards rural images as long as they represent most of the rural areas. What I do not like is having images of very very very small groups representing a culture of a huge country. Say, hypothetically, there are a 100 people in India who dance around a fire and live in holes in the ground. They eat leaves for lunch and never wear clothes. Could we put an image of them dancing around a fire semi-naked as an image representing the culture of India? If we follow Nichalp's logic, They might be part of Indian culture (since they are Indian) and yes, they do deserve to be on Wiki India... but then dont Keralites, Maharastrians, Todas, Apatanis, Tamil Nadu people, Assamese, Kashmiri's, also deserve to be on the page? Who's going to decide which group deserves to be on the page? Nikkul 17:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

You misread the plot Nikkul. Nobody is stating that Keralites, Maharashtrians et al shouldn't be in culture. Neither have I defended any single image. Instead I've consistently maintained that the images should be featured, pertinent, and should be regionally balanced across the page. If you find a suitable image from South India which is a) featured b) apposite in the culture section, I'm sure no one is going to stop you from repacing the Toda hut. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Nichalp, an image must not have to be featured in order to be on this page. Yes, it would be a plus, but it should not be a requirement. Also, a Toda hut is not apposite in the culture section since there is no mention of housing in that section. Nikkul 23:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not about housing (as has been repeatedly stated on this page before), but rather about folk art, which is inextricably a part of culture. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Nikkul, why do you have this morbid fear of getting a good picture featured? =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

This page from Frontline magazine says Todas mostly live in modern bungalows.(Not even in regular huts). There are hardly very few Toda huts available. Many information about Todas are myths. They never lived near forest so there is no need for door design to prevent wild animals. Door in the picture definitely shows not only wild animals even human beings cannot enter inside it. Toda people article itself is marked as POV for having copied from old version of Britanicca.(Information is Based on 1911 state of Toda's).

Today Todas don't follow tribal lifestyle. There are so many tribals still living in India managing their tribal lifestyle. United states has lakhs of Amish population some of them don't use electricity or modern technology in any form. Most of the countries have aboriginal or tribal population. But when we talk about culture for country, Culture of majority followers is normally discussed. So I am not convinced about arguments for retaining Toda Hut Picture to maintain regional balance for south India.--Indianstar 01:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Section break

The 'Mysore Palace', a blend of Hindu, Muslim and European architecture

Another pic of the Mysore palace - Sarvagnya

Another pic of the Mysore palace - Sarvagnya

Considering that Indian history and culture is steeped in dynasties, empires, princely states and royalties, I feel this pic of the Mysore palace wouldnt be out of place in this article. The pic believe me, also makes a great wallpaper.

Few words to put the pic in context - It is easily one of the finest(if not the finest) palaces anywhere in India and also belongs to the Wodeyars who ruled from this palace until independence and the last king Sri Jayachamarajendra Wodeyar(who I believe continued as the Governer of the modern Indian state of Mysore/Karnataka) even retained the palace until 1974. That makes this palace and the Wodeyar dynasty probably one of the last(may even be the last) of the princely states to fold. The architect of this palace was Sir Henry Irwin who also is the hand behind several such structures of exceeding grandeur across India. This palace patronised arts and artists from across South India and several legendary artists from across South India found patronage at this palace. The biggest names in Indian(not just South Indian) music and dance continue to perform at this palace every year during the Mysore Dasara celebrations. The architecture of this palace is a supreme example of the Indo-Saracenic style which in some ways is a fusion of Indian, colonial/European and Islamic styles. If somebody doesnt like this particular pic, I am sure other pics of the palace arent difficult to find Sarvagnya 05:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

If you say it is the finest, please put it up on WP:FPC. Thanks! =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

For starters, I didnt say the pic was one of the finest(it may well be going by reader comments on flickr); that comment was about the palace itself. And I certainly dont think its an exaggeration to call that palace one of the finest in India. Anyway, would you please stop harping on "Featured Pic". If I feel like putting it on FPC, I will. Or if you want to put it up on FPC, feel free to do so. In any case, FPC is besides the point here. If you have any comments about what I am proposing, please reply. If you want to make it a wikipedia policy that articles or featured articles or the India article specifically should have only featured pics, take your suggestion to the Village Pump. Keep it out of the discussions here because it has nothing to do with what we are discussing. Thanks. Sarvagnya 07:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I really don't have to post it on the Village Pump or anywhere. Jimbo has clearly stated that he wishes to see quality over quantity Toward a better Wikipedia. Given the present circumstances, I can't see why we can't afford to be choosy over the quality of images on this page. Why are you shying away from getting images featured? Are you afraid that it will fail? =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

IMO, this image of Mysore Palace is not best for "culture" section. The section already has the image of Taj mahal, the most well-known architectural creation in India. No need to place two such architectural images in the section. Well, Toda hut is also an architectural image, but belongs to a different style - Indian vernacular architecture, rather than palacial or monumental architecture.

Since there are so much debate over the Toda hut image in Culture section, we can try to find the image of a festival. However, this also has some problems. Which festival to find? Diwali?--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

As I have argued at length before, I believe that the Toda Hut-Taj Mahal picture combination is an excellent choice for the culture section of the article, since the two images together depict the cultural diversity of India, which perhaps is its defining characteristics. Of course we can replace the image by one depicting, say, an Indian festival, Indian textile or Indian cuisine (as has been proposed earlier) - but how will that be of greater encyclopedic value ? Even assuming that the chosen image is of equal aesthetic quality, at best, we will be depicting two random examples of Indian cultural artifacts, instead of the larger editorial point implicit in the currently image choice.

Please note that the point I raise above is distinct from the ones raised earlier regarding Featured Images and regional balance, and I would like to see it addressed on the talk page before there is a rush to replace the image(s). Finally, I would like to point out that repeatedly raising objections to the Apatani/Toda Hut image after failing to find support for their replacement on earlier attempts, smacks of "Asking the other parent" and is tiresome and disruptive in my opinion. Abecedare 08:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Good. Now since we have somebody talking about something other than "featured pic" nonsense, let me add. The reason I've proposed the Mysore palace pic, is because, apart from its hallowed place in history and culture, it is a fine and rare example of something that blends Hindu, Muslim and European styles. That is the main line of my reasoning. And if anybody didnt notice, wasnt even proposing replacing the Toda pic. I was only talking of adding this pic to the article. Whether such an addition has to be at the expense of another pic or whether it shouldnt be added at all, I leave to the consensus here. Sarvagnya 08:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I tested replacing the Taj Mahal picture by the Mysore Palace image on the main page, but while the image itself is good its, approx. 2:1 aspect ratio makes it look relatively tiny compared to other pictures on the page. What do others think ?

Also, irrespective of whether we decide to use the Mysore Palace image on this page, it would be a good idea to try to get this picture featured. I would nominate it myself, but I am currently unfamiliar with the Featured Image norms, and may take some time to read up on the requirements and process. Abecedare 09:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Replace the Taj Mahal pic with Mysore palace? You guys must be joking!! The Taj pic will have to stay. If you want to replace a pic replace some other but not the Taj Mahal.KnowledgeHegemony 09:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

No. I didnt suggest removing the Taj pic(though I personally dont like the cliched pic all that much). Nor do I think Abecedare proposes that. I think he just replaced the Taj pic only for 'testing' out the palace pic. Sarvagnya 10:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Its cliched for a simple reason.KnowledgeHegemony 11:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Replacing Toda Hut with Mysore Palace or Diwali picture is better idea.--Indianstar 12:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. Why the Mysore Palace? If you're looking for Indo-Islamic and Victorian-Gothic fusion styles, the Victoria Terminus is clearly the pre-eminent example, and the only one on the UNESCO World Heritage List (WHL), see here. (And even for strict Indo-Saracenic, I can think of many others.) I agree with Nichalp that quality is better. Since the process of making it to the WHL is painstakingly rigorous, why not have the UNESCO World Heritage list as a benchmark for "high culture" content and Wikipedia Featured Picture for picture quality? I agree too with Abededare (who has already spoken eloquently to it on these pages) that the Taj and Toda make a balanced pair high art and folk art. I agree with Sarvagyna that the Taj frontal view is cliched and I remember he himself suggesting some pictures of the Taj from different angles. Why don't we submit those pictures for FP consideration? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe Mysore palace was suggested by Sarvgyna because Nichalp wanted regional balance with image representation for south to replace Toda hut image. Victoria terminus picture has few individuals head along with building. Is it acceptable??. No doubt Toda hut is a good picture. Arguments of Abededare makes sense. But it is there for quite long time..... We need change please!!. FP Pictures only is a nice idea. But this is not the right time to implement that ideal suggestion. When Wikipedia has Lacs or atleast several thousands of FP pictures then FP picture only idea makes sense. I presume Mysore palace should pass FP candidature. Even if it does not pass FP, it is a high resolution picture without any observable anomalies.It should be suitable for this page. --Indianstar 14:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

If that is true (that the Toda image has been around for a long time), then why don't we replace it with the Sari image (which is also a featured image) and suits the contents of the culture section?

The brocade is a Indo-Islamic art form and the sari is mentioned in apparel. We can then nominate other appropriate images for FP consideration (including the Mysore Palace). As I had mentioned in Archive 24, 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.) What do people think of these pictures? If there is enthusiasm, we could go to the next step. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Very nice images. The Taj in the cricket image, however, seems faded. Also, the cricket image may not appear good when fitted to the article space (spectators will be difficult to distinguish). The women image is of better quality.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The Lotus Temple and Mahabodhi Temple. How are the pics?---KnowledgeHegemony 15:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)-

The Bahá'í House of Worship in Delhi

The Mahabodhi Temple, a UNESCO World Heritage Site, is one of the four holy sites related to the life of the Lord Buddha, and particularly to the attainment of Enlightenment. The first temple was built by Emperor Asoka in the 3rd century BC, and the present temple dates from the 5th century BC or 6th centuries. It is one of the earliest Buddhist temples built entirely in brick, still standing in India, from the late Gupta period.Mahabodhi Temple Complex at Bodh Gaya: UNESCO World Heritage Site.--KnowledgeHegemony 12:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi KH, I think that the people at FPC are going to say that the lotus temple image is too dark in the foreground. Also, the "specularities" on the two "petals" on the right have bleached out the geodesic criss-cross pattern, although it does have a nice shadow pattern. You could try and get it reviewed at the FPC peer review at WP:PPR. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi KH, Hmm. The Mahabodhi Temple picture does have a lot of detail. Very encyclopedic. I think you should submit it for a review at WP:PPR. Mention UNESCO, and brick structure, but also mention the details of sculpture etc. that the image shows and also the composition (i.e. the temple structure, tree, sky, and the worshiping monks.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that of the two images in the "Culture" section, perhaps the Taj one could be replaced. Of the five replacements proposed here - Mysore Palace, Boys & Cricket with Taj, Ladies with Taj, Sari Fabric, and Lotus temple - the best could be the Mysore Palace. The reason behind this is that it is an excellent example of Indian architecture (BTW, so is the Taj, but there is one problem with it: On every single website relating to India that you visit, the same image comes up over and over again, and it is automatically presumed with India. I think that something unusual yet equally relevant should be put here). Also, it has a good resolution, prodigious view, and shows the immense international diversity of Indian architecture. (BTW, we could certainly try to get it to FP status, although that is totally not a requirement, but it would be a bonus. However, whether it passes or fails as an FP candidate should not influence our decision to accept or reject the image). If this replacement is not liked, my alternative would be to replace the Toda Hut image with the Sari fabric image, partially because of its FP status (which is not a requirement but certainly a bonus), because of its high relevency to the text, and because of the beauty of the picture itself. Regards. Universe=atom^{•Talk•Contributions•} 16:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no requirement that all images on a featured article must be featured as well

Nichalp, I don't see why you view featured image status as a requirement. It's not a requirement. I dont think having two pictures of buildings shows Indian culture. Perhaps a picture of Diwali or a dance of some sort. Taj Mahal should stayNikkul 17:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Just looked at the Mysore Palace image. Doubt if it will get featured status: it is too bleached and the trees in the foreground too dark; typical for digital camera image. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I have nominated Mysore Palace for Featured status. Please come and express your support (or opposition) on WP:FPC. Thank you. Universe=atom^{•Talk•Contributions•} 17:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I see that people still cling to this completely misguided bias in favor of 'featured pictures' despite the fact that WP:Images#Image choice and placement favors relevance (as I have pointed out previously). With this in mind I think that we should decide what sort of picture is most relevant to the culture of India. While I'm not Indian, I am not under the impression that the Toda Hut is a major part of Indian culture, and according to what someone said above, it isn't even common where it once was. So I'm inclined to oppose its use. Yet I think that it is impossible to sum of India's culture with two pictures unless there is something that can really be agreed upon as representative. The brocade is a good example and I think it may be good to use in the section. But I have another question: why does this section need two pictures? Taj Mahal couldn't rightly be excluded from the India article (despite being cliche), but do we really need a second picture here? The Behnam 19:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Mysore Palace

Mysore Palace

The Mysore palace is not only a fine example of Hindu, Muslim and Gothic styles but it is also a center of fine arts. Artists ranging from Parveen Sultana to Bhimsen Joshi to MS Subbalakshmi, from Birju Maharaj to Padma Subramanyam, from Pt Vishwa Mohan Bhat to Mandolin Srinivas to Zakir Hussain all perform at this venue regularly. Artists from across India would kill to get a chance to perform at this place. Fowler's ignorance clearly shows when he compares this to the Victoria Terminus. VT may very well be an architectural wonder, but I cant see how a railway station can be a cultural icon on the same plane as the Mysore palace. I also cant think of many places in India that can boast of the history and grandeur and that can also boast of playing host to such diverse arts and artists as the Mysore palace. This palace keeps a tradition of the Vijayanagara empire alive to this day by organising the 'world famous' Mysore Dasara and the Jumbo Savari for which millions of tourists throng to Mysore every year. Mysore Dasara incidentally is the state festival of Karnataka apart from the fact that Dasara is also big in Bengal(East) and Gujarat(west). Millions of tourists also come to just see the palace. I neither can think of any Parveen Sultana or Bade Ghulam Ali Khan singing on the VT platforms nor can I think of millions of tourists thronging to VT just to "see" it. The credentials of the Mysore palace as a cultural icon is second to none. Sarvagnya 19:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree with Behnam and Sarvagyna. Toda's population is 1100 and most of them live in modern bungalows like urban people. They wear modern dresses. Total no of Toda huts available in Nilgiri is in few dozens.(As of 2000). Toda hut is not the right example to represent India's culture. Taj Mahal can be moved to History section. Mysore palace can be put in culture section. Only one picture is sufficient for Culture section. Alternatively keep only Tajmahal picture in culture section --Indianstar 21:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the Taj Mahal image should be moved to the history section since its more a historic monument than a cultural landmark. Not many people associate the Taj with their culture. Mysore palace should be kept in the culture section. Here are some other pics of Mys. Pal that I brought to Wiki. Nikkul 00:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply to The Behnam: It is well-known fact that featured status is not a requirement in featured articles and the relevency should be given priority. However, feature status of a picture would be a huge bonus to selection because it represents clear analysis by others and the approval of others in thinking it to be one of the best images on Wikipedia. Also, I fully agree with Sarvagnya in that the Mysore Palace is one of the best examples of Indian culture (at least in the Architecture area). If the Mysore image is put in the "Culture" section, the Taj image would have to be removed, since two images of architecture in one section would look awkward. That would leave the Toda Hut hanging on debate. Although I am not a big fan of that image, we would have to remember that it is the cultural diversity of India that makes up its culture. In whether to keep or remove it, I am neutral. Also, if the Taj image would be removed, it could not be placed in the entire article, because the "History" section already has two images; anywhere else in the article would not at all be relevent with the Taj. Also, if you like the Mysore Palace image, please do not forget to express your support on WP:FPC, even if you like it but do not want it to be in this article. Thank you. Universe=atom^{•Talk•Contributions•} 16:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Universe, I think that a very good (relevant), unfeatured image beats a partially relevant featured image. I really dont think that the featured image status would be a significantly huge bonus to the India page. I am definately not saying that we should not get things featured; im just saying that we should not think of featured images as a huge bonus to the article. The mysore palace image does seem like a good representative. Currently, both Culture images show Indian Architecture even though theres more to culture than architecture. Nikkul 01:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Historic Image of Taj

The Taj Mahal from the river. Samuel Bourne, 1865. The river today does not flow as close to the Taj.

Compare Bourne photograph with what the river looks like today (from a different angle).

I have added the classic picture of the Taj by Samuel Bourne for Featured picture consideration at WP:FPC Please vote your support or oppostion. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

From FPC nomination

Historic photograph of the Taj Mahal from an unusual angle. Bourne, one of the earliest photographers of British India, lived and photographed widely in India from 1863 to 1869. Along with Charles Shepherd, one of the pioneers of albumin printing, he founded the Bourne and Shepherd studios in Simla, Calcutta, and Bombay. The studio continues to operate in Kolkata. The river no longer flows as close to the Taj. (See: Sampson, Gary D. 2000. "Photographer of the Picturesque: Samuel Bourne," in Vidya Deheja (ed.), India through the Lens. Photography 1840-1911. Washington, D. C., Smithsonian Institution, pp. 163-197. Also, Gordon, Sophie. 2000. The Imperial Gaze. The Photography of Samuel Bourne (1863-1870). New York, Sepia International.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

An image of the Taj under the history section does not necessarily have to be taken a long time ago. Nikkul 01:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The comparision between 1865 and now doesn't make much sense given the overwhelming temporal non-uniformness of precipitation in the Indian subcontinent -- On an average 90-odd days of flood and practically no rain for the remaining 275 days in the year. It all depends upon the time of the year were these two photos taken. deeptrivia (talk) 01:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Nikkul. Who says it has to be? The photo will serve to maintain a historical context... Vishnuchakra 16:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Toda hut or a temple?

This particular image is titled Toda Temple. It looks exactly like the Toda hut image we have! KnowledgeHegemony 14:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Toda temples are constructed in a circular pit lined with stones and are quite similar in appearance and construction to Toda huts from Toda_people#Religion. The picture of a temple is also given. But interestingly, The Hindu calls an entirely different structure as a Toda temple. See here.--Seraphiel 11:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Articles in FARC

While we are fighting over relatively less important topics here in this talk page, several India-related articles are in need of attention. Two India-related Featured articles are Featured article removal candidate now — Rail transport in India and Geography of India. the FARCs are here and here. Please help improve the articles so that the FA status can be retained.

This talk page is probably not the correct place to inform about the FARCs. However, this being one of the most-watched India-related talk pages, I'm advertising here. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Finally..a Wikipedian with some sense. I'm pretty new here and was coming to think that all people do on Wikipedia, is fight over images.--Seraphiel 11:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

To add to the list, economy of India (another featured article) has a message requesting it to be updated.--Seraphiel 11:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Economy of India was FARCed in August 2006. It was greatly improved and provided with citations then. It may need statistical updates though.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Get Peer Review for Picture First at WP:PPR

Unless you are nominating a famous picture, or are absolutely sure about the quality of a photograph, it is a good idea to get your picture reviewed first at WP:PPR before nominating it to WP:FPC. That way, you get some feedback from the Wikipedia photo editors, and don't create a backlog at FPC. If your photograph is worthy, they will themselves promote it to the FPC process. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Replacing Toda Image

We should replace the Toda Hut Image With One of the Pictures Below Because:

• There is no mention of housing in the culture section at all
• Toda Image does not represent the culture of Karnataka, Andra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, and Kerala, but it is the representative image from South India
• Toda Image does not represent the culture of all of India
• Toda's apparently live in modern homes nowadays

Please add images that could replace the Toda Hut image only

Diyas, traditional candles, lit during Diwali, the holiest Hindu festival

Please disuss the replacement of the Toda hut image only. Thanks

I support using the Diya image because it represents the culture of 890,000,000 Hindus, 19,215,730 Sikhs, and 4,225,053 Jains[3]. The Toda hut represents the culture of less than 1400. Nikkul 14:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't know what the heck you're trying to pull dude, but you're getting to be tiring, especially when you start new discussions (e.g. Toda) when there's already one going on upstairs. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Lets's just have a vote to bring about a consensus as discussions are leading nowhere. Pages and pages are being filled with same points and stances. Its about time we start a poll on this issue.--KnowledgeHegemony 15:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Im not trying to pull anything. And the reason this discussion was started was to try to get images for the toda hut replacement. I started a new one since the discussion upstairs shifted to the Taj image and then to the history section. Please feel free to insert any image you would like to replace with the Toda hut one. Thanks. Nikkul 01:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

are we going to remove the Taj Mahal image because 99.99999% of Indians are cremated or interred in graves significantly less spectacular? The images are not intended to illustrate the average but the peculiar, and India's tribal cultures are extremely valuable in terms of worldwide cultural diversity. Of course your average Indian lives in a city and wears a tie. Along the lines of your argument, all country articles will have to be illustrated with depressing images of urban commuter crowds. dab (𒁳) 11:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not the place to fight nor foster cultural diversity. An encyclopdia describes the majority. An encyclopdia simply reports whats there. It doesnt try to find the most peculiar of things nor does it favor minorities to majorities. There is no mission of Wikipedia to highlight the smallest tribes and their cultures. However, Wikipedia does stive to have relevant information which applies to a majority of what it's describing.

Also, I do not support having a picture of a man in western clothing at all. Fortunately, India has a rich culture. Unlike in China and other countries, where even rural people wear western clothes, Indians wear traditional clothes and celebrate their own traditions. No other country in the world wears saris or celebrates Diwali or eats dosas or makes Bollywood. These things are unique to India and also represent a majority of India.

We are here to simply report what's there. In the culture section, we're here to report what Indian culture is like. Unfortunately, the toda hut just doesnt represent the culture of India, especially since the section does not even mention housing. 68.36.160.96 21:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Aside: I have reason to believe that the IP 68.36.160.96 (talk · contribs) is a sock/meatpuppet of Nikkul (talk · contribs). I don't propose to take any further actions at the moment, but I hope such disruptive activities will stop. Abecedare 22:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

whatever -- you see, the same sort of argument might be made on any picture on any country article. It just so happens that Talk:India gets continuous obsessive haggling over images, while the attitude is generally relaxed on other articles. You have to accept that images can only convey so much, and will include arbitrary choices no matter what. If we're really going to be all that rigirous, the only solution will be to remove all images from this article (which is obviously not what I would endorse). dab (𒁳) 07:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

As I have already stated to abe, I had forgotten to sign in the three times that I used the account. And I was only joking that one time. And I have appologized to Nichalp if he got offended. I have already told him that he may block me for being disruptive. And I will try my best to sign in everytime I use Wiki. Hope that helps. I have contributed a lot to Wiki especially to the indian city pages in terms of pictures. Nikkul 11:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Dab. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

PS Agree with Abededare as well. Nikkul removed Abecedare's post, while at the same time changing the IP address above to user:Nikkul! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not taking part in this discussion of the Toda Hut image anymore because I am too tired of it. If any poll of some sort comes up about images in the "Culture" section, bitte (German for please) count me in it by reading what I have put in earlier posts (e.g. Mysore Palace discussion and others). Thank you. Universe=atom^{Talk•Contributions} 11:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Article History of India

The article History of India is a candidate for Wikipedia:Article Creation and Improvement Drive (shortened to WP:ACID). However, just a day or two ago, it became overdue. However, we can still save it by voting for it ASAP. Please excuse my posting of this non-India-article-related comment. However, I knew that this talk page was the one most watched by a group of Indians who might want to get India-related articles featured. If you don't want the article to be cut from the list due to being overdue, please go to the page (WP:ACID) and vote ASAP. Thank you very much. Universe=atom^{•Talk•Contributions•} 14:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

History of India is also the India collaboration of the week for the week that started on 10 June 2007. Please help improve it. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Its not a justice if this article remains without any temple pic.

We are representing TODA with few thousands huts as India culture. Taj is excellent...why Mysore Palace? Mughal contribution is not the only contribution. Life of the masses in India revolves around temples. There are many South Indian and North Indian temples, we now need picture of temple to represent ancient and modern culture of millions of masses. Secularism on this article is welcomed, But pseudo-secularism is bad! This article should remain secular but definately not pseudo-secular. Holy Ganga ^talk 22:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree. More than 80 percent of Indians are Hindu, yet there is no image of hinduism. Instead we have images of tribes who number 1400. That is why I support an image of Diwali or something similar under culture. Nikkul 14:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

the history section of india can use some improving 59.183.178.56 06:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Wonders of the world

The Taj Mahal isn't one of the seven "wonder of the world" as is claimed in the caption of the pic. It didn't even exist when this list was made. It is however one of the "touristic wonders".

I have changed it. Thanks for pointing that out. Universe=atom^{Talk•Contributions} 19:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's all vote for the Taj on the Seven New Wonders of The World here Nikkul 01:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I did, from net and cell phone too :) sorry to comment here, I know this not forum. sorry again :)Kittu 07:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Rupee Reference?

I provided a reference in the infobox for the statement that the Rupee is the national currency of India. However, it was deleted by Abecedare, saying that it was not necessary because it could not be disputed. Perhaps, though, a reference should be provided for it because the fact is not mentioned anywhere else in the article. Also, there is no "Main Article" for it (except the link provided by it, but I guess links do not count). Also, it should not matter whether a statement is disputed or not; how would someone coming from a tribe in Africa know that the Rupee is the currency; perhaps he might dispute it. I have posted this in the talk page because I did not want to engage in an edit war. Universe=atom^{Talk•Contributions} 19:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

On a different note, would you please remove the html code from your signature? It is quite distracting, and per WP:SIG, this type of signature is not acceptable. Please remove the colors and html codes, to make your signature less distracting. Thank you. --Ragib 19:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Accoridng to Verifiability, "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged". I don't think India's currency being a rupee falls in that category by a long shot, and note that the fact is easily verified through the "General References" listed in the External Links section. I think excessive footnoting not only degrades the readability of the article, but also dilutes the truly significant information and references. For example we could add a reference for India "borders Pakistan to the west" but that would not really being doing a service to the reader; rather it would bury the important footnote about the Government of India considering Afghanistan to be a bordering country.

Also, I don't think "tribe in Africa" is the standard followed by wikipedia; if it was we would need to reference each phrase of the article - after all we can speculate that there may be some person in the world who will perhaps dispute almost any statement in the article (to pick a random examples: Demonym form of India in Indian). In general I support any efforts to add high-quality citations to an article, but I don't believe we should leave common sense behind in this effort. Abecedare 19:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Abecedare that 'Rupee' doesn't need a reference since clicking on its internal link provides enough info. Rather the HISTORY section requires some references regarding the time periods mentioned. Numbers, dates, special features and potentially 'too- good-to-be real' statements should be referenced.--KnowledgeHegemony 13:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

(Addition to my comment above) The lead paragraph does not require references. Thus, I am not amused to see references being added about India being second most populated and seventh largest when 'second most populated' and 'seventh largest' have been internally linked. Too much referencing looks as if we are trying to justify 'controversial' claims. Hence am removing these two references.--KnowledgeHegemony 14:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not that we are trying to justify claims. The reason for why I put the refs there is that if there are already references in the body for India's status (in this case: seventh largest country and second most populous), why not just copy them into the lead. After all, when measuring an article's length, the references, external links, pictures, and charts should not be counted. Only the prose (the text) should be counted. So, while adding more refs, the article can never get too long, because the refs dont count. It would only make the article better. Also, I still support putting the ref. for the Rupee there. (BTW, aside, to Ragib: have changed signature) Universe=atom^{Talk•Contributions} 15:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

U=a, I think you might not be allowed to have an "=" sign in the signature, since it interferes with the output of the Wikicode: {{user|Universe=atom}} and produces: Example (talk · contribs), instead of the usual output. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

F&F, the way to get over that problem is to type {{user|1=Universe=atom}} which produces Universe=atom (talk · contribs). (I had found this sometime back discussed in some dark wiki corner). Abecedare 03:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Abecedare! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

WRONG MAP- AN INSULT TO ALL INDIANS

I don't know what the hell the Indians are doing on this talk page. We have discussions about difference in Toda Hut and Toda Temple, but it seems no one has bothered to see the wrong map put under the name of Location of India, it shows J & K belonging to Pakistan. Remove this map and have an original map or no map at all. All Indians support this Cause.

67.173.165.210 03:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)Hemendra Bhatia 67.173.165.210 (talk • contribs • count)

See Talk:India/FAQ. --Ragib 03:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Adding a note in the caption of the map about it not being recognised officially by the Government of India would give a better idea to readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KnowledgeHegemony (talk • contribs) 13:46, 18 June 2007

Wow, someone is ardent! I think that there should be like a dotted line or something for the current boundary. I dont know whether this is the case right now (I dont observe the maps on the page) but that would seem logical. Nikkul 01:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Now, I'm not really sure what the anon was talking about. The locator map looks the same as the Indian-controlled territory as shown in Image:India-states-numbered.svg (which BTW is quite self-explanatory in showing the status quo). As for anything else, see Talk:India/FAQ. --Ragib 01:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

sigh, it appears that the one-billion-populace of India has a particular propensity to be insulted in unison, and in allcaps, at every other turn. dab (𒁳) 08:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Hemendra Bathia, You're not lamenting the fact that some portions of the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir are now administered by Pakistan and shown to be such in Wikipedia maps, are you? If you are upset about this mess, you have the Sikhs under Ranjit Singh of Lahore to blame. Had they not appointed Gulab Singh to be the Dogra King of Jammu in 1820 (which they were to regret later), he wouldn't have had the cash to buy Kashmir from the British after the Anglo-Sikh war in 1846. Kashmir would then have been a province of British India (instead of being an artificial princely state cobbled together under an artificial ruler). The entire state would then (under the terms of the transfer of power) have gone to Pakistan—the British were clear about that. Even so, there was wide expectation in August 1947 (even among Indian leaders like Nehru) that the Maharaja (of a state with 77% Muslim majority) would accede to Pakistan. So, thank your lucky stars that the India map has any portion of J&K to show. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about "lucky stars", but whatever the historical reasons, J&K happens to be disputed territory today, hence Wikipedia will show it as disputed territory, and that's really all there is to say about this. dab (𒁳) 10:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Rather than projecting your Indophobic lens on history, why dont we just (like dab said) look at the reality that Kashmir is split between three modern nations. What or who we think should own it is irrelevant.Bakaman 18:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Tourism in india

Please help improve article Tourism in India. We can make that article a featured article in wikipedia. cheers. Lara bran 07:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed new links to the "External Links" section

I am thinking about adding the following links to the "Government" subsection of the "External Links" section. Please give your feedback.

• The official site of the Parliament of India.
• The official site of the President of India
• The official site of the Prime Minister of India
• The official site of the Vice President of India

Please add more to this proposed list if you can find more. Thank you. Universe=atom^{Talk•Contributions} 16:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Why? We already link to Official entry portal of the Government of India and Official directory of Indian Government websites, both of which link to all the sites you have listed above and many, many more. If anything one could argue that the second link (i.e. http://www.nic.in which, redirects to http://indiaimage.nic.in/) is redundant, since it provides no additional information not in the first. So perhaps we should remove the second link instead of adding more links. Abecedare 16:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I would second Abcedare's suggestion - the links mentioned above would be more appropriate in the relevant articles on the Parliament, President, Prime Minister and Vice President, based on the Wikipedia guidelines at Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_mirror_or_a_repository_of_links.2C_images.2C_or_media_files and particularly Wikipedia:External_links#Important_points_to_remember which states that "a lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links". Green Giant 18:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Indus Valley Civilization

Doesnt the Indus Valley Civilization denote an ancient area that now currently resides in Pakistan along the Indus river from which it derives its name from. Apart from a few scant areas located over the border near the Pakistani province of Sindh, the bulk of the Indus Valley is inherently tied to the country of Pakistan. Why has has it been written that India is the home of the Indus Valley Civilization? Can someone please remove this erroneous entry. kind regards 130.63.161.200

This debate has been going on for a long time. On both sides there will inevitably biased individuals seeking to promote their particular idea. However, I think a simple analogy would suffice in settling this issue. The example I use is the Roman empire, which extended over an extensive area beyond Italy. One of the areas which the Romans ruled was part of my home island of Great Britain (in the form of the province of Britannia). Now even though the most obvious inheritors of the Roman legacy would be Italy, and the Romans obviously did not originate in Britain (they were from Rome in case you were wondering :P ), it would be impossible to narrate a history of Britain without some mention of the Romans. Indeed, there is an entire article on Roman Britain and I would challenge anyone to prove that there is absolutely no evidence of any Roman influence in Britain. In the same manner, the Indus/Sindhu/Sarasvati civilisation existed across an area that falls partly in India and partly in Pakistan, with some evidence indicating it's influence extended as far west as the Mesopotamian region. That means both India and Pakistan should be able to lay claim to some of the heritage of that civilisation and therefore both should have a good mention in their respective articles. So let's quit this partisan approach and let both articles discuss the Indus valley civilisation. Green Giant 18:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Green Giant's point are all vaild; in addition you'll note that the article only claims that the Indian subcontinent (not India) was the home of the IVC, which is clearly indisputable. Abecedare 18:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Too many brackets in etymology

Can anybody come up with a solution to decrease the number of brackets.--KnowledgeHegemony 06:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I took a stab at making it more readable. I also added language templates, which are useful for auto-readers and mentioned the languages Hindi and Urdu explicitly so that a reader who does not know the scripts can understand what those "glyphs" in the brackets stand for. If someone feels stringly about the issue they can change the descriptors to the relevant script Devanagari and Nasta`liq script/ Urdu alphabet instead of the particular languages. Abecedare 06:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Good work.--KnowledgeHegemony 07:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Correction required

It says India's economy is 4042 trillion in the fact box. --Blacksun 09:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I saw the period as comma. --Blacksun 09:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

If India's economy had been 4042 Trillion i.e. per capita GDP of ~$4M, we could have used the technical term bazillion-gazillion instead :-) Abecedare 09:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Holidays Table Needed

As per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countries#Holidays, this article should have a table that lists the holidays of India. Also, as it says on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countries/Article_Classification#Featured_articles, this is one the country FA's in Wikipedia that does not have a holidays' table. Is there one on Wikipedia to put in this article? If not, the format in the first link should be used to make one. Also, where should it be put? Universe=atom^{Talk•Contributions} 15:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)