Talk:India/Archive 3

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

adding to History section

Just a request. The history section is now a skeleton of its former self and not providing a context for India makes the whole page incomplete. Could someone/ whoever is responsible please flesh it out either restoring parts of the earlier matter or rewriting it shorter?(Am refraining myself because am currently indisposed and can't get into edit wars or heated discussions) KRS 16:57, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Maybe I am telling something that may be obvious- actually too much cutting down has occurred and with lots of editors,many anonymous, the thread has been lost and the transformation in my opinion does not seem to be for the better. KRS 17:09, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Lock the page

I propose that the India page be locked for a couple of days. Our anonymous editor is going too far with his/her careless edits. He/she can use the time to create an account instead and discuss India related talk. Surya, KRS and others, what do you think? [[User:Nichalp|¶ nichalp | Talk]]

I am not averse to a temporary block. No matter the differences, often deep, expressed amongst and between editors here, I feel a commendable job has been done in keeping the controversy largely off of the actual article page and on talk pages, where it belongs. Perhaps we may consider a notice requesting active but unregistered users to consider getting a name to facilitate the carrying through of complex group projects such as the 'India' article has become. --LordSuryaofShropshire 21:13, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)
Please do not lock. Reverting vandalism is much easy and so locking won't be the solution. Moreover editing is a pleasure and please allow others to get that spirit of Wiki-ing. And please do not threaten anyone who is willing to edit/contribute. --Rrjanbiah 05:03, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I guess we could also just get a sysop to target whoever's vandalizing. --LordSuryaofShropshire 05:11, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)
Locking IP is easy but it is against to the Wiki spirit, IMHO. Also, I could see 3 different anonymous users: 1. From Delhi, 2. From Canada, 3. From Switzerland. --Rrjanbiah 05:22, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
If anonymous editors make changes to improve the page, nobody has any problem with that. But if he/she writes his thesis on Nehru and Indira and makes arbitary changes without discussion, for 3 days in a row; then it would be better the page be locked so that s/he can take the time off to learn the intricacies of the functioning of Wikipedia. [[User:Nichalp|¶ nichalp | Talk]] 18:59, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

Map caption

I fail to see how the "Official Indian Map" has any relevance here. The only disclaimer we need is to mention that the only parts of kashmir under indian control are colored in (an perhaps mention what else is claimed but not controlled). How is this not NPOV? --Jiang 09:57, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The article is about India. The map--which is CIA version (or Wikipedia version) is quite illegal in India. So, you must explain what is POV???--Rrjanbiah 10:26, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
We don't have the official Indian map as part of the GFDL so far. Anyways, it is relavent as Kashmir was usurped by Pakistan, the UN does not recognise Pak to be the legit. rulers of their occupied teritory. [[User:Nichalp|¶ nichalp | Talk]] 20:16, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

Just because it's an article on India doesn't mean we should follow an Indian POV. By saying this is not an official Indian map (i.e. by mentioning the "official Indian map" at all), the caption gives precendence to official Indian maps because it implies the CIA map is somehow erroneous. Please cut the crap about Kashmir being "usurped by Pakistan". There is no room for political debates here.

What is POV about simply stating that the map doesn't recognize claims and only colors in what each country controls? That's how we've dealt with the China map - it's short and simple. --Jiang 23:25, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No one's saying Pakistan usurped Kashmir or DIDN'T usurp Kashmir. It is neutral and gives more information than the 'control' option. It is better on all counts. The China map option may be simpler but it doesn't capture the breadth of the issue while this method does at the same time maintaining NPOV. --LordSuryaofShropshire 02:13, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

I've rewritten the caption and preserved the information given. I think this sets a more neutral tone. --Jiang 06:39, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Rrjanbiah, every single country has a CIA map, and in no other country do we mention directly on the page that the map comes from the CIA. So is every country article on wikipedia "nonsense"? The image description page is the place for the source, not the caption. The fact that the map shown is not government produced is already implied. --Jiang 17:49, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Jiang, you seem to want to class this map with all others, whereas it's clearly (along with perhaps the Israel-Palestine situation) the most fiery map-geographical debate in recent historical memory. I'm not on Rrjanbiah's line, not quite at least, but I do think there needs to be more balance. You are not attaining NPOV status on this by removing all mention of Pakistan and shifting bias to, with the new wording, what looks like a silly national claim against the rest of the world. That's bias as well. Here are the two main (more or less) contenders:
Now, you're claiming that the former is somehow 'clean' and the latter more biased. Here's the problem with such an assumption. By not mentioning either the source of the map or Pakistan, one gives the map seen on the screen Wikipedia's tacit nod of extra approval, almost as if this map is "so correct" that one needn't site the POINT-OF-VIEW" from which it stems, which is the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States of America. Also, by removing Pakistan's mention, one needlessly deprives the reader of important information that gives, in fact, more objective a view of the situation than expurgation would. Lastly, if someone talks about the 'size of the page' or the aesthetic blunder created by adding three more lines of text, especially on a topic as sensitive as this, they need to start culling elsewhere on the page. For all these reasons, 1) that the point-of-view of the current map, established by citing on the caption itself its source, is paramount for NPOV, 2) that Pakistan and India's rivalry over the land is prime and, 3) the addition of this information will make naught a shred of difference to aesthetic wants, I am using the following admixture of the two possibilities:
I know I'm in for criticism, but let's keep this discussion fruitive. --LordSuryaofShropshire 19:09, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

Jiang, this is a very sensitive issue. As a third party you may not be able to grasp the sensitivities about Kashmir in the two countries. The UN not recognising the Pak claim is a fact, not fiction (as it not mentioned on the India page, so there's no need for further discussion). I don't see any harm in pointing out the official Indian map, since the current CIA map does not depict the exact boundaries of Kashmir, or even the exact shading of the portions administered by China, Pakistan and India. [[User:Nichalp|¶ nichalp | Talk]] 20:42, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

I see how my version was slanted against the Indian claim in favor of the status quo. I find ordSuryaofShropshire's version an impovement over the old. But a few points to make: 1) If the Indian rendering of the map is mentioned, why not mention the Pakistani rendition for the sake of balance? 2) Kashmir#Map_Issues does not point to commentary on the contentious mapping of Kashmir, but to a small number of links all with an Indian POV; it is not a "discussion" as the caption implied and should either be made into one or delinked.

When we are faced with a POV map, then the best solution is to fix the map itself. Let's add hashmarks and labels to the disputed region as has been already done for Aksai Chin. Once this is done, we and not the CIA can claim to be the source. --Jiang 23:58, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier, we don't have a better map which depicts the 3 administered regions of Kashmir, and the ceasefire lines between them. I don't think the CIA map suffices in this respect (drawing over the map). Yes, the kashmir map issue has to be written as it is insufficient. However, there is no need for the Pakistani rendering. That would be more approriate on the Pakistan page. [[User:Nichalp|¶ nichalp | Talk]] 20:41, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

I don't see what's wrong with drawing over the CIA map. How does it not suffice? Can you be more specific as to what problems adding labels and hash marks will cause?

As for listing the Paki claim, doesn't NPOV entail citing all POV's? By not citing the Pakistani POV, we favor the other POV's. We shouldn't be following a particular POV just because it's the subject of the article. --Jiang 01:00, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think NPOV is being mixed up here. NPOV entails not espousing a particular POV, not making fastidious mention of all available POV's. Also, when multiple POV's are central to the argument, there should of course be mention enough that the information is readily available. The Pakistani claim, in pursuance of such protocol, has been cited, it merely has not had full explication (as in details of its boundary line) in the caption itself. Note that the Indian policy of full and inherent claim to Kashmir has not been mentioned, nor Pakistan's 'dispute' opinion, only the more vague notion of 'claim to land' sans explanation. Links to all countries and the Kashmir dispute have been included for easy access to such succulent morsels regarding the territorial quibbling. I feel anybody looking at this caption, in my opinion, would not be led to embrace any single view (being that they would yet be ignorant of them having had only brief introduction to the broader dispute) and would assay to explore the aptly proffered links that, praise Jesus, are encompassed within the few words of the caption itself.
As for the appropriateness of the map itself, it seems the best option in a tough situation. Official views don't really count here since we are perforce clouded in regard to whose regent claim is to be honored above the other. international opinion (currently the 'effective control' view), Indian or Pakistani? Maybe I should break out my crayons... --LordSuryaofShropshire 19:14, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

India's border dispute with China is not just related to only the Aksai Chin. Some more areas in 3 other states are also claimed. Pakistan also disputes the Sir Creek border in Gujarat. (But that's not central to this discussion). What I want to state is that the exact border of Kashmir has to be drawn (before 1947). Now part of the region that was Pakistani held territory was ceded to China, and it is imperitave that it is mentioned on the map. Unless we have a really good graphic artist, I think the map will be soiled with too much detail in the Kashmir region (for such a small map, that is). The words claimed should be omitted and replaced with administered to make it a NPOV. I don't have any objection if the map is altered in an asthethic an neat manner. [[User:Nichalp|¶ nichalp | Talk]]

The map deals with India, I don't see any reason why Pakistan should be mentioned. If we reinforce the Kashmir map issues article with a NPOV, it should suffice, as readers wanting to learn more can click that link. The Pakistan national television shows the map of Pakistan with the Indian administered Kashmir as a part of Pakistan. The other private Pak channel shows the CIA version. As far as the Pakistani version is concerned, it is still unclear as to where their exact boundary claims currently lie. [[User:Nichalp|¶ nichalp | Talk]] 20:50, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

Are the discepancies small enough so that the exact claims can be left ambiguous, given the low resolution of the map?

More urgently, we need to have some commentary on [#Kashmir Map Issues] as opposed to a couple POV links. It can probably a section in the same article. Any of you to the task? --Jiang 07:32, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm much sick of the moronic troll on the map caption issue. Unfortunately, I'm quite busy now and will clarify more points sometimes later. In short, 1. equating coloring and controlling is total wrong as no one (CIA, UN or anyone) ever visited the "controlled" parts and did "draw" the map, 2. this is CIA version--which was changed year to year (there is no POV here), 3. god only knows what they've depicted--colored or what they meant "line of actual control" or the claimed part falls in China or Pak, etc, 4. no one here says official Indian map is better or worse--but says the differences and issues, 5. you can't "fix" the map as you don't know what is under controll and not; you can't draw the map here in Wikipedia for the issue the existed so many years, 6. CIA version != official Indian version; so why should you push your bullshit POV on readers by providing only a CIA version without mentioning the issue and differences. --Rrjanbiah 05:01, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove by saying there's no "line of control" or that the CIA doesn't really know where it lies. What do you think the Central Intellegence Agency is there for? So far, you are not making much sense.
I asked you 1) What is the relevancy of the official Indian map in a section of the Geography of India and 2) What was POV (or what you now call "bullshit POV") about the modified versions. You have not managed to answer either of them.
I remind you again to please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks and take the advice there to heart.--Jiang 07:32, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

External Links

Jiang, I'm not sure what you mean by discepancies small enough so that the exact claims can be left ambiguous, given the low resolution of the map. I am pointing to you these external links so that you get to see the detailed picture of the state of Jammu and Kashmir. India-Pak-China held territory ; India-China conflicting zones Beware, the images are large (300+k). Also the BBC's rendering is the most NPOV. I hope you can come to a final decision.
Regarding the 'Kashmir map issues', I am held up writing articles revolving around Mumbai, so if nobody edits the Kashmir issue, I will, in a week's time. [[User:Nichalp|¶ nichalp | Talk]] 20:19, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)

Reorganization

Also note that each section here is intended to be a summary. The history and culture sections are way too long. Please move some of the content to the more detailed articles. --Jiang 09:57, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Each and every sub heading has the bare minimum required. If you have any suggestions on what exactly needs to be deleted please share it with us. [[User:Nichalp|¶ nichalp | Talk]] 20:17, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

The subheadings in history and culture are not needed. Each of those mini sections can be shortened to a couple sentences with the link being part of these sentences. --Jiang 01:00, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

On hindsight, yes the history section can do with some clipping. However the culture section, although it is long, provides interesting reading on matter which forms the very core of India. It is these nuggets of information that really define India. Each subheading has just an average of 3 lines and should entice a reader to learn more, if necessary. [[User:Nichalp|¶ nichalp | Talk]] 20:29, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)

Academy Award

I am unhappy with the wording of Satyajit Ray winning the Oscar. It would seem that the Oscar is the only worthy award in the cinema realm and other awards are not up to the mark. I think it needs to be reworded. [[User:Nichalp|¶ nichalp | Talk]] 19:53, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

That's a fair statement. But his special place in world film shouldn't be lost in the amendment. --LordSuryaofShropshire 04:59, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

AIT and DNA tests

Look... this is a summary article on important aspects of Indian culture. Unfortunately, much of this is fodder for controversy. As for the AIT, it is clearly written that most people side with the older, evolved idea of a Migration. Rrjanbiah: you clearly have not even deigned to attempt to understand my objections to the inclusion of the supposedly 'definitive' mitochondrial DNA tests. I don't think the tests in and of themselves are POV. However, they are presented as if they are the only DNA tests ever conducted on Indians to determine the possible ingress of non-native peoples into India. There have been similar studies done with different groups (often larger sample sizes) from different areas of India that 'reveal' (I quote it because I'm not stating this as fact, but representing the opinion of another: NPOV) that mixing of races could not have taken place four thousand years ago and yielded gene pools as they are today. You need to realize that these tests, based on the groups taking them, have been 1) undertaken differently and 2) had their results argued with different conclusions. Essentially what I'm saying is that these tests are neither ground-breaking or unique and they do not 'close the door' on the debate, since they are being argued with tests done in similar frameworks.

The issues are dealt with in-depth in the AIT article, whose link is clearly given right underneath the Early India section for people to access. Also, as I said before, the paragraph clearly states that most people choose to stick with the evolved Migration theory understanding and the other continuity theories are newer. Please stop trying to forward your own agenda with a claim to impartiality when the evidence proffered represents only one side of the equation: mitochondrial tests are not new, and their 'results' and argued conclusions are as varied as the combined number of theories on AIT, AMT and Continuity Theory. --LordSuryaofShropshire 05:32, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)

Hi LordSuryaofShropshire,

You stated that "There have been similar studies done with different groups (often larger sample sizes) from different areas of India....."

Please give references for these 'similar studies'. Without references a statement is not scientific but just a claim of POV.

The bibliography for some of the works that support the Aryan invasion theory, and which are also the latest are:

  • Spencer Wells; 'The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey', Princeton University Press, January 2003
  • 'Written in blood'; New Scientist vol 170 issue 2291 - 19 May 2001, page 17

Water Fish 07:36, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Water Fish -- The great Aryan theories form a fraction of Indian history. It should not be added to the main India page as the page is anyways quite large. Add it in the relavent pages. [[User:Nichalp|¶ nichalp | Talk]] 20:27, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
Waterfish: while you're busy forwarding your agenda you don't attempt to balance your own views by intelligent examination of anything contrary to your platform. Just read page three of this study and follow the rabbit: [1]; also worth seeing is this [2]. There's plenty more, but I'm not your school teacher. Find it yourself.
Anyway, this is all 'academic,' as Nichalp (and I earlier) said: this is not appropriate to a summary India article and should be discussed in a neutral fashion on the Aryan Invasion Theory article page. Peace --LordSuryaofShropshire 05:18, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

Nobody is forwarding agenda except those who delete passages before having a discussion. Deleting a statement before discussion is POV as it would be deletion on the basis of the opinion of a single person.

The pdf paper that you linked is written by Kivisild; M.J Bamshad; and others. (1999) and I am very much aware of it.

Scientific research keeps on evolving and the very same author published another paper later in (2001) stating that the upper caste of Indian population is European-caucasian in origin.

You can get the paper here:

Bamshad M., Kivisild T., et al; (2001) Genetic evidence on the origins of Indian caste populations, Virus Research 75(2): 95-106, Jun.

Here is the link to the Pdf file of the paper written by the same research team in (2001): [3]


They have written in their discussion:

"Our results demonstrate that for biparentally inherited autosomal markers, genetic distances between upper, middle, and lower castes are significantly correlated with rank; upper castes are more similar to Europeans than to Asians; and upper castes are significantly more similar to Europeans than are lower castes."

A review of that work is given in the New Scientist: * 'Written in blood'; New Scientist vol 170 issue 2291 - 19 May 2001, page 17.

You wrote "There's plenty more, but I'm not your school teacher. Find it yourself."

The purpose of an encyclopaedia is to make a comprehensive collection of knowledge with references and bibliography, so that people may not spend time searching for information and sources. Those who contribute to an article have to give references or bibliography wherever required. Telling a reader 'find it yourself' defeats the very purpose of an encyclopaedia, besides being rude which could be overlooked. Water Fish 07:04, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Waterfish: I do believe you're forwarding an agenda and all I'm saying is that there are plenty of people who dispute the mitochondrial dna evidence or, more importantly, draw completely different results from it. I'm not telling readers to look for the info themselves, by the way: read what I write and understand it. The Aryan Invasion Theory article is referenced right underneath the Early India section and has a full discussion of all of the points of view. The aims of an encyclopaedia, which you so exhaustively described, have been fully met. Remember, an encyclopaedic article also needs to be on-topic, and going into divergent claims about the AIT is not germane to the issue. --LordSuryaofShropshire 20:57, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

LordSuryaofShropshire, your belief that I am forwarding a cause is a personal point of view which cannot be proclaimed as truth. I have based my statements on latest empirical research by well established genetic researchers. I have also given links to the scientific works written and published by them in excellent journals of genetic research.

you wrote: "all I'm saying is that there are plenty of people who dispute the mitochondrial dna evidence or, more importantly, draw completely different results from it. I'm not telling readers to look for the info themselves,....."

Please give the bibliography to the scientific papers of latest works which draw completely different results, and which are published in well established journals of genetic research. Besides the legitimacy of interpretation largely remain with the research team that collected the data in their own rigorous methodology. It is very easy for others to interpret it in different manner. However that is not valid as long as they do not collect data in a more rigorous manner.

When you state a view held by others it is important to substantiate it with empirical research that supports that view. Until you can do so those statements by others are just opinions and does not have the legitimacy of perspective/s that have empirical backing.

you wrote: "Remember, an encyclopaedic article also needs to be on-topic, and going into divergent claims about the AIT is not germane to the issue."

adding a single line about the latest research is not diverging from the topic, rather giving a direction to the latest approach to a certain topic, which is the very purpose of an encyclopaedia. Water Fish 02:06, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As I said, I'm not here to argue fine points of the AIT debate with you. As with most historical debates the evidence of different groups is not pure fact, and even science allows for flexibility in the most hallowed of laws. Being the most recent research group with data is not a privileged position of infallibility. Just because this is the most recent paper does not give it any more validity than other studies conducted in the last few years. Regardless, there are many who would disagree. But beyond this, since I know you will whine for some papers, there is the fact that this debate is for the Aryan Invasion Theory article. It is already clearly supplied as a link and it seems that you're having a tough time accepting this. The purpose of this page is, as others who do, I believe, support the Aryan Migration/Invasion Theory, agree, is not to start placing banners for one point of view. I think this conversation is about done. Since you're so eager to talk about this research, try clicking on this link: Aryan Invasion Theory and giving it a whirl.

--LordSuryaofShropshire 03:43, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

AIT for and against

We have a page that goes in to the details of the arguments for and against Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT). Looking at that page it is not possible to say that the question has been settled one way or another. So let's just inform the reader of that on the main page and let it upto her/him to research more on this topic if interested.

Harisheldon

I agree!!! Rrjianbiah and waterfish... you have to understand that I frankly don't have a view on the Aryan Invastion Theory as of yet. In general, I believe in the modified form, that a migration of influential peoples into the subcontinent effected a major change in the socio-political landscape. However, I've often contributed balancing factors to the discussions of AIT, both on and off the India page, in order to foil what seems to be a rather fanatic attempt to assert one view, one view alone, and force all others to accept it. I thought the point of modern libertarian politics and ideology, which secularists and right-wingers alike tout, was to encourage discussion and not to quash people unneccessarily and/or unfairly.
Here, we have a simple case... the truth has been amply represented. The paragraph gives a full and uninhibited view of the modern theory, the Aryan Migration Theory, representing it as an alteration of Mueller's original Invasion Theory. Even Romila Thapar agrees with what's on the page right now, and most of the politically-motivated indigenous-theory people dislike her, though I would quickly add that not all people who support the continuity theory are politically motivated or Hindu activists. It's sad that the only ammo people have is the childish ad hominem approach. For instance, Rrjanbiah says "pseudo-patriotic" in reference to my edit. What's wrong with you? It really sounds like you're an elementary school kid. Try to understand that this is not about embracing one view, but, as Harisheldon concurs, allowing the reader to decide for him or herself what view to espouse. We give both theories, we mention that most people believe in Migration/Invasion Theory, and mention that there are those who would disagree. If we had to say which view the India article itself espouses, it would the migration theory, based on its presentation! Finally, we supply a link immediately thereafter that goes to the Aryan Invasion Theory article and expatiates at great, great length the nature of opposing views and their differing studies which, for all their finality and definitiveness, have never proven absolute in their refutation of the opposing side; this includes waterfish's most recent study. Please try to be reasonable, intelligent, and objective, and don't allow yourself to lapse into petty squabbling and immature name-calling. This is an encyclopaedia article, amateur though it may be, not a playground. --LordSuryaofShropshire 16:20, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
Although personally I think the recent debunking if the AMT/AIT is hogwash, (how else did we get Sanskrit so closely related to Latin?) it (the new theory) was mentioned in the Times of India a year back. Normally I'd jump to question the authenticity of the claims, but since I read it long before I joined wikipedia, the new theory cannot be wished away unless conclusive evidence disproves each and every point of the new theory. Surya:, I'm interested on how you got Romila Thapar to read this page and agree with you ;) [[User:Nichalp|¶ nichalp | Talk]] 21:21, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
One: it is possible for the linguistic connection to have gone out of India, so the Sanskrit-Latin connection doesn't debunk the continuity idea. However, admittedly, it makes more sense that the Aryan peoples originated around where modern Iran is, since the Central Steppes of modern-day Russia make little to no sense whatsoever. Secondly, Romila Thapar herself proposes that neither were the Aryans a distinct race, but a conglomeration of peoples linked by similar socio-religious beliefs, nor was their ingress into India a violent conquering but rather a gradual migration inwards with subsequent and (relatively) harmonious blending with indigenous peoples. Racial characteristics played practically no part in the influx. Lastly, I am glad that you, among few, have seen the light: we cannot be politically one-sided. As I've said perhaps six times before to the others, the paragraph on the AIT/AMT theory looks pretty neutral to me, and if its objectivity is questioned, it would easily be seen to lean towards the AMT. --LordSuryaofShropshire 23:49, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

Map of India

Hi everyone I have made and uploaded this map. The idea is based on Indian map used in Encyclopedia Britannica. The encyclopedia marks the different regions of J&K as A,B,C and explains what it means. I am inviting discussion on the topic. Is it appropriate, not just Indian view? I'll work more on it after we have a consensus. Needless to say I'll add other countries, city names, islands, etc later. Even the colours will be changed. The main issue that needs to be discussed is political correctness. With the ultimate aim to remove the CIA version which is not in accordance with the UN version PDF --Ankur 23:28, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I applaud your move. The UN version sounds like a much better alternative, and a key explaining the breakdowns of sections sounds like an idea that will possibly put to an only somewhat troubled rest the issue of the map caption. However, in spite of your intention to upgrade the map to reflect boundaries and major city names, I must profess the quality of the map is not nearly up to par when compared to the CIA map. How to deal with the issue of quality? Is there a way to (legally) meld the CIA map and the principles of the UN one? --LordSuryaofShropshire 23:52, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

I just checked the CIA map. I think it is possible to change that map. The problem is that I am no expert at making vector images and I am sure GIMP is not the right software for that. In fact I am not even sure if a vector image manipulation tool is needed to make maps. So if a map equivalent to one from CIA world factbook is to be drawn its better to get someone else from Wikipedia to do the job for us. Let us assume we have someone who can do the job for us (maybe I can do it.) The main thing is what exactly should we draw. The map here is not in accordance with UNO. This map is more in accordance with the Encyclopedia Britannica (EB) map (except for AksaiChin.) The EB map has Indian boundary in bold, the LOC is dotted, the LAC is dotted too except that the Indo-China border is dashed, finally strips of peach and brown are used to show land under Pakistani and Chinese control. While the UN map (ruefully I got the hang of it after I had made the Indian map) is right here for you viewing.

Image:UNO India.png
screenshot from PDF

I have taken screen-shot of the pdf file the link to which is given in the previous discussion. Finally no matter what map we accept it can never be in accordance with what the Govt. of India wants. So I am sure someone will still want to add a long text explaining "this is not official go here..." Oh wait!! You are talking about legal issues in modifying the CIA map. That's perfectly legal all work by US Govt. is in public domain I think. So no problem with modifying that map. In my personal opinion anything is better than the CIA map. --Ankur 03:33, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[Troll]But, beware! Those international cops may sue you and call you a terrorist;)[/Troll] --Rrjanbiah 08:23, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)


I've got a link to the UN map of Kashmir PDF. The map is not endorsed by UNO. The map shows what according to India is international boundary as provincial boundary. The LOC is marked separately. The entire map is in the same colour and no distinction is made between India administered or Pak administered Kashmir. --Ankur 03:50, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Bravo Ankur, it looks Ok to me, but you've forgotten the Andamans and Lakshawadweep Islands. Also just below the Aksai Chin region, can you make out a slight bulge in Kashmir? Part of that too is under Chinese occupation. PS The UN does not make maps of India and Pakistan. [[User:Nichalp|¶ nichalp | Talk]] 19:21, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)
That is a good map Ankur. Nice Job. --LordSuryaofShropshire 15:32, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)

Jai Hind and Politics

Nichalp: A couple of things (civil discussion, s'il vous plait)... The Hindustaan name, given without any context and only mention of its 'uneven use' is made to look like a phrase that has currency with only Hindus, due to the name, or at best is split down the middle. However, Jai Hind is a good example of a phrase that is popular with practically everybody. With information like this, people see the picture much more fully, without major waste of space, and don't go away with a skewed sense of the reality of the situation. I realize I'm getting into old territory, but I reread the page everyday and of all the changes this excision is the most biased. I don't think it 'unbalances' the three names at all. Hindustan is the most controversial and for that reason has more issues surrounding it. It's also made clear that it's not technically official, while India and Bharat have equal status, so equilibrium does not seem threatened. My main point is for NPOV here; please share thoughts.

Politics is a central aspect of history. I don't know why you're creating this artificial barrier in a page this small. I say artificial not because it doesn't exist, but because the overlap is so great that removing mention of Congress and BJP and the major ramifications of their central government status from the history section seems very odd. Separation between nitty-gritty politics and history is only feasible in large books or tracts, or when one deals with specifics of political science, as opposed to general thematic history. No history of a country, as you would agree, I'm sure, is complete without some discussion of its politics. Politics in India, the party system, the former (and perhaps continuing) dominance of a party older than the nation itself and the challenge presented by a new, major national political force is huge. So, in an attempt to compromise, I have added a small paragraph in the Politics section, after the technical, non-specific sections. I would challenge complete removal, though not major editing down, simply for the reason that this deserves mention. Anyone interested, say, in the United States of America, would want to know about the fact that the only two major parties with primary roles in gov't are the Democratic and Republican parties. It's very similar in India. --LordSuryaofShropshire 15:32, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)

The origin of name serves the purpose to let readers know the alternate names of India. "Jai Hind" does not expand to Jai Hindustan. Mentioning such a phrase is inappropriate. Finer points can be mentioned in the main article. A reader at first glance gets the idea that Bharat is the offical Hindi name for India. After reading about Hindustan, he gets the impression that Hindustan is another term that points to India, though not an official or widespread one. If he is interested in knowing why this case is so, he may read more. Lending undue weight to a name should be avoided. 'Mera bharat mahan' is an equally popular name.

Anything that happened in the past is history. The same arguments of mentioning politics, can be countered that the Jan Sangh parties were the first to form a non congress govt in the 70's or that the Rao govt opened up its markets leading the way for economic reforms. The history section is a summary of events that have shaped India. The emergency has made us wise to dictatorship misuse, wars have led to the fourth largest military nation, the revolt of 1857 also had its reprecussions. Mentioning who's at the helm isn't much to go about in a summary. [[User:Nichalp|¶ nichalp | Talk]] 20:21, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)

First of all, "mera bhaarat mahaan" is not even close to Jai Hind. The standard army slogan is Jai Hind. Just do a Google search: "Jai Hind" and "mera bharat mahan" and for the former you get over 13,000 and the latter less than 1,000. Clearly different. And yes, the Hind does translate to Hindustan, since it's an abbreviation. You're saying that USA doesn't translate to United States of America. That's faulty logic. And it's not undue stress, as I pointed out before, it's implying that the word Hindustan, whether in short form or not, does carry national currency in certain regards. As it is now it's POV to a fault.
As for politics and history, the things you spoke about are not nearly commensurate to BJP - Congress. The Jan Sangh parties did not establish a lasting Opposition party on a national level like the BJP. Rao's economic moves have been matched by similar moves by other governments on the economic front. However, BJP's stand in government has not been matched. India's been absolutely shaped by the politics. The BJP and Congress party opposition has taught us that Coalition politics is the sole way to gain control of federal government and it distinguishes Indian politics from that of the other major democracies of the world. It's worth a note. --LordSuryaofShropshire 20:53, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)
One, If "Jai Hind" expands to Jai Hindustan, then "Jai Hindustan" as a phrase would also be equivocal. But such a phrase - Jai Hindustan is not heard throughout the country. Jai Hind does not warrant as a vote for Hindustan. The sub-article deals with the names of India and its basic origins. By mentioning phrases irrelevent to the origins, does not augur well and hence I have removed it. A google search on Bharat throws up more links than Hindustan. The term "Jai Hind" was coined by SC Bose before India got independence. At that time the word Hindustan had a much larger usage than today. We have already had a discussion about this and it is longer in anyone's interest to rekindle old flames, especially since the section was untouched for so many months. I have excided the phrase and added it in the main article.
I objected to politics being mentioned in the history section. The current addition is fine although it is too long and will need summarising. The Jan Sangh may have not lasted for a full term but, they were the first to knock the Congress party off the pedestal, so their mention is relavent. Rajiv Gandhi was the first PM to start breaking the shackles that India was bound to. But the actual credit to the opening up of the economy, which is in no way a secret, goes to Manmohan Singh when he was FM. Because of his hypermetropic policies, the BJP found it much easier to build on it and credit its success on reforms. So by only mentioning BJP-Congress in recent years, it does make it one sided when the past governments are concerned. [[User:Nichalp|¶ nichalp | Talk]] 19:56, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)