Talk:India

Template:Featured article is only for Wikipedia:Featured articles.

An event mentioned in this article is an August 15 selected anniversary.

/archive 1 | /archive 2 | /archive 3 | /archive 4 | /archive 5

Origin of Names

The line that explained the context of the term Hindustan seems to have been removed. Now we just have a translation of Hindustan as Land of the Hindus, but IMHO this gives the wrong idea to he reader. Associating the word Hindu with a follower of Hinduism is a post-1750s phenomenon.The word Hindustan has been around since the Moghul period, when that association was not there. We used to have a line there that clarified what the word Hindu means in this context. I say we put it back. --ashwatha 16:17, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Religions

From the intro section, I am just curious: Are Jainism and Sikhism considered world religions? Buddhism is certainly a world religion, maybe Hinduism too. To the best of my knowledge, Jainism and Sikhism are not considered world religions. Please correct me if I am wrong. --ashwatha 04:23, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I know that in the UK there are many Hindus & Sikhs. I think there are a small number of Jains too. I suppose if they exist in reasonable numbers outside of India then they can be considered world religions. (though it's hard to think of a religion that wouldn't be considered a world religion by this sort of reasoning)--DanCupid 07:53, 4 Dec 2004

You're looking at somewhere in the region of 1/5 of Sikhs living outside of India. Main concentrations are in the UK, Canada and the USA. However there are significant populations in other parts of Europe, Africa as well as South East Asia and Australia. I suppose that gives it the title of a 'world religion'. I'm not sure about Jainism though.

English speaking population

From the Trivia section:

India has the largest English speaking population in the world (larger than the UK or USA).

Not convinced - the population of the USA is around 290 million, so one out of three people in India would have to speak English for India to have the largest English speaking population. I can believe this about the larger cities of India, but certainly not the smaller cities and rural areas. Considering that more than 70% of the Indian population lives in smaller cities and rural areas, I find it hard to believe that one out of three people in India can speak English. I am not opposed to that sentence being there if we have specific statistics to back it up. Otherwise I say that it needs to be removed. --ashwatha 19:43, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Remove the phrase. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 19:55, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Removed. --ashwatha

Simonides, I see that you put this back - as I said, I am not against having it there, but please provide statistics to prove it - I have given my reasons for why I think that the sentence is not true. --ashwatha 21:21, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see this discussion, the info was removed from an anon IP and I thought it ws vandalism. But as a general note, the population of English speakers in India is calculated to be approximately 30%, which would easily equal the population of English speakers in the US (not all the 290m are speakers of English), though if you specified a certain minimum level of English that percentage would probably drop sharply (also, there are not enough grounds for the rural vs. urban distinction where knowledge of English is concerned.) -- Simonides 22:19, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. --ashwatha 02:20, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This isn't really relevent to English, but there is a descrepancy between the main article and the demographics of India article as to the number of official languages recognised by the constitution (21 vs. 22). Anyone know which is correct?

No, both articles say 22 (which is the correct number). The main article says: "21 other languages...", 21 in addition to Hindi = 22.

Some critics at the feature-story of this article no the frontpage

[quote]India is also the second most populous country in the world, and the world's largest democracy.[/quote] The only thing this line is saying is that the peoples republic of china is not a democracy, it has not much relevance for india because we already established that it's the second most populous country in the world. Not worth the space if you want to give a summary of 10 rows about such a big country. --62.251.90.73 00:42, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It establishes India's status and role in the world community. Mark ¹ 00:48, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[quote]It shares its borders with Pakistan, the People's Republic of China, Myanmar, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan and Afghanistan. Sri Lanka, the Maldives and Indonesia are the nearby island nations in the Indian Ocean.[/quote] Countries don't 'share borders' with islands or other lands lying somewhere close by but accross water, Holland is not bordering England or Denmark even although they're just across a little bit of sea. Russia isn't bordering Japan, Canada is not bordering Island. It's common geographical and political practice to only talk about border countries if they really share land borders.--62.251.90.73 00:42, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

On closer inspection, those appear to be two different sentences. Mark ¹ 00:48, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"In 1999, India participated in the Kargil War in Kargil, Kashmir to repel 
Islamist terrorists who, under the auspices of the Pakistani government, 
were encroaching upon Indian territory."

A Pakistani would claim this isn't NPOV. I think we'd need something like "Kashmir - a territory who's control is disputed between India and Pakistan". IIRC, the Pakistani government also officially denies that the terrorists are under its control. I personally think this is a diplomatic figleaf, but I think that's the official position.

Also:

"Economy Main articles: Economy of India, List of Indian companies

A nation in rapid development, India has an economy ranked as the fourth largest in the world "

At the top of the article it mentioned that it was fourth in terms of Purchasing Power Parity - not the usual was to rank economies. Does anyone know what rank it has in terms of accepted exchange rate? Ideally, I think we should give both ranks, for comparison.

Overall, this did strike me as a bit too much like a tourist brochure in tone.

Under accepted exchange rates, I believe it is the 12th largest, but it becomes the 4th largest after adjusting for PPP (I have no idea what that is). See the article on the economy of India. --ashwatha 15:29, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

PPP means purchasing power parity. The reason rates are adjusted using PPP is because exchange rates are not an appropriate way to measure differences in countries. i.e. An American makes $3000 a month, and an Indian makes $200 a month. Obviously, if you look at it from an absolute point of view, The American is making more money. However, you need to take into account purchasing power - a haircut costs 14 rupees in India (this is under $1) and about $14 in USA. Therefore, just because an Indian is making less money when converted into US$, he may not be making less money in terms of quality of life - thus the need to use purchasing power parity. This is because exchanges rates do not accurately reflect the differences. It is entirely appropriate to use the PPP figure.

...this whole page seems to be one big ad for India. For a Wikipedia page to be a credible source of info, it probably needs a little more balance in its perspective. It's not as if India doesn't have problems. It has tonnes of them, an encyclopaedia isn't suppposed to sound like a tourist brochure. you guys should build self-esteem somewhere else - anon

Bordering Countries

Surely India does not share a border with Afghanistan.

As per the official map of the Indian government, it does share a small border with Afghanistan. Howeve, this border is not in Indian control - the state of Jammu and Kashmir is disputed by India and Pakistan, and the Afghan border is in Pakistan-controlled Kashmir. There is a small footnote in the article to this effect. --ashwatha 15:31, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

We are a nation that is young, and can learn from our mistakes, an unified sub continent in whichever manner, either economical or political would place us as a much strong force from the East, I hope India and Pakistan,including Bangladesh/Nepal, sees this vision someday. -- Marcus

Space Program

Do we need a space program section here? It should be enough to link to this in related topics. We have also mentioned the space program right in the intro. Conversely, if there is a section on the space program, why not sections on IT, Biotech, nuclear program, and so on?

It is a huge article, and personally, I think it is better if we don't clutter it with a huge number of sections. If there are no objections, I will be removing this section and addin the ISRO link into the related topics section.

--ashwatha 15:45, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, i think a lot more people would be interested in the indian nuclear program then in their space program. It's on the news all the time --62.251.90.73 01:05, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

True - there already is an article on India's nuclear program, and this page links to it. --ashwatha 01:59, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't Space Program be "Space Programme"- I realise many of you are proud citizens living in the US but we use British not American English in India, right? - anon

mothership of ...

I removed this sentence in the Intro:

"Bharat, the mothership of everything related to religion and spirituality......."

While India has a long tradition of religion and spirituality, calling it the mothership of everything related to them is a bit too much, IMHO - there are several other places in the world that can lay the same claim (Israel is also a mothership of religion). --ashwatha 15:37, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Let the Israel be whatever they/you claim to be. We are working on INDIA article, and spirituality that arouse out of India, such as the mentioned in the line before, are MAJOR parts of India’s culture, and nation as a whole. Spirituality is the inbuilt part of Indian History, and it would be travesty and great injustice for people to not know about this side of India, when reading this article. We should definitely include some information about it in the main article. Maybe we could move the section that you just removed in the middle section somewhere. If you don't then I will do it. Sjain 06:01, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My objection is to the word everything - it is not the mothership of everything related to spirituality and religion, and neither does India have a monopoly over the concepts (that was my reason for mentioning Israel - China also comes to mind). India is certainly the motherland of several major religions, and this has already been mentioned. Another mention is fine with me, but I certainly object to saying it is the mothership of everything related to religion and spirituality.

I am open to saying: India is the motherland of several religious and spitiual traditions, which form an inbuilt part of Indian history. --ashwatha 06:43, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Multicultural"

"Multicultural" appears to be a buzzword. Besides, we do not need the word up there in the first paragraph. Let's say "India's culture is often described as multicultural" in the "Culture of India" paragraph. WhisperToMe 18:00, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

third world?

To 192.94.94.105 (sometimes 209. .....):

Get a user id
Wherever did you come up with the idea that "400 million people" are starving to death, as you proclaim in your edit comment?
Just out of curiosity, do you vandalise articles on all countries that you consider to be "third world"?
Also out of curiosity, do you always have this tactic of vandalizing an article and then accusing others of vandalism when they fix your vandalism?

--ashwatha 21:29, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I told him to stop on his talk page :( WhisperToMe 21:51, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hey guys, I'm not trying to be sensational or controversial, just stating the facts. If you want to proport a myth, that's fine, but Wiki deserves more than that, imho.

Given that you haven't backed up your claim regarding 400 million people, I don't see how you can talk about others propagating myths. In any case, the article clearly provides data about India's GDP status and per-capita GDP. The readers can make their own conclusions about what "world" India belongs to. Given that the definitions of terms like "first world" and "third world" are vague at best, it is much better to provide actual data and leave it to the readers (which is exactly what this article does). --ashwatha 02:53, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Here's some facts...

India's per-capita income by purchasing power parity works out to be US$ 2,540. (see the main article) Current exchange rate(as of oct 08, 2004) is RS 45.760 per 1 USD. Indian Rupee

If anyone knows of a term with less negative connotation to say what I'm saying with "third world", by all means put it in, but I think it's clear their economy is poor.

npov - let people come to their own conclusions. WhisperToMe 19:52, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is not NPOV to state a fact. If you don't like what the facts indicate, and can't handle such things being posted, maybe you should not be editing. GregNorc (talk)

It's NOT a fact to say a country is "third world" - it's an opinion, an arbitrary division. WhisperToMe 19:55, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is a statement I agree with. And IMO it is breaking a generally accepted standard to place such a label in the introductory paragraph. Ground 20:04, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it is. I have backed my opinion up with facts. It is no longer an opinion. GregNorc (talk)

" 'Underdeveloped or developing countries, as in The conditions in our poorest rural areas resemble those in the third world. This expression originated in the mid-1900s, at first denoting those countries in Asia and Africa that were not aligned with either the Communist bloc nations or the non-Communist Western nations.'"

I copied and pasted =\ WhisperToMe 20:00, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, now two people oppose me. Wikipedia is intended to be democratic, and it seems my view is in the minority, so I won't be reverting Ground's edit. This is no way is meant to be constued I approve of it, but in the interest of democracy, I won't revert it. GregNorc (talk)

"third world" is certainly POV - since we have the data in there anyway, anyone can come to their conclusions. I say we let them, instead of insisting upon whether we think it is third world or not. --ashwatha 00:10, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As Whisper noted, the term "third world" is a leftover from the Cold War and further back, from the days of imperialism. If for no other reason, it should be left out because it is a blanket term that does not have a tenable, relevant definition today, is highly Eurocentric, and gives little indication of the socio-economic variety to be found in countries so labelled. Of course that doesn't prevent people from using such labels in daily speech, but that doesn't mean they belong in an encyclopedia. -- Simonides 00:24, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, third world itself does belong in an encyclopedia. :) Ground 02:10, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Where it is used as a title to be explained, not as a label. -- Simonides 02:31, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Gzornenplatz and endorsement of the CIA map

As usual, the above user continues his reverts on nearly 30 India-related articles to make sure the CIA map is always on display. I have requested that the images be protected because I am tired of reverting him, but he claims the current image never reached concensus. If other editors would like to correct his impressions, you can do so at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Clarification. -- Simonides 02:49, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Miscellaneous topics

added a Miscellaneous topics subsection to the page to standardize the page accoring to the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countries. More links from the "See Also" can be moved here to highlight them. kaal 02:49, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

History section

The history section has become bloated and now rambles through both relevant and irrelevant info. Specifically, I notice these problems:

some grammar problems
gives the impression that the Maurya empire existed in the first millenium CE, rather than BCE
rambling, irrelevant info in some places

I think some of the info should be pruned. I made an attempt at this, and here is what I came up with. Please suggest improvements:

(removed - these changes are now in the article itself)

Since no objections were noted, I have pruned the history section in the article. Basically, I have used an older version with some modifications. Let us please leave detailed descriptions of Indian history to the History of India article. --ashwatha 19:53, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nice work on the pruning. However the spellings on the article use British spellings. Please conform to the standards. Secondly, please add new topics at the BOTTOM of the talk page, not on top. Nichalp 18:12, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)