Talk:India/Archive 26

This is an archive of past discussions about India. 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.

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

→

Science & Tecnology

Any reason why there is no section on Science & Technology? 71.198.231.7 (talk) 09:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Goa

A previous sentence describes unresolved terriorial claims, which is a good preface for the resolved territorial claims. Goa is one of them. India drove Portugal out and now everyone recognizes the India governing of Goa.

So the article says (paraphrasing): India has unresolved territorial claims. (adding) Some territorial claims have been resolved, such as reclaiming Goa from Portugal in 1961 when the Portuguese were driven out by military conquest.

This new sentence can be reworded, no problem. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

We have well-developed article on Goa, History of Goa and Invasion of Goa that progressively go into greater detail on how the Portuguese rule over Goa ended. Similarly we have articles on Puducherry, History of Pondicherry and French India on French enclaves in India. However, adding details about these events into this summary style article, which covers five wars with China/Pakistan in 1 sentence (!), is undue in my opinion. Also trying to balance the existing significant territorial disputes with China and especially Pakistan (which regularly invite, IMO hyperbolic, descriptions of nuclear tinderbox etc) with the resolved issues with Portugal or France, is POV synthesis. Finally note that Lonely Planet guides are not a reliable source for Indian history, especially in a well-developed article like this one. Abecedare (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Goa is a very significant part of Indian history. I agree having sources is important. However, I don't know anyone who denies the retaking of Goa happened, not even those that deny the Holocaust happened or who believe the Moon landing was fake. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 23:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Goa may be significant, but an article that doesn't have space for outlining the nature of the territorial disputes between India and Pakistan and China, both issues that are important to know about today, cannot possibly allocate space to an issue that has no current significance. Also, though this is beside the point, I'm not sure if 'territorial dispute' is the proper characterization of the reclaiming of Goa. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 01:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted this latest edit by Suomi Finland 2009, which expanded the existing sentence,

"On 15 August 1947, India gained independence from British rule, but at the same time Muslim-majority areas were partitioned to form a separate state of Pakistan"

with the addendum,

"and Goa remained under foreign control until a 1961 liberation."

I believe this addition is undue, since many large princely states (including Kashmir and Hyderabad) and French and Portuguese enclaves (including Goa, Pondicherry, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Daman and Diu) joined India post-15th August 1947, and singling out Goa for mention is inappropriate. All this is covered in the linked article History of the Republic of India, and further details are included in Political integration of India and dozens of others linked from there. Abecedare (talk) 03:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Goa is the only territory of the Indian sub-continent whose legal status is yet to be ascertained. The 'de facto' control by India has not been legally recognised by the United Nations, and the 'de jure' status can only come through the self-determination of the indigenous people of Goa. All information regards Goa is misleading and should be put under a big question mark. An effort was made to bring out the legal facts (with sources, references) as regards Goa, but it was too good for wikipedia to consider. Those who wish to know more can find it all on our website. --Gaunkars of Goa (talk) 05:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Gaunkars of Goa, please stop your continuous soapboxing. Your posts have been reverted by many editors multiple times, this time, I've chosen to reply instead, hoping that you'll stop. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 08:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear Proffessor, Your editors are mere editors most ignorant of facts, if wikipedia doesn't want to look into the fact of the matter and just keep on editing nonsense then its not my problem, I just did my duty of objecting for which I have all the right. I just don't understand your real problem.--Gaunkars of Goa (talk) 15:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Why are you afraid to keep my discussion open? Keep it open, you will get the real feedback.--Gaunkars of Goa (talk) 15:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Now this is not from me but from a political party in Goa, http://www.goasu-raj.org/gen/articles/19.asp, wake up guys!--Gaunkars of Goa (talk) 16:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

And can you tell us ignorant peasants how many seats has the Goa Su Raj party won since inception? Just give us the number, no rants please. --Deepak D'Souza 08:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your last message[1] because you did not stick to the topic and went into someother tanget. Im sorry but it is no use talking to you. This is your last warning and this time I really mean it! Any more of your nonsense and I will ask the administrators to block you. --Deepak D'Souza 09:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

Are there any objections to changing the talk page archive settings from 91 days to 30 days, and 9 threads to 5 threads? The talk page is inordinately long, and is getting to be as difficult to load as the article itself! If a thread hasn't been touched in 30 days, it's definitely gone past sell by date. If there aren't any objections, by Saturday, I'll change then, unless we get consensus earlier than that. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 16:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Hah! You think this page is long ?! When I was a wikikid, the pages used to be sooo long that it was faster to have them couriered than to download them over our 300 baud modems. Sounds good to me. Abecedare (talk) 16:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Ajanta Image Replacement

I think the Ajanta image needs to be replaced. India has a rich history and the Ajanta image just does not satisfy. It is unclear, irrelevant, and unnecessary.

Are there any other candidates images? Nikkul (talk) 01:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think the Ajanta Image is basically included since it is a featured picture :) Kensplanet^T _C 15:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

What? You've got someting against artistic nudity? *joke* --HFret (talk) 12:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The history section can be included in {{Indian image rotation}} template, for rotation of images.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The Stereotype Image of India

I miss the good ol' days when the Taj's image was removed from the article... It felt good without the hyper-cliched-styreotype India icon that it has turned into. I'm not trying to racially isolate the mausoleum for being Persian and not Indian, but the point is that it's picture just doesn't faithfully represent the diverse cultures of the country.

The Mahabodhi Temple picture is a great one. It signifies an integeral culture of India, the Buddhists'. But, as far as my knowledge goes, the Mughal culture had died out centuries ago... (with remainants only in Indonesia). (extinct, defunct, ... desperate?) The building sure is a prized possession of the nation. An antique, exotic (def: from another part of the world ), and gigantic Showpiece(simile)... and the World wants to see it. But, it is not a part of the "culture".

Astonishingly, India's national monument has no mention whatsoever... any clues to what it is?? (clue: not the Taj Mahal of course)

It is..ahem..The India Gate. (Ta-da!)

Moral o' the story: We shouldn't be bound to stereotypical point-o-views, they're misleading.

On a lighter note, India isn't all about the Taj, elephants 'n' turbaned camel-guys drinking a holy cow's 'you know what'.

--HFret (talk) 08:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this comes as a surprise to me. When was the India gate declared the Monument of India? To my knowledge, there is no single "National Monument" in India. And the India Gate article does not provide any reference for the claim.--Deepak D'Souza 08:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It was declared the Nat.Mon. the day it was completed, most probably. And yes, India has a National Monument in the (above mentioned) building's form. The NCERT history books say so. That's where I got my info from.

I hope you weren't being sarcastic :) , that's why I'm answering your questions just to add to your 'ocean of knowledge' (no sarcasm, just another metaphor). Frankly, Googling for 4 to 5 minutes didn't yield any info to refer my claim from.

Going by the Govt. of Inda's word, the NCERT is a Govt.Org. Hence, it should be a reliable source to cite ref's from.

Thank you.

--HFret (talk) 12:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) India does not have any officially declared "National Monument". Here is a complete list of all such national symbols (Ganga was the most recent addition to the list in Nov. 2008). Abecedare (talk) 13:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Abecedare, you've always been helpful. I still remember the days when I was new here and you.. OK! this isn't the time to reminisce about the past. Hm.. so we should probably remove the "National Monument" claim from this article now.

Thanks again : )

PS- The main point's not India-Gate, its us Wikipedians biased towards the stereotype India icon (The Taj Mahal), and subduing culturally important buildings' right to display the country's true image.. well, that's what the whole world does

--HFret (talk) 13:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I assume this is all tongue-in-cheek because the true iconic image of India is a voice selling cable tv services on the phone! However, if it is not, the Taj is the iconic symbol in the eyes of the world (and not just because I'm persian or turkish or something - which I'm not - perhaps). BTW, I loved the present tense here. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 16:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you RegentsPark, for your opinion. And yes the link too loved it.

Now, you said "..the Taj is the iconic symbol in the eyes of the world.." and that's the problem. We're not here to promote stereotypes or icons. An encyclopedia is a book that one would read to correct/enhance one's knowledge. What value would a book hold, that would say "what everybody else thought was right, is what you will find in these pages"..?

Encyclopedias, IMHO, should not promote icons. Icons are OK, when used for (something as small as) a city. But when a country as diverse as India gets an icon (eg. a big BPO industry with a strange English accent, or an ill-fated king's favorite wife's tomb) its unjustified. It's like telling laymen, what they already know.Ignoring the truth, just going with the flow. That's what everybody does. Encyclopedias are different because they (are at least supposed to) give true unbiased information.

Encyclopedists have a duty to maintain a neutral opinion all throughout. As I stated earlier, an icon, for a country as large/diverse as India, will always tend to be biased towards one section of its, gigantic yet intricate, culture.

A solution to such a scenario would be putting up one or more rotational-images.

Here's a question, is there anything in Wikipedia like a random-image??..?? I mean some thing like an Img. box which would show a randomly selected image (out of the ones specified) whenever it is accessed.

Even better. I have an idea, why not something like a "Little Image-Slideshow"? Some may find it funny or too snazzy, but it'd work great on this article's culture segment. The displayed image (in the img-box, along with its subtext) would progressively change every 5-7 seconds in alphabetical order in a given set of, say, 10-20 images. And if the viewer wants to see the previous (or the next) image there'd be controls like "<" & ">" or maybe a play pause button beneath it. Just like audio boxes on Wiki have them.

Maybe, these ideas have been proposed earlier, and maybe they even exist. If they do, they must be used.

--HFret (talk) 07:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I like the slideshow idea - has it been used elsewhere? Wikipedia definitely needs to take a more multimedia approach if it is to stay relevant. About the Taj: India and the Taj may be the quintessential cliche that needs to be changed but an encyclopedia is not meant to be a vehicle for change but is rather a presenter of knowledge. India is a mix of many things, the Taj is just one, and I see most of those things represented on the page (the stock exchange, a fighter plane, the himalayas, etc etc). I think we've done a pretty good job of representing the many facets of India in the article. About the Taj itself, if you view it as an "ill-fated king's favorite wife's tomb", then, of course, it is over-represented in the article. However, if you view the Taj as the culmination of a fascinating architectural development that took place during a period when India was perhaps the richest country in the world (a golden age so to speak), then it would be odd to not include it in the article. History is important, often more important than the transient present- which has yet to be understood and evaluated -and ignoring history will, to throw yet another cliche into the mix, condemn us to repeat it. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 12:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hm.. Nice point of view there. I'm not against the Taj being mentioned on the India article. I feel it'd be in better balance if placed in a rotaion, as it is not the sole most important building in India. There are many ancient structures which are culturally Indian as well as being educationally important.

And thank you for reading and liking my proposed idea : ) . I don't know how to get someone to make it possible. Or maybe I should propose it on some other wiki-talk page (which, I don't know).

--HFret (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the slideshow idea can be brought up, the village pump perhaps? Thinking more about it, I like it even better. We have so many images on wikipedia and only a few show up in articles. A slideshow box would be a great way to utilize these images better. It might also attract more editors to wikipedia since so many people have images to share. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 16:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

(undent)There actually is a form of this already happening with the second image in the Culture section, and with the image in the Fauna section. Those two images are rotated/changed every 24 hours, sort of a slow motion slide show which provides balance to different creatures and different aspects of culture. The template is at Template:Indian image rotation. The Taj image came close to being part of that image rotation, but it was at the end of an extremely acrimonious debate, and the compromise was to give it a permanent place (though there was no strong consensus). You can search the Talk archives for "Toda Hut" and "Image rotation" to learn more, though I advise taking a few shots of whiskey or novacain before reading those archives.... The Image Rotation was a brilliant solution, created by User:Saravask, to a debate that had no seeming resolution. Priyanath ^talk 16:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

country whisky perhaps - made from old boots, rats, and the occasional cockroach! :-). What HFret means, I think, is a clickable slide show of the sort that shows up on news sites and flickr. That way, we could have hundreds of images (in theory!) and the user has control over the 'rotation' process. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 16:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I understood - just wanted to give some history of the images, including the Taj, and also make sure everyone understood that at least some of those images are rotated. Having a slide show is a great idea. Image galleries, if I remember right, are generally deprecated for Featured Articles, or that would be an obvious solution also. Priyanath ^talk 16:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the Taj image is perfectly relevant of India. When anyone thinks of architecture in India, they only think of the Taj Mahal. The Taj is an important part of India's history. It shows Islamic rule in India and is one of the many influnces on Indian culture from Islam. I personally think the Taj Mahal image should be put in the history section, replacing the unclear Ajanta Caves Image. Nikkul (talk) 04:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks RegentsPark for understanding my idea well, hopefully Mr.Priyanath has got the right image in his mind now.

Nikkul, perhaps you didn't read this wall of text (I wouldn't blame you, it's really a long one). If you had, you'd understand that ideas like "..When anyone thinks of architecture in India, they only think of the Taj Mahal.." are examples of stereotypical thinking. Its a big problem, this "(only)Taj" thing. India is so diverse, that if people think only about the "Taj", it's like seeing the visual spectrum when you're colourblind and thinking that you've seen it all. IMHO, it's worse than that, if people believe that's true, it's like farting into your gas tank and believing that its enough to reach L.A.

Sorry, I strayed too much, but that's just what happens when I start fretting.

RegentsParks rightly stated earlier that Wikipedia cannot be used as a medium to change stereotypical thinking. So, all we can do is to stay unbiased and neutral to 'all' the cultures of India. --HFret (talk) 12:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me remind you that Wikipedia is not the place to stop "steryotypes." It is a place to report what is true and what is known. There are many billions of buildings in India. Billions. Each has its own architecture and its own culture. There is NO way you can show photos of all the buildings in India or all the foods of India, or all the animals of India...etc. Look at it this way: if you ask any Indian or any normal person in this world "What is the most architecturally important building in India?" They will reply Taj Mahal.

If you want to stop "steryotypes", then why is there a photo of Cricket? Why is there a photo of Gandhi? There have been billions of Indians who have contributed to Indian society. We can't put a photo of all of them on this site. Hope you understand.

I think you have the wrong idea. Having an image of the Taj Mahal is NOT promoting ANY steryotype.

Why is there a pic of the Eiffel Tower on the France page? Why is there a pic of the Great Pyramids on the Egypt page? Why is there a pic of Big Ben on the UK page? Why is there a pic of Sydney Opera House in the Austrailia page?

Having these images are not "steryotyping" the countries, these images are encyclopedic and perfectly relevant and perfectly DUE. Nikkul (talk) 05:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I think both sides have valid arguments. The Taj Mahal is obviously very notable and it isn't Wikipeda's role to rectify stereotypes of countries such as India. But HFret's point about it being cliched and boring is also true. Anybody who googles India will almost instantaneously find a picture of the Taj. Having the same front-on view of the Taj Mahal doesn't really differentiate Wikipedia's India article from other web pages and give any extra value to the curious reader. What would happen if we had a different beautiful image of a famous architectural monument in India? It would stand out and set Wikipedia apart from the rest. Just a thought. Gizza^Discuss ^© 11:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Namaste Nikkul, and thank you Gizza :-) for your constructive comment. Mr.Nikkul, lets not start a fight. Please try and be constructive in your comments. Your array of questions which followed the follwing structure :- "Why is thera a pic of ____ in the ____ page", were successfully identified as sarcasm in my mind. So I'd need not answer them. But you cannot ignore the fact, that the Eiffel Tower has become the icon of France, the Pyramids (,the icon) of Egypt.. and so on. Seriously I don't know any other great Egyptian buildings! Now, that, is a terrible symptom of an Iconized point-o'view (dropped stereotype, I realized you hate the word). It just narrows your point of view.

What! "..Billions of buildings in India.."? ROFL!.... Sorry (I shouldn't laugh at other people). No, there aren't billions of'em. In fact there are just 6 odd billion people alive on Earth.

Wait! there's more (even more amusing) "..each one with its own culture and its own architectural styles.."?????!!!!!.... Oh .. .. my .. .. Gaaawwd ! This information is turning me upside-down! Sorry, I shouldn't make fun of people, please forgive me for the hysterical typing style that I used in the previous lines (I couldn't help it). But thinking about billionS of buildings, each one with its own architecture and culture, overloaded my mental circuitry.

No Nikkul, India neither has so many buildings nor has so many cultures or architectural styles. India mainly has less than fourteen architectural styles if we group highly similar ones together. All of which can easily be displayed by the proposed Little-Slide-show option. So, my suggestion was/is that the Taj is a li'l over-emphasized so it must be put in rotation to maintain neutrality to all the major cultures of India.

Something just Caught my eye, you even said " ...if you ask any Indian or any normal person in this world "What is the most architecturally important building in India?" They will reply Taj Mahal... ". This claim you made is itself quite the example of Iconic(stereotypical) thinking that I was thinking of. It's sad, if it's true.. isn't it? Well to put some cracks in your claim, I'm and Indian (and consider myself normal most of the times) I would say that there is no building that qualifies to be the most architecturally important building of India. There are dozens of buildings, of different cultures here, that are so marvelous that they cannot(and must not) be compared. So the Taj isn't more architecturally important than the ancient Khajuraho city temples, the Golden temple or the Junga fort --HFret (talk) 13:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

HFret, if you're going to make fun of relevant discussion points made by other users, I would suggest you go do it somewhere else. Your banter does not belong here. Please stick to relevant discussion rather than writing paragraphs about laughing at other people. Thanks Nikkul (talk) 01:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Nikkul, for (finally) writing a constructive comment. I apologize to you. But I guess I couldn't help hiding my laughter. And you are right, that one shouldn't make fun of "relevant discussion points" (though you didn't make any).

Nikkul, let's not stray from the topic to "laughter accusations". Though I'm still finding you rude (demeaning the debate, calling it 'banter') as my para's weren't about laughter. Embarrassing, as it may be for you, I'd advise you to read it again , especially the last two para's of my previous post.

Namaste --HFret (talk) 07:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

National aquatic animal should be added

Dolphin has been given status of National aquatic animal, it should be added in table given in "government " section --Migelot (talk) 18:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The dolphin? Do you mean the Ganges river dolphin? (Same subspecies, I'm guessing, as the Indus river dolphin. Both are blind, and both on the verge of extinction.) In general, I am against giving so-called "national animals" any more coverage, visual or otherwise, than the ones that have elicited less political legislation, but I'll make an exception for the GRD. Do you have any pictures? The ones in the article are old. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 20:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

atleast its name should be included among others National symbols --Migelot (talk) 06:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I have added it to the list. Abecedare (talk) 17:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

India Sovereign Socialist Democratic Republic

I think the opening line introducing India to the rest of the world should be improvised if not modified

India, officially the Republic of India (Hindi: भारत गणराज्य Bhārat Gaṇarājya; see also other Indian languages), is a country in South Asia

Why can't it be written like India, officially the Republic of India (Hindi: भारत गणराज्य Bhārat Gaṇarājya; see also other Indian languages),is a Sovereign Socialist Federal Democratic Republic comprising of 28 states and 7 Union territories situated in South Asia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.196.178 (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I disapprove Nikkul (talk) 07:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

ROI does not redirect here

The header of the page says ""Bharat" and "ROI" redirect here. For other uses, see Bharat (disambiguation) and ROI (disambiguation)." I noticed that ROI by default takes you to the disambiguation page. Should the header be corrected, or should ROI be made to redirect here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RohanDhruva (talk • contribs) 15:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the hatnote, if a change is made for it to redirect here, then it can be added. -SpacemanSpiff 16:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussing possible war between India and China

Can we incorporate the tensions and cooperation between India and China into the article. There is some alarming things in this relationship as both sides are preparing for war. Maybe we can mention it in the military section or politics.

For example this article: Geo-Strategic Chessboard: War Between India and China? (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=745)

This is an important topic and we should bring it to the attention of readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.112.218.230 (talk) 23:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

No.. I Don't think it's a good point to add. The Article is an Country Representation and an future and possible thing or not-so-possible is no point to add. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.12.154 (talk) 15:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Template Infobox country

I notice (at least in my IE7 browser and across all nine skins) that the [Show] link in the collapsible "Constitutionally recognised languages" section overhangs a significant bit outside the Infobox on the right. It's the line break in the name that's causing this, i.e., "Constitutionally recognised <br /> languages". However, if that line break is removed, then the long name will significantly increase the width of the Infobox. So I'm going to remove the line break and shorten the name to "Constitutional languages". This will grab the [Show] link back inside the Infobox, and yet it will keep the Infobox to about the same width it is now. If any editor would like to change that name, that's okay with me; however, please remember that the longer the name, the wider the Infobox. And if the line break is added back in, then the [Show] link in that section will again be pushed a bit outside the right side of the Infobox in some browsers and across all nine skins. I tested this in my sandbox. Best of everything to all!
— ^.`^) Paine Ellsworth ^diss`cuss (^^`. 13:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be an error with IE alone. I get the error on IE 7 but not Safari or Firefox 3.5.3. Maybe the template needs some fixing as I'm sure there must be other uses where line breaks are required? In this case, there's hardly any difference between the two terms so the line break can be eliminated though, but it may not be the case with other uses. -SpacemanSpiff 17:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hiya, SS! Yes, I previously noted that both the Official L and the Constitutional L collapsible list boxes allowed the [Show] links to sneak outside the Infobox. This was a problem for more than one type of browser and across all nine skins. The "footnotes" box was another example. That's been fixed by adjusting a width in the Collapsible list template. When I came back here and found that the Official L and footnotes were okay, but the Constitutional L box was still hangin' out on the right, I started checking for a local solution. Best of good fortune to you!

— ^.`^) Paine Ellsworth ^diss`cuss (^^`. 21:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

English language Navbars

I've been making a lot of improvements to The English-speaking world Navbar template, and I'd like to know how editors involved with the article on India would feel if I added the following to the bottom of the article?

— ^.`^) Paine Ellsworth ^diss`cuss (^^`. 04:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

They are not relevant to this article. Feel free to add the {{English dialects by continent}} navigational bar to the Indian English and Regional differences and dialects in Indian English page. The contents of {{English official language clickable map}} are not suitable for a navigational template since the linked articles are not related to the supposed template topic. Also IMO the "container template" should be removed since it just serves to reduce accessibility, and its title "More options for readers!" sounds more like an infomercial than a encyclopedic direction to related content. Abecedare (talk) 05:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, interesting comments, Abecedare. Of course the Navbars are relative to this article if for no other reason than they are about the people who live in India and their focused relation to people in other parts of the world, a reason similar to the supporting reason for the validity of the National personifications Navbar previously discussed. And we also disagree on the suitability of the Anglophone template as a navigational template. It is another focusing tool for readers. What is it that you're not seeing that prompts you to say that the linked articles are not related to the template topic? The topic is the English-speaking world. How can links to countries and territories of the world where English is either an official language and spoken by a significant number of people or an official language but only spoken by a relatively few inhabitants be unrelated to the topic "The English-speaking world"?

As for the Template group, the title was only for this discussion. When added to articles I usually name the group relative to the article, e.g., "Articles Related to India". You seem to see it as a "speed bump", when in reality it is used to make readers feel less threatened when they get to the end of an article by seeing so many links and perhaps an overwhelming number of reading options all at once. If they were not good tools for readers, then they wouldn't be utilized so widely on Wikipedia. Just recently template groups have been added to many entertainment articles (by other editors, not by myself), especially those where there were sometimes nine or ten awards-related Navbars. Template groups are really a good idea, and you might want to learn more about them.

— ^.`^) Paine Ellsworth ^diss`cuss (^^`. 06:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Paine, it's going to be no surprise to you what I have to say, but I'll say it, these nav bars do not belong in this or other country articles. Nav Bars are meant to be navigational tools for related topics and the relationship should be rather strong. A dialect of English should be linked to another through a nav bar, not a country where one dialect is spoken with another country where another dialect is spoken. Navigational tools have utility only when there is a strong connection and where it is obvious that the reader would move from one article to another. For a good part, many of the articles (not all), should be eligible to be covered in the main article, not the case here. This particular usage is better served by a category than a navigational template. Of course it's possible to cover every category with a navigational template, but when you do that, the main navigational templates lose their value (and that's a lot of value), the article becomes too large and instead of being a summary style article becomes a collection of links, albeit all hidden until the show button is clicked. -SpacemanSpiff 16:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I do understand, SS, and that is why I am here discussing it with ya'll instead of just adding in the templates. Does it say nothing to you that you two and only one other editor out of the many, many other actively involved editors in other country articles seem to be the only ones who feel this way? All those other editors either agree with me and support the Navbar additions, or they acquiesce and don't show strong feelings either way. With the other Navbar in the previous discussion, you two (and of course the third party editor) are the only editors who were against the addition of the Np Navbar to a country article. And now you join one other editor (who might be in a different category since the article in question is a continent article rather than a country article) who feels that the two new Navbars above are "irrelevant" to the article. Again, all the other editors of the other continent articles have supported the additions. I'm not saying that a majority should rule – far from that. Yet I have to wonder why you two are so adamant about the irrelevancy of a highly relevant set of Navbars.

You say Navbars are supposed to be navigational tools for related topics. These new Navbars are just that! The relationship is a strong one, and frankly I'm surprised that it's not obvious to you. In India, English is an "official" language, however only a small number of the population actually speak English. India shares this with several other countries as shown by the clickable map template. How is this not a strong connection? a strong relationship? You also say, "For a good part, many of the articles [in the template] (not all), should be eligible to be covered in the main article." I've seen very few Navbars that meet this dubious distinction. And that is only right, because what good would it be to have a Navbar at the bottom of an article that contains mainly links that were or should have been discussed in the article? Sorry but that makes absolutely no sense to me. Navbars should have related articles (like these have) that would NOT necessarily be covered in the main article, so as to give readers NEW choices for their reading pleasure. I really think you're being very unreasonable here, both of you, and I think this for several reasons, most of which I've already stated. India's article and readers ought not be deprived of this useful and relevant information!

— ^.`^) Paine Ellsworth ^diss`cuss (^^`. 17:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's just that people may not notice template additions, I know that I scan content addition to articles I'm involved in with a finer tooth comb than I do addition of nav bars. And yes, I agree with the other editor, that these nav bars are irrelevant to a majority of the articles they are being added to, countries or continents. -SpacemanSpiff 20:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Your thought above, ". . . it's just that people may not notice the template additions," immediately implies that there are people who may notice them, but only if they are there to notice. Not every reader out there is like you, Spaceman. They may not read as fast as you seem to read, and therefore they won't see closed Navbars as "speedbumps" as you appear to. Many readers are reading the English Wikipedia using English they've learned as a second or even third language. So they might not read as quickly as you and may want to take time to try to understand better. When you grow to appreciate this and the fact that there are a fast-growing number of readers of Wikipedia, you might ask yourself just who actually reads these articles. Most of those readers are very different from you... and me. Don't you think there might be readers out there who are interested in how the English language has spread throughout the globe? Even though English is very difficult to learn (right up there with Russian and German), it is becoming more and more popular throughout the world. Even some of those "gray" colored countries on the map (well, the only one I can truly speak for is Ethiopia, having lived there for a time) have a significant number of English speakers and readers even though English is not an "official" language there. But every dark-blue- and light-blue-colored country on that clickable map, including India, has declared English to be an official language. None of this may seem relevant to you. But does this have to mean that it isn't relevant to dozens, hundreds, maybe thousands of Wikipedia readers?

— ^.`^) Paine Ellsworth ^diss`cuss (^^`. 22:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Once again you're completely missing the point. Where does this indiscriminate nav boxing stop? What about coffee growing countries? Shall we link them all using another nav box? Of course, every coffee drinker is likely to be interested in where his beans come from, and if he sees that India is a coffee growing country, he's likely to want to navigate to other coffee growing countries, but not want to make that effort to actually look at the article on coffee production, so should we get a nav box for that? To answer your question, yes, these nav bars that you're adding to country articles are irrelevant to readers of those articles, not to mention the size/bloat factor. We have categories for a reason, and nav bars for another, don't mix the two. -SpacemanSpiff 05:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Abecedare and SpacemanSpiff - the number of templates could become endless. Categories are much more appropriate in most cases. Category:English-speaking countries and territories already serves that purpose here, and does it quite well, for example. Priyanath ^talk 05:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

(out). Ha! I was just rereading your analogy above, SS, and went looking and found... {{coffee}} just FYI. Cats are seldom used and understood by readers. In fact, I read WP since its inception and never once paid attention to cats until recently when I opened an account. Navbar links, on the other hand, I used quite a lot. Is my experience so very unconventional?
— ^.`^) Paine Ellsworth ^diss`cuss (^^`. 04:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

If you notice the links, you'll see that they don't take you to India or Costa Rica etc, rather, they take you to Coffee production in India and Coffee production in Costa Rica and that is where the templates reside. That's exactly where the language templates need to reside - The dialects should (and does) link to Indian English and be placed there. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 06:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

(out). Wrong... You are all three very wrong about all this. You harbor unrealistic concerns about things like "bloat" and numbers of things that "could become endless". This is especially true when it comes to your relevancy misjudgements. But sadly, once again I have been overruled – not sad for me, of course, for I will go on trying to improve Wikipedia wherever I can – sad for all those many readers of this article whom you're depriving of all this useful and relevant information. It is hoped that you will rethink and reconsider, and best of everything to you and yours!
— ^.`^) Paine Ellsworth ^diss`cuss (^^`. 07:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

PS. Something for you to read, or reread as the case may be. If you cannot fathom the great importance of the Anglophone states template to the spread of the English language, the expansion of the Internet and the growth of Wikipedia, then you just might need to add that to your personal list of challenges. — ^.`^) Paine Ellsworth ^diss`cuss (^^`. 07:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

plz include

i would like to include following facts

*include current Governor of Reserve Bank of India (RBI) .
*speaker of parliament
*foreign Minister
*defence minister

these are some major facts so it will be nice to see them included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.143.92.115 (talk) 08:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I think its not good to discuss about RBI as it is supposed to be confidencial,becase few information which might be misused by wrong people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphajane (talk • contribs) 00:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

India page without any Picture of Hindu temple?

While India is known for its Hindu temples and their architecture worldwide, this page didn't care to add even one picture of Hindu temple. Putting aside respective ideologies of editors here, none can deny Hindu temples are soul of Indian religious life. How can we try to hide that?

There are two pics of Lotus temple!! I suggest replacing the second one with Hindu temple picture. Holy Ganga ^talk 11:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a picture of Akshardham might work? With regards, Anupam^Talk 12:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggest to replace one of the lotus temples with Kandariya Mahadeva temple.203.212.232.208 (talk) 20:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Any picture of a famous temple would do the job.Arjun (talk) 14:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Note that the images in the Culture section are on a image rotation and the choice includes an images of Akshardham Temple, Konark temple, and a statue of Shiva. Abecedare (talk) 17:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Still NO HINDU TEMPLE PICTURE? Holy Ganga ^talk 17:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I too support the image of a Hindu Tempale on Idian page on rotation basis --Sandeepsp4u (talk) 07:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

what is the outcome of this discussion ? Is there any improvement made been done about changing the pictures of culture section ?--Sandeepsp4u (talk) 06:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Can i proceed in this work. Can i put a hindu temple pic on the article or some one have any arguments on this ??--Sandeep (talk) 07:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, there are already images of Hindu temples in the current image rotation for the Culture section. If you want to replace any of those images or have other high-quality, relevant images in mind, feel free to propose them here. Abecedare (talk) 08:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Hindu culture and religious doctrines are indigenous to India. Therefore a Hindu temple representing these values should be present in India page prominently and not in some "rotation".

~rAGU (talk)

Thanks for the information but i think there are more famous temples like Temple of Tirupat, Different Jyotirlings etc then the sun temple what do u say ? I think the sun temple dosent symblose the mass--Sandeep (talk) 12:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Well , we should have pics of temples of all Religions originated from India (Hinduism, Jainism, Budhism, Sikhism), this will show cultural heritage in better way--Migelot ^{Talk to me!} 03:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Addition of images

Please Note that the following images and details are being added in the Page India.

/* Culture */ Lord Nataraja Statue, Srirangam Temple and Rameswaram Temple images added with details

Kindly see the suitability of the Pictures and the wordings. At the same time refer the pages Srirangam and Rameswaram before taking any action. --TRYPPN (talk) 13:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The addition has been reverted. The existing images on the page are a result of consensus, please discuss here before adding any others. Also read the comments by Abecedare above regarding the rotation policy w.r.t. images in the culture section. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 13:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Pictures for Flora ans fauna

this section lacks pictures.It should have pictures of national animals ,birds etc like Dolphin, tiger etc.--Migelot (talk) 11:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Canary flowers?

Why not this pic

--HFret (talk) 11:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it will make a nice addition to the Kerala page, since it is the state's State Flower. As for on India, I am not sure of whether we have a strong enough hook for it. Abecedare (talk) 13:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I have added a Featured Picture of the Lotus flower, the National flower of India, since there was no flora images in that rotation. Nikkul (talk) 20:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Abecedare for liking my shot, and Nikkul for contributing. --HFret (talk) 02:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add the Indian elephant to the fauna image rotation. This is a beautiful image taken in Nagarhole National Park, Karnataka, India. Any objections? Nikkul (talk) 07:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

While the subject is pertinent, can't we find a better quality and higher resolution picture of an elephant ? In general, I think it would be good if we tried to enhance the standards of photographs used on the India page, and prefer images that, if not featured standards, are at least close. Abecedare (talk) 16:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I searched flickr for 1 hour....this is the best elephant image I could find. It shows an elephant in its natural habitat. The photo is clear and shows all the detail. Nikkul (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I would encourage everyone to please go and try to find new images to improve our page before criticising the ones that other editors have spent time finding. It's a lot easier to criticise than to actually go find something you consider "better" Nikkul (talk) 19:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Any objections to the Elephant image shown here? Nikkul (talk) 03:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The elephant image is a good find and useful addition to the Indian Elephant and related pages. However, as I indicated above, we should demand higher standards when we add images to the India page, i.e., images like

and

, currently in the Flora and fauna rotation. Unlike on the Indian elephant page our choice is not limited to finding the best image of an elephant, but rather to choose among the best images of Indian flora and fauna.

Secondly, instead of adding another image of a mammal, I suggest that we broaden our search; for example consider the >1000 species of butterflies in India. We even have (at least) two editors User:AshLin and User:Vijaybarve who edit extensively in the area and may have particular suggestions. Abecedare (talk) 13:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the importance should be placed on content. The elephant is one of the most important animals in India. It's a significant part of Indian culture. Just because we don't have a Featured Picture does not mean we should not include an image of it. What you're saying is that it's better to put a featured image of a cow than put a good image of something more relevant like an elephant. Nikkul (talk) 19:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

By what standard is a cow less notable than an elephant, w.r.t. its significance in Indian culture? Please clarify. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 13:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I propose a gallary system of fauna and flora--Migelot ^{Talk to me!} 04:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Please read this policy guideline. What aspects of the subject cannot be described by text or the existing images, and would be better described by a gallary (sic)? Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 13:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey I was wondering if I could add a new section about quotes on India then? ?

Hey I was wondering if I could add a new section about quotes on India then? ? 71.105.87.54 (talk) 05:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Our sister project's wikiquote:India page should be a good fit for this purpose. Make sure that you double check, and cite, your sources before adding a quote, since I have often seen fake and wrongly attributed quotes online. Abecedare (talk) 06:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Well ! I have a suggession. Can anyone create a section for Legends of India. In all fields, who have made Indians to be proud of and also to be inspired. I think it is a good idea ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphajane (talk • contribs) 23:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

So I can't do that then? ? 71.105.87.54 (talk) 01:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Subsection on health

I would like to add a subsection on health to the introduction section. Sarcelles (talk) 12:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I meant the demographics section. Sarcelles (talk) 20:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you outline what content you are thinking of, so that we can discuss it here ? Also consider expanding the Demographics of India, or Healthcare in India articles. Abecedare (talk) 23:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I would like to state major diseases and mention statistical data on topics such as government health expenditure and physicians per 100,000 people. Sarcelles (talk) 10:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Sarcelles, sorry I missed your earlier reply. I just saw your addition and while I think the 2-3 sentences don't need a separate sub-section of their own, some of the content is indeed pertinent to the article. For instance, I was surprised that we don't talk about disease and malnutrition anywhere outside the lede. However I am not sure how the topics you included in your draft were selected; for example, why mention pollution and malaria and not water borne disease etc ? Also family planning, and immunization programs may well worth be mentioning, and we need to give an idea of historic trends rather than just the recent some statistic.
Here are the sentences you added:

According to the World Health Organization 900,000 Indians die each year from drinking contaminated water and breathing in polluted air. ^{http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1736516,00.html} Malaria is endemic in India.^{"Status of Malaria in India" (PDF).} Half of children in India are underweight, one of the highest rates in the world and nearly same as Sub-Saharan Africa.^{"India: Undernourished Children: A Call for Reform and Action". World Bank.} Many women are malnourished, too. There are about 60 physicians per 100,000 people in India.^{http://india-reports.in/transitions/global-skills/doctors-per-one-hundred-thousand-people-in-india}

Can you and others comment on what information we should include in talking about healthcare in India, and what are the most authoritative sources for a short 2-4 sentence summary ? Once we have those, we can craft the exact language and placement. (I don't care whether the above senetences remain in the article or not, while the discussion is ongoing). Abecedare (talk) 04:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd say this needs a paragraph with the history of health issues in India, status of healthcare and availability mixed with a few stats. I think the above stats are interesting, but I don't know if they are the most important. -SpacemanSpiff 06:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we need a separate section on health issues. Rather, some of the material can be included under demographics. Particularly, IMO, the material on malnourished children. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 11:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on a separate section vs the info being inserted in different parts of the article, but I think it has a place in the article. The above edit introduced the word "health" to the article, that's kind of a mismatch given the significance of healthcare issues in India. Access to healthcare (and therefore the history, is it improving etc), one major problem, and major disease might be good enough. -SpacemanSpiff 17:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

What could be added? If noone has another idea, I would be in favour of mentioning leprosy and blindness. Sarcelles (talk) 06:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Why leprosy and blindness, in particular ? Instead of selecting arbitrary diseases and ailments, we need to look what the reliable sources and perhaps only list the the main contributors to morbidity and mortality. I am sure there are standard reference works, or reports produced by WHO and other organizations, that provide an overview of health and healthcare in India, and I can look for some in the next few days. Feel free to list any authoritative references you find here too. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 09:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

This is the healthcare section of the (excellent) German article. Should it be a model? Sarcelles (talk) 20:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

hi i need helpppp

hi i a doin h/w and i am really stuck. u have 2 do a spider diagram on india, with all art and gods and religion comin off it. can ani 1 help me to fill it in???? pllzz taa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.222.122 (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

May I direct you to the reference desk. The talk pages of the article is for improvement of the article, and not for questions regarding the article's subject. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Most populous democracy ???

Why cant we just say the second-most populous country in the world ? --Zhonghuo (talk) 11:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The fact of India being the most populous democracy in the world acquires notability since the most populous country in the world is not a democracy. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 12:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It is a well referenced and well recognized term. Please also see this archived discussion. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 13:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

"The fact of India being the most populous democracy in the world acquires notability since the most populous country in the world is not a democracy" => and why is it important ? --Zhonghuo (talk) 00:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It is important because multiple sources, both scholarly and news media, consider that qualifying label to be important. If there's a change in that status such as the larger nation becoming a democracy or India becomes a dictatorship or something, we should change it, but until then, it's a perfectly valid point to include for our readers and to maintain our integrity. -SpacemanSpiff 02:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with SpacemanSpiff and RegentsPark. To manage democracy in a large country with many economic and social problems for a period of 60 years (with one gap of two years) is no small feat. Even if China did become a liberal democracy tomorrow, India's achievement will not be one whit diminished since its democracy has been sustained through a very long time. No other developing country, and no country other than Japan, Israel, US, Canada, and the democracies of Western Europe (minus Portugal, Spain, Greece) has been able to achieve this. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 21:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Slightly off-topic, but ... Ramachandra Guha's recent tome India after Gandhi: The history of the world's largest democracy lays quite a stress on how sustaining the democracy and territorial unity were significant and non-inevitable achievements in post-independence India. Abecedare (talk) 22:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

congress historians

We have read enough by congress biased historians in our textbooks in our childhood. And deceived enough times by maps to think whole "kashmir" is owned by us. But now let us be neutral in wikipedia. Doorvery far (talk) 05:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable scholarly references for your claims about "congress biased historians" and "other organizations" which started the modern independence movement. Please do not discuss Kashmir here. Stick to the topic of the article. Wikipedia is not a forum. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 06:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) Doorvery far, I have reverted your edits to the India page since the current sentence has been discussed extensively at these talk pages before, including a formal RFC: see Archive 14 that deals almost exclusively with the topic, and the conclusion of the discussion in Archive 15. For a quick overview, you can consult these charts: File:India_freedom_bar_chart.jpg or File:Indian_freedom_pie_chart.jpg, which also provide links to sevral references, any of which can be used as an explicit source for the sentence, if needed. Abecedare (talk) 06:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I need any of those links as ref. It is easy to synthesise into desired sentence, but i need an inline citation, i dont want to go though archives to find one. Burden of providing ref lies with you people. And being admin, you removing fact tag is unfortunate, and please dont block people with whom you have directly engaged in disagreement. Doorvery far (talk) 08:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. (From WP:V) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 15:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I have added a reference for the sentence, since you insist. But to be frank, plain verifiability has never an issue with various versions of the sentences that have been proposed to describe the Indian independence movement - all could have been trivially verified by reference to any standard text on modern Indian history. The issue has always been due weight. These have been the most scrutinized 3-4 sentences in the article, and after all that discussion (some of which I have linked above) and consultation of dozens of sources the current version was deemed to be the most appropriate description of that part of Indian history. You are free to propose an alternate, but for that you will need to read the past discussion and then compile suitably compelling evidence to establish a new consensus. Abecedare (talk) 16:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

An inline citation needs to be precise, not pages 345-385. The "due weight" need to be mentioned by the ref cited, but condensing 40 pages into one sentence is exactly what is synthesis. I will replace the vague ref given with citation needed tag if it does not point to single page/paragraph. And I will look for more such vague refs used for synthesis in this article and replace them with citation needed tag. Doorvery far (talk) 04:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

You are confusing summarizing with synthesizing. The former is what we always do in writing a tertiary source, especially in a summary style article]]. Also as explained above, the current 3-4 sentences on Indian independence movement have been determined to be a good summary of the material and sources. If you want to propose a change, and establish a new consensus, that is fine. However, if you continue disruption and edit-warring, you will be blocked from editing. Abecedare (talk) 04:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Asking for ref DOES NOT need consensus. And so is tagging for ref. I wait for a third opinion and remove sentence if it is not given correct ref. Doorvery far (talk) 06:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It is sufficiently referenced, and that has also been attested to by the RfC linked above. -SpacemanSpiff 06:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion

There is no good ref that mentions both Congress party and Gandhi and skips all others in Indian freedom struggle. Not just the text, even the image there gives all credit of freedom struggle to congress party. Summary article need to mention another summary article by third party source as ref, instead of synthesizing 40 pages into one sentence which is ridiculous WP:SYN. There is no point of inline citation if the whole book is cited for single sentence. Is it only me who thinks 40 page inline citation is not at all specific and needs replacement by a different ref? And the admin threatens to block me for asking for exact page in the ref given - [2]. Doorvery far (talk) 03:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your objection. Are you saying that India's independence struggle was launched by parties other than the INC? Your previous edit says "different" political parties and I'm not sure what you mean by that. Sources would also help. Also, are you contesting the fact that Gandhi is the main persona linked with India's struggle for Independence? (~~BTW, it is customary to post requests for third opinions on the WP:3O page.~~ In this case a 3O may not be accepted because of two reasons: (1) there are more than two editors involved and (2) there has already been an RfC on this issue.) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 03:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps if the statement was changed to remove the Indian National Congress, and reword the sentence to say that multiple groups rallied and worked towards Indian independence, the undue weight nature of singling out a single group or individual would ratchet down the current conflict in opinions of how the sentence is worded. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

That depends. If the INC was the principal party behind the rallying around India's independence, then removing that would be incorrect. We don't necessarily want to satisfy the diverse opinions on our editorial body. Rather, we want to be in concordance with what reliable sources say. I'm curious as to whether doorvery far wants to correct what he perceives to be a bias in our article or whether he wants to correct what, if we went by reliable sources, would be an incorrect weighting in our article. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 04:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

That depends not on opinions, but on refs. Show me one ref that mentions only congress in the summary and nothing else, then i will take back. Summarizing is not limited to wikipedia, but most books/refs have that at starting. Give me such a ref, or remove sentence. Pages 435-485 for a single sentence doesn't make any sense. There is INA "organisation" by Subhas chandra bose, and he is considered no.2 freedom leader - not Nehru(no.3). Doorvery far (talk) 08:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I must agree with Doorvery far here, references do need to be as specific as possible to provide proper referencing to the material. That being said, if multiple organizations, including the Indian National Congress, worked towards the independence of India, then other notable organizations should be listed as well (or none at all), and in a manor that isn't related to one's opinion of which was more important than the other, but something neutral such as alphabetically or first recorded and properly referenced action. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

This issue has come up many times, prinicpally borught on by Congress-hating[3] RSS supporters who want to deny that the INC was the leading force in the Indian independence and want "due credit" to all who particpiated. And the conclusion has been the same every time. Do we need to discuss this again? --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 08:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

RightCowLeftCoast, have you taken at the RFC on this exact topic that is linked above ? The question about the non-existence of other notable organizations/persons was examined there in great detail. Are there any particular organizations that you have in mind, that you think played a role comparable to INC ? Abecedare (talk) 08:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I dont hate congress, let me be frank and Khan is mentioned in refs there, @Deepak. There is gaming going on in this article (1) Giving some random ref as inline citation and another guy SpacemanSpiff supprots saying it is properly referenced. (2) It is said to every user here that it is "summary" article so go away, summary is common in most refs/books - nothing new. Doorvery far (talk) 09:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I actually came here after seeing this discussion highlighted at third opinion, but did not come here as an offical third opinion provider. I have skimmed over some of the discussion linked above, but have not read it in depth. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Take your time - it is only around 200 kilobytes! :-)

The reason I asked is so that we can avoid retreading that well-beaten paths again, and continue this debate only if some new and equally good sources are produced as the ones that were analysed during the RFC. Abecedare (talk) 09:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

This issue is not about the beaten path of old RFC. It is precisely about the "inline citation" you added [4], Abecedare, which is not an acceptable ref in the context. I wish to remove that ref and put fact tag there. Doorvery far (talk) 10:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you point out which sources cite Feroze Gandhi as a Khan on that article's talk page, please? And you haven't given any sources for your claims that "biased congress historians" wrote this history ; so the essential substance of your argument is unsubtantiated. And since when is there a "ranking" of freedom fighters? Again with reliable refs , please. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 10:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request (Disagreement about vague inline citation given.):

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on India and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

A more specific edit should be provided, in order for readers to be able to find supporting material in the referenced source.—RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Since my statement of this being a proper reference has been questioned above by User:Doorvery far. Let me quote from the opening (summary) passage of the associated reference:

British rule was soon contested by a nationalist movement, which was embodied by the Indian National Congress, founded in 1885. From 1905, a protest movement developed...
— Claude Markovits, A history of modern India, 1480-1950, p. 345, Part Five, From the British Indian Empire to Indian Independence, Anthem, 2004

Other organizations are also mentioned in the rest of the chapter, but the number of mentions of INC/Congress outweighs them all. Now let's see what the article currently says:

In the 20th century, a nationwide struggle for independence was launched by the Indian National Congress and other political organisations.^[34]

20th century vs 1905, embodied by INC vs launched by INC and other political orgs (included in the rest of the chapter). I fail to see how this classifies as synthesis.

In response to RightCowLeftCoast, I hope this addresses your comment though, which was more in line of a clarification being required. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 11:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I have fixed the ref for now, but currently unable to access the book. If content of p345 of the book were like what SpacemanSpiff told, then it is definitely specific enough and does not amount to synthesis. Thanks to RightCowLeftCoast for the third opinion. I will try to get some internet ref, which are user friendly, maybe with the help of archived discussion. Doorvery far (talk) 14:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It does, and the reference should be changed to indicate the specific page provided which supports the statement in the article, if it hasn't been done already. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a minor issue, but the remainder of the pages in the citation were for the "and other organisations" included in that sentence, as those orgs aren't discussed in p345. This is not a matter that's worth back and forth arguments, but it's the reason the pages were all listed initially (at least my interpretation of it). -SpacemanSpiff 15:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Just for clarification: I had cited the 40 pages from the book because those provided an overview of the main post-1857 political developments that led to the end of the British rule in India - the events we are summarizing in 2 sentences in this article. In general, I don't think it is a good idea to simply pick one-two isolated sentences from a reference and use them as a basis for such a highly condensed article, since such a method can be gravely abused. But in this case since the sentence being discussed is frankly absolutely non-contentious from a verifiability point of view, and can be so easily confirmed by referring to any of the dozens of reputable undergraduate texts on Indian history, that I have no problem if editors prefer to cite a single page from the reference. I assume the immediate issue is resolved now ? Abecedare (talk) 15:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It is definitely not a minor issue, because those are blind ref for the majority. All those books we cannot access, and authority of those books not known and zero internet links are there to support. Directing to utterly ridiculous WP:OR "freedom pie chart" and "bar graph" and 201kb discussion is not acceptable, dodging the straight question. This being likely first stop for new wiki editors from india, scaring behavior should stop, remind again since im dealing with 3 "admins", admins not supposed to block users for issue with whom they directly engaged with. Doorvery far (talk) 08:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) This is a topic that keeps reappearing in talk page discussions here. The larger topic is driven (in my view) by the belated frustration felt in certain political constituencies in present-day India (the Hindu right wing, many Bengalis (although this might be restricted to an older passing generation), and many elites of former princely states) at having played very little part in the Indian nationalist movement, at least in the last 30 years of it. They try to make up for this sense of historical inadequacy by diminishing Gandhi and by subscribing to certain myths, among which are: the so-called "freedom struggle" began in 1857, the "revolutionaries" really sent a shiver down the British spine, and Subhas Chandra Bose came within a hair's breadth of liberating India. What they forget is that the Indian National Congress's monopoly was so complete that even many revolutionaries were not outside its pale of influence. Bhagat Singh, for example, was a graduate of a nationalist college in the Punjab that was founded by Lala Lajpat Rai in response to Gandhi's call for non-cooperation in 1921. Bose, as is well known, spent much much more time in the INC than he did in the INA.

The best brief statement of the nationalist movement in India in the period 1917 to 1947 is provided by Rajat Kanta Ray (Professor of History, Calcutta University) in his introduction to Anthony Low's edited volume Congress and the Raj: Facets of the struggle, 1917–1947, OUP, :

The narratives make three things very clear: the Congress brought the country and the 'peasants' (whoever they might be) into its orbit to the dismay of the Raj in the 1930s; the rural upsurge did not prevent the Raj from reimposing its grip on the country; indirectly, however, it destroyed the Raj because the British had taken to governing India by certain electoral rules which Congress turned to its advantage.

In any case, if other people are required to be mentioned in the Indian nationalist movement, they would be among the likes of Sayed Ahmad Khan, Dadabhai Naoroji, Gopal Krishna Gokhale, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Surendranath Banerjee, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the Muslim League, the two Nehrus, Maulana Azad, Vallabhbhai Patel, Rajendra Prasad and so forth. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 21:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

You are living in past referring to paper books, which are currently very difficult to access for common man. And books by Indian authors (like one you mentioned above) about indian politics is likely to be biased. And authority of those books need to be justified, just because they are printed by publishers doesnt mean the book is good. I will look for neutral web refs and come back. And it would be nice if you justify the rationale of purely misleading "freedom pie chart" in its deletion discussion, which you failed to do in your comment above. Doorvery far (talk) 04:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid the book, Congress and the Raj, a collection of scholarly articles, is not written by an Indian author. Rajat Kanta Ray wrote only the introduction to the new edition. The book has been edited by the historian of decolonization, Anthony Low, and has contributions by 15 scholars, of which only two, Gyanendra Pandey and Ravinder Kumar are of Indian origin. The other contributors include Judith Brown, James Manor, and David Hardiman. Since you suggest that Indian historians might be biased in their accounts of Indian nationalism, I hope you will be comforted in the preponderance of non-Indians among the list of contributors (and not take us to task for other kinds of bias that such authorship might occasion). Fowler&fowler «Talk» 10:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Doorvery far, you are going too far! Really! This is one of the most ridiculous arguments I have seen someone make to push his POV:"You are living in past referring to paper books". The internet is full of wannabe "scholars' and researchers peddling crazy "The truth is out there" theories to other gullible self-styled researchers. You shouldnt be worried about three admins here. You should be worried as to why not one of the 100 odd watchers on this page finds any reason in your argument. Here's some sensibe advice. Take a break , cool off for a few days and come back and examine this thread again. You may be surprised to see how you have twisted arguement after argument, without any refs,scholarly or otherwise. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 12:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

100 odd ?! More like 2200. Abecedare (talk) 12:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, i indeed noticed nobody came to my side. But the only third opinion i received got completely in my favor, that means that admins here blocked all non-congress people and scared them away showing "hardware books" ref. But still dont think all those 2200 people vote congress, i really need time to device a strategy :) I like casual comments by Deepak. Doorvery far (talk) 14:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Doorvery far, while devising a new strategy, you may also want to rethink your basic understanding of Wikipedia. Those 2200 people didn't 'vote' congress. They understood and applied the policies of Reliable Sources and Verifiability. You might also want to read Consensus and Edit warring while you're at it. And they are all written on teh internets, not on that old musty unreliable bark and paper :-). Priyanath ^talk 16:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Doorveryfar, you are ~~very far (but~~ not door) from a block :). However, the reality is that the independence struggle is largely associated with the Indian National Congress (even you agree with that - though you feel that historians, textbooks, and maps are all out there to deceive us). The purpose of an encyclopedia is to record and impart accepted wisdom and, while it is certainly not impossible that the accepted wisdom is biased, short of becoming respected historians ourselves we can neither assert that the bias exists, not can we go around rewriting history to remove those perceived biases. I seriously doubt you'll find reliable sources that play down the role of the INC and suggest you follow Deepak's excellent advice above. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 16:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

More seriously: more eyes will be welcome at Feroze Khan where Doorfar is intent on proving that Feroze Gandhi was a Muslim; first based on sources such as this fringe website, which claims that Feroze was a Muslim and adopted son of Mahatma Gandhi, and that "Rajiv (Khan) Gandhi" was a Christian convert. When those edits were reverted 2-3 times, he used this otherwise reliable source, which actually say the opposite of what he cites it for! Amusing to certain extent, but getting disruptive. Abecedare (talk) 17:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I have noticed Britannica web article on India limits summary to INC and Gandhi, so I have stopped editing this article long back. Edits were hardly disruptive [5], [6], i leave it again to some third person to decide that, not the directly involved admins/editors. The editors of this article should think why the only third opinion went against them, while they were outright rejecting any irregularities on their side. Let us be frank about congress vote, politics is not as bad as you think. Doorvery far (talk) 04:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on Economy Section

It says Bombay Stock Exchange is the largest stock exchange in the India. That claim is little confusing. It is largest by the market capitalization of the companies listed on BSE. But if the shares transaction per day is considered National Stock Exchange is the largest stock exchange in India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redr (talk • contribs) 14:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I have made the crireion by which BSE is the largest, explicit in the caption(it was indicated only through a wikilink before). Abecedare (talk) 15:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Telangana

After removing edit I read this news and I wonder whether it was right to remove edit, whether this is right time to mention this development. Thanks! RAMA (talk) 19:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You were right in removing it, this is a summary style article, so when it becomes a state, it should be good enough to change the text/ref to say 29 states. -SpacemanSpiff 19:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to keep it out of the India article even though it is mentioned in the Andhra Pradesh and Telengana articles. The statehood is , at present, just a political decicison. We can wait till there is an ordinance or bill passed to put it up here. The promise may be withdrawn if the opposition is sufficient; or, if the me-toos dont scare the govt into reversing their decision. So it is best to wait and watch. Also request the more active editors to keep a watch on the relevant articles and also other statehood-demand related articles. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 04:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Deepak ... right now, the Telangana news item is simply a 1 day old story of a single Govt announcement. As far as I've read in newspapers, there is no decision of statehood yet, rather the minister said that the process will begin. The bill needs to be passed before any statehood news can be added to a featured article like this. Right now, everything about the Telangana statehood is either speculation, or demand by the statehood supporters. Let's wait till the parliament decides. --Ragib (talk) 05:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

A new state telengana is added —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adithya911 (talk • contribs) 07:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Science and Technology section

There is a need for science and Technology section with the latest being the Chandrayaan mission. This kind of important information is lacking in the page.Bcs09 (talk) 14:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree Nikkul (talk) 19:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

--TRYPPN (talk) 04:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree on this point. Indian mission found that Water is there in the surface of Moon, before NASA. NASA confirmed afterwards.

All the good achievements, which were in great detail shown on TV and other public media should be included in the INDIA page article to show that we are NOT just a developing Country but we are going towards as a Developed country.

--TRYPPN (talk) 04:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC) I agree too--Baloria88 (talk) 04:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

agreed--Migelot ^{Talk to me!} 05:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

everybody Agreed so shouldnt we starting the work??--Migelot ^{Talk to me!} 16:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The content needs to be discussed, philosophical discussions and agreements don't really get us anywhere. If anyone has any specific content suggestions, I'd suggest discussing that with the appropriate references and then arrive at consensus for adding to the article. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 16:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Education

I suggest, that there should be a section on education. Sarcelles (talk) 12:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The article already has information about basic literacy rate, and role of English in higher education. Don't know what else we'd want to include in this summary style article. The details of the educational system and statistics belong in the Education in India and its sub-articles. Abecedare (talk) 13:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Gender inequality should be mentioned there. Sarcelles (talk) 20:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The article already does that. Abecedare (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Avuryeda plays a special role within Indian higher education. This should be mentioned. Sarcelles (talk) 16:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what gave you the idea that "Ayurveda plays a special role in Indian higher education" ?! It is just one of many systems of medicine (Unani, Siddha, Homeopthy, Naturopathy etc) taught in India, and all of these are minor relative to "allopathic" medicine. And of course, education in medicine itself is only a small subset of overall higher education. Thus such random trivia would be undue in this article. Abecedare (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It should be stated that:

decidedly fewer women than men are in higher education
vocational schooling is not much
there is compulsory schooling from 5 to 14 (and some drop out)
de:Datei:Alphabetisierungsrate.png is a map on literacy in states in India

I hope above information is right Sarcelles (talk) 16:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Are there any objections to adding this? Sarcelles (talk) 15:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

As I stated above, the details you are suggesting are undue trivia in this summary style article. Abecedare (talk) 16:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

third highest muslim population?

could someone change the statement - third highest muslim population because it cannot be said with certainty. some people have said that its maybe fifth, not sure as the statistics of muslims in india is not very well documented. i think better to just leave it as "one of the big muslim populations". since the link already has the number which is close to 130(?) million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.76.31 (talk) 05:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC) you are right the population of muslims in india is not that big when compared to the majority. it is actually more in the range of 115 million. i agree its better to just leave it as "one of the big populations".Fkfjdf (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The rule of guptas is only north indias golden age

The guptas never ruled south india. The golden age of south india is the rule of cholas. Please correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chola yadava (talk • contribs) 03:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

guptas rule is not indias golden age

The guptas only ruled north india so guptas rule is only golden age of north india. The golden age of south india is the rule of Chola dynasty which comprised the entire south india, srilanka, malayasia, indonesia and java. Also Vijaynagar dynasty needs to be explained in detail.

Yes, the history part doesn't cover the history of Soutth India

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chola yadava (talk • contribs) 04:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The Gupta empire covered much of the Indian Subcontinent. The Gupta army had reached Kānchipuram in modern Tamil Nādu state, capturing local kings and then reinstating them as their dependents. see [7] which's archived from [8]. Remember Aryabhatta was from Kerala. So any renaming Gupta period as Golden Age of North India would be inane. . Arjun (talk) 14:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

gupta empire is also good period of india. its also one of major hindu empires. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fkfjdf (talk • contribs) 17:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Most empires were confined to regions,the south used to have the triparite struggle.Zoravar (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The classical status for sanskrit and tamil

The article states sanskrit and tamil were granted the classical status "many" years before Kannada and Telugu. I think the qualifier 'many' doesn't serve any purpose and if I remember correctly, tamil was given that status only 3 or 4 years before. Rakesh Dhanireddy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC).

You are right.

The "classical language" {{puffery}} is a complete WP:RECENTISM with no real-world relevance. By all means discuss the petty details at languages of India, but this is the India article and as such cannot lose itself on such tangents, under WP:DUE. --dab (𒁳) 10:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Well, it's in the article (I guess) because the government decided to consider itself the guardian of languages and issued this status. As for the actual years, it was Tamil (2004), Sanskrit (2005), Kannada (2008) and Telugu (2008). It's only a matter of time before the rest of the Eighth Schedule languages get the status! I don't think this status merits inclusion in the article though, so if there aren't any objections I'll remove it. –SpacemanSpiff 10:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It's cargo-cult terminology of the "eminent scholars classify $LANGUAGE as classical" type. India should really get its act together and grow beyond such wisecrackery. But as long as they do not, we just need to file away each item neatly where it belongs, in this case "classical languages of India" (not India). --dab (𒁳) 10:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Some suggestions

1. It is better to put the North block in Ndelhi image under Government section rather than politics section. 2. A table of biggest 10 cities included in some country pages can be added under Demographics 3. I would suggest to add an image depicting something from South India. There are no images here that represent a place south of vindhyas . 4. Isn't it more relevant to put some image related to India's IT industry rather than the Nano car? While Nano generated much hype across the world, it is the IT & BPO industries that represent Indian economy outside India, and it is those sectors that push the growth. Shekure (talk) 05:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Shekure, thanks for your input. To address your points:

I agree that the North Block image is misplaced in the Politics section. It would be difficult to fit it into the Government section, because that sections already has a table and a map of India, but perhaps we can replace it with an image of Sansad Bhavan, which is a better symbol of politics in India. Do we have a decent image for that, or are there ay other suggestions ?
The table of 10 (20 ?) biggest cities was removed from the article after discussion since such content can be covered more compactly and with greater context in text, as in the first paragraph of the Demographics section.
Any specific suggestions ? Note though that the Bombay Stock Exchange, the Konark Sun Temple, Ajanta Caves, and the Chidambaram Stadium, are all south of the Vindhyas. Also keep in mind that the image in the Flora and fauna section and one of the images in the Culture section change daily.
Any specific suggestions ? It is hard to depict IT industries pictorially especially since we should avoid adding a picture of an IT company's office building, since we already have several pictures of such buildings in the article (North Block, Taj Mahal, BSE etc)

Abecedare (talk) 05:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Commons has a few images of Sansad Bhavan, but none too good. An alternative could be an image of an election rally or something, we seem to be placing too much emphasis on buildings.

South of the Vindhyas -- I'd think adding a couple of images from Brihadeeswara temple, Shore temple, Belur, Shravanabelagola to the culture section rotation might be good, especially since these don't duplicate any of the existig architecture styles. Kerala backwaters might also be an option in the flora and fauna section?

During an earlier discussion, Deepak and I had suggested that the Nano be replaced with a GDP chart instead. That would be better than some random picture like the nano.

Commons has quite a bit of images for the above "South of the Vindhyas" bit, if anyone wants to look there.-SpacemanSpiff 06:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Image of Parliament bldg is a good suggestion.

I don't know what images are rotated in culture section - I think it would be good to add shore temple of Mahabalipuram or Madurai Meenakshi temple or Tirupati Temple. We can rotate Geography images the same way - Ladakh/Eastern Himalayas/kerala backwaters/goa beaches/rajasthan desert etc.

I definitely think Nano should be removed. There are better things to represent Indian economy, I would prefer Infosys HQ photograph to that of Nano car anyday —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shekure (talk • contribs) 10:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Here are the images currently in the Culture section rotation:

Most of them are of temples/religious structures, and it would be a good idea to expand the breadth of Indian culture that is depicted.
About the Tata Nano image: I actually think it is pretty decent choice since it gives the reader an idea of low-priced, small, mass-market cars that are popular in India, and is a good representative of both indigenous development and manufacturing, and the expanding middle-class consumer market. The one downside I see is that we may seem to be shilling a particular commercial product, and taking anything to be "representative" of the Indian economy is always an oversimplification. I don't think a picture of the Infosys or any other IT company HQ is useful, since such buildings are virtually indistinguishable across countries, and IMO provide no real insight into particulars of the Indian IT industry. Perhaps we need an image illustrating agriculture in India, since that still accounts for 60% of the labour force...
The problem of course is to find relevant, encyclopedic, high quality and free images for the article (ideally, we'd pick featured pictures, or at least something that is comparable). If there are any suggestions of specific images, we can discuss them here. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 18:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realize that the Mysore Palace was included, just never seen it on the article (or the Mahabodhi temple which I saw for the first time now). I'd think one of the Hoysala and/or Chola/Pallava temples would make good additions as they are significantly reviewed pieces, both as individual structures and as architectural styles.

Nano, I disagree. The auto industry isn't even covered as a significant part of the economy, and the nano is more of a well covered "recentism" issue. I don't think that a picture of Infosys lor something like that is any better, and it's really difficult to represent "human capital" pictorially. However, an agri-industry pic or a GDP chart would enhance the section, IMO.

cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 05:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with the suggestion for diversification. I see no reason why culture should be restricted to architecture and religion: there's a whole lot else that could be incorporated, such as cuisine and clothing. I'm on the lookout for good images of Indian food - will post here if I locate any. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 12:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

For starters, here are a couple of FPs: 1, 2. A couple of others from PINSP - 3, 4. Can't seem to get away from architecture with the last one, but it's at least a non-religious structure :-) Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 12:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions SBC! I have placed them in a gallery for easy viewing. Here are my views on the choices you list:

I have long been a fan of the Toda Hut image, and old-timers may have read my paean to it. But I was in a (vocal ;-) ) minority, at least when the section had two static images; wonder if the consensus has changed now that the images are rotated ?
The pigments image is simply wow! I really like it, both aesthetically, and in terms of the diversity it brings to the selection (still related to religion, but representing a distinctive and almost universal feature of Indian culture).
The Idli image subject is okay, but the image itself is very poorly framed and photographed. Given the ubiquity of the subject, I would prefer if we could find a better photograph.
The Gateway of India, on the other hand, is okay as a photograph, but I am not sure if it has much relevance to Indian culture. At best we can say that it is an example of the Indo-Saracenic architecture, but personally, I think we can do better.

Can others also chime in with their opinions (please don't just "vote") ? Once we have a few opinions, we can pick from these (and forthcoming ?) options and then craft an appropriate caption. Given how precious real-estate on this page is, I think the caption should not simply be descriptive of the image itself, but needs to be informative and complementary to the article text. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 17:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The toda hut image represents .0001% of India's population. There is NO way this can be representative of the pan-Indian culture. Toda's make up only .001% of India. It is WP:Undue to have an image on the India page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikkul (talk • contribs)

The image of the Toda hut, like Spaceman pointed out, is not representative of merely the Todas, but of India's tribes in general, who constitute some 8% of the population - certainly not undue. In any case, population is not the sole criterion for showcasing a particular image, particularly when the country's diversity is attempted to be portrayed. Also, the policy on undue weight applies to views and opinions w.r.t. article text and not images. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 10:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The Toda Hut image is a perfect addition to the article. It represents the diversity of the different indigenous tribes and the associated cultural heritage. I'm not exactly in favor of the pigments image, while aesthetically pleasing, I think it needs more explanation than what it provides. As for another addition, I think the Golden Temple would be a good fit, but none of the images below appear to be of acceptable quality, a search for some better quality images might be in order. I also agree with SBC-YPR's statement about the Bangalore Shiva being a bit out of place. -SpacemanSpiff 05:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Remove Tajmahal and add Meenakshi Amman temple Picture

The temple forms the heart and lifeline of the 2500 year old city of Madurai. The complex houses 14 magnificent Gopurams or towers including two golden Gopurams for the main deities, that are elaborately sculptured and painted. The temple is a significant symbol for the Tamil people, and has been mentioned since antiquity in Tamil literature, though the present structure is believed to have been built in 1600[1]. The tallest temple tower is 51.9 metres (170 ft) high[1].This represents India rather Tajmahal which stands no where in architecture and Engineering when compared with Minakshi Temple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.78.27 (talk) 05:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

So which picture are you talking about?--Migelot ^{Talk to me!} 17:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I will post link to some Pictures.My point is every few days someone changes picture just to satisfy his/her interests.We should put pictures that represents architectural and Engineering feats rather any random picture.Some of South Indian temples and structures definitely qualifies for that and are way ahead in architecture and engineering complexity then TajMahal.What you say? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.29.197.150 (talk) 23:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Taj Mahal is more notable than any of the South Indian temples. --Car Tick 01:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe you are wrong. Taj Mahal may be more popular in the world, but Indians are mostly Hindus. So a Hindu buildung would be more notable or appropriate for this article. Just a second thought. --Caughingjoe (talk) 13:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Indians are mostly hindu,yet India is not a hindu state.Sikh,jain and buddhist archichecture is also part of India.

Please understand that we do not go by individual beliefs, but what is considered notable by reliable sources. Whether Indians are predominantly Hindus or not has no bearing on architectural structures that are notable. -SpacemanSpiff 14:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

i see your point. we could have both, Taj Mahal for its notability and Hindu temple for its ubiquitousness. we have a Shiva image anyway. we cant have too many pictures. Shiva or temple. --Car Tick 16:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Public of India has already given its Mandate.It's time to remove Tajmahal from Indian culture.This is not a secularism debate but what should represent Indian culture.Certainely something related to Hinduism(Hindu/sikhism/janism)represnts Indian culture and not something made

by invaders.Put Tajmahal picture under tourists places,if anyone thinks so.But certainely not under Indian culture.It's totally illogical and off point.TajMahal picture must go from Culture paragraph.Here is link to 7 wonders choosen by Indian public. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NDTV%27s_Seven_Wonders_of_India —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabusharma (talk • contribs) 02:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Taj mahal is more Famous than any other monument or temple. That way I can also recoomend that Golden temple should have a picture here because it shows artitecture of north-west india--Migelot ^{Talk to me!} 16:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Can we consolidate the responses under the Some Suggestions section above. It has a listing of the current images in rotation. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 16:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

architecture of North-West India is not as compelling as Ubiquity (which is actually an extension of majority of Indians being Hindus). --Car Tick 17:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

There are three Hindu related pics in the rotation -- the Shiva, Akshardham temple, Konark temple. This shouldn't be a representation of religions per se, but the geographic and historical diversity of the country and the associated output (architecture is one example, but art like the Ravi Varma painting is also another). cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 17:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

On that note, why is a picture of the Shiva temple in Bangalore even in the rotation? It has little historical or cultural significance, and the Meenakshi, Brihadeeswarar temple or the Golden Temple (provided there exist good images) would be much better choices, IMHO. The second is also a UNESCO World Heritage monument. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 12:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Well brothers , It doesnot matter that Hindus are in majority in India as India is made by Indians. Moreover Sikhism originated in India and 70% of sikhs lives in India.I am not saying that Golden Temple Pic be added but I am supporting Taj mahal over others, cheers,--Migelot ^{Talk to me!} 14:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

well brother,it matters that hindus are in majority TajMahal pic is under culture section,it can be placed under tourist places.But what

should be posted under Indian culture section should be decided after knowing what Indian culture is.Indian society and culture is predominantly Hindu since last 5000 years.So passing comments that it does not matter whether India is Hindu majority or not sounds uneducated.Its a culture section and not secularism.Link for Indian culture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_India —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabusharma (talk • contribs) 03:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC) PRedominantly Hindu ahs nothing to with hindu,first correct your claims of 5000 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoravar (talk • contribs) 17:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for the Taj Mahal image. The Taj is one of the most famous representations of the culture of India. keep in mind culture includes architecture. Nikkul (talk) 15:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Can any of the following image of Golden temple Make up to the rotation list???--Migelot ^{Talk to me!} 09:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Well My point is very clear.Lets puts pictures of Architectural and Engineering Marvals.This is not a question what is more famous or less famous.Therefore we should put pictures of exceptional engineering Marvals from India.One more thing the section under which we are posting pictures is culture.Indian culture is mostly and predominantly Hindu,therefore any picture posted in this section must represent Predominant culture of India and not any other.India is not a muslim culture but Hindu.Even on Engineering and architectural comparison TajMahal stands nowhere near Great Indian temples.SO better to change since this section is Indian culture and not secularism.

TajMahal certainely not represents Indian culture and it should not be placed there as a permanent entity.More ever TajMhal was build by invaders,so how can it be a representative of India?Indian culture must have pictures which shows predominant culture.Hindu culture mostly covers Hinduism,sikhism,Janism.Put Tajmahal under tourist places but certainly not under Culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabusharma (talk • contribs) 02:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Taj Mahal was not built by an invader. It was built by Shah Jahan who was an Indian. Period. At least my history textbooks taught me so. Babar was an invader, but his descendents were not. If we think that way, all Aryans must be considered invaders, and only images of something built by Dravidians should be put here, isn't that so?

The point is, Taj Mahal deserves to be in the culture section. Even within India, Taj Mahal is identified by more people than Bruhadeeswara temple or any other monument. Please understand that wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view.

Having said that, I support the removal of Shiva statue from Bangalore. It has no other significance apart from its size

Shekure (talk) 05:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI, all Mougals are defined as Invaders in History book,Calling there descendants as Indians is your ignorance.You can't compare Aryans with Mougals,that shows your lack of knowledge about history.

TahMahal just don't represent Indian culture.You need to get your knowledge of culture correct.Put TajMahal picture in tourist section or places to visit India.But not in culture section.Indian culture for the last 5000 years is Hindu culture and you can't put something representing a brief period of Invaders.

Tajmahal must go from culture section.Put something representing Hindu culture,that is what India's culture is.

We do understand that wikipedia is wriiten with neutral point of view,thats why culture section must represent Indian culture.Tajmahal is not Indian culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabusharma (talk • contribs) 18:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Islamic culture, especially in North India cannot be taken deliberately as Indian culture. If this was accepted by North Indians, Ayyodya wouldn't have been a case. Infact Islamic culture is known is "Indo-Islamic" culture, not as "Indian culture", which generally refers to Hindu-culture of the majority people of India. The Taj Mahal is however most famous, because of the Muslims in the world. It shoul be also noted, that most outstanding architecture in Dravidian style are also UNESCO objects. Taj Mahal can take the second place in the article, not the first. --Caughingjoe (talk) 13:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about?? Taj is the most famous architectural landmark in India...and architecture is an integral part of culture...also taj mahal shows islamic influence in Indian culture. Nikkul (talk) 22:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The taj mahal shows archichechture best,the meenakshi temple is a religious attraction.The majority of India has got nothing to do with it(specially in case of a seclar state,as in India),I currently live in India dont even know waht it is.Religious attractions are causes of flame wars.Zoravar (talk) 17:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

What?Tajmahal is not a architectural feat.You should educate yourself before hitting keyboard randomly.Have some knowledge of Minakshi temple and then you will know which is better.BTW this section is not about secularism,this is about India culture which is predominantly Hindu.NO one is interested where you are living,and if you are ignorant doesn't mean whole world is also same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabusharma (talk • contribs) 06:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

@Tabusharma, sir plz see what you are talking.???? And on the topic......I live in India and I havent even heard about it...........and sir "Hindu" is not a culture ,its religion, If it is a culture ,then plz explain why different states were made based on so called culture??.......Taj mahal should not be removed.And about Hindusim this article already have Picture of Lord Shiva in it.I hope you will be little more responsible next time.Thanks--Migelot ^{Talk to me!} 07:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

starting para with sir,won't add weight age to your comment.You like in India and you have not heard about this does not mean this thing does not exists,its in India standing tall since ages.When i said Hindu is a culture?You need to study how culture and religion are linked together.What i meant to say is that Tajmahal is an islamic monument with an islamic architecture which does not properly represent Indian culture which is 5000 years old and predominantly a Hindu culture.Putting something that can suffice 5000 year old Indian culture is the requirement for this section and Minakshi temple/Diwali pic represents that.Who is interested in Lord Shiv picture?My point is TajMahal just

don't represent 5000 year old Indian culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabusharma (talk • contribs) 08:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC) This guy's claims 5000 years are all wrong,it was around 1500ad.Woah,tehy teach this in 7th and 6th grade.Zoravar (talk) 17:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The Taj Mahal is a very important monument to India, but it is not the sole representative of Indian culture . . . All we have as pictures are a Buddha statue and the Taj Mahal. Indian temples, especially in the south, are marvels of architecture that are often overlooked. Too often does the mention of India bring up only the Taj Mahal. It is important to India's history, but is not a sole definition of Indian culture. Perhaps it should be moved to a different section and other examples of Indian culture be added here. Ashwin N (talk) 22:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

National language

There is a great deal of confusion about the official and national languages of India. apparently, GJ high court has clarified the situation for the time being and i propose to add it in the infobox and the body of the article. --Car Tick 21:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

What's the confusion about? The article (infobox as well as main body) clearly states that Hindi is the official language of the Union - nowhere is national language even mentioned. All the GJ HC has done has been to reiterate the existing position. What do you propose to add? Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 14:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I propose to add not defined by the constitution in the infobox and Neither the Constitution of India, nor any Indian law defines any national language in the demographics section.

humans are notorious for reading something and understanding something else and my friends from the part of the world I am from are very good in this art. During a discussion the other day, I had a friend who looked at the India page infobox and turn around and tell me that the national languages of India are English and Hindi. Unless you are interested in perpetual propagation of mis-information... --Car Tick 14:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

i agree with cartick. In India's case official and national languages are not interchangeable .India deliberately doesn't have a National language and has only official langugage by design. And a lot of people (including mainstream media from the North) make the "hindi is the national language" assertion (either deliberately or by mistake). And when it is pointed out that it is only the official language, they use "national language" and "official language" as interchangeable. It would do no harm to clarify that the "no national language" is a feature of india and not a bug/anamoly. [9]--Sodabottle (talk) 07:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I support this, although Im not sure of the infobox. The problem is twofold:

The mistaken notion that Hindi is the "national language"
The status of the languages in the 8th Schedule: THere is a lot of confusion as to whether the 8th schedule languages are specically "national languages" or just "scheduled languages"

One of the reasons northerners mistakenly push the "hindi is the national language" line, as mentioned by Sodabottle is this: there is no differentiation between "oficial language" and "national languge" in Hindi media (including the government press). The term used for both in Hindi is "rajbhasha". Even the government uses this term for "official language" [10]; although, "aupchaarik bhasha" would be a more correct translation of "official language". --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 12:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

DO you have any facts which confirms that North Indians think Hindi is National langauage?Or this is just you assumption born out of

hate for Hindi language?Indian article clearly defines that Hindi is Official language of federal govt of India,why you need more explanations/infobox?Do you have some fear?Btw Hindi is the 5th most spoken language of the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabusharma (talk • contribs) 08:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

      :::::::::No body hates any language. It's the matter of providing proper/correct information. I propose to delete the "National Language - Hindi (Defined by constitution) " for India why because india does not have one according to constitution.

This is the unique feature of India and it's vast culture and multilingualism. Since hindi is the 5th most spoken langauage, it cannot become the mother tongue of everyone in india (i.e bengali, punjabi, marathi, telugu, tamil, kannada...etc) so as it cannot become the national language too. Hindi is alien to tamil, telugu, punjabi, marathi..etc as much as english is to hindi. There are significant differences between official and national language status. Vasagan (talk) 15:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC) Manivasagan T

you are right. just had a look at the India article in Hindi wikipedia. --Car Tick 13:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Isn't Rashtra Basha the correct hindi term for National language and Raj Basha for official language. The Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha text books i first encountered these terms made clear about the distinction between Rashtra and Raj Basha's and Hindi's status as Rajbasha?.--Sodabottle (talk) 13:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting! Wasn't aware of this differentiation. The Hindi pedia has a detailed discription [11] which sheds some light on this. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 17:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

This is probably worth explaining on Languages with official status in India (sourced of course, unlike the hi.wiki where sourcing standards are non-existent, they even renamed R. K. Narayan as hi:आर कृष्णस्वामी नारायण!, if only I could type in Hindi, I'd go over and fix it.) –SpacemanSpiff 18:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Deepak, i was reading your post again and realised had overlooked one of your questions but didnt understand it well enough. could you please elaborate on the confusion about the 8th Schedule languages. --Car Tick 00:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

What I meant was this: a lot of people think that the Eight schedule lists the "national languages of India", which isn't so. I think we need to clarify this point too. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 05:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Bold text

Why Does the China page get to brag but the India page doesn't?

A while ago I wanted to put some thing's down on India's page that was factual and giving credit to things that had to do with India. But I was told that it wasnt proper because basically it's like im just bragging about India, and this is about facts....so....I asked how come the China page gets to say nice things and the India page cant then? For example on the China page it get's to say thing's like China is one of the oldest civilazations, and how it was one of the leader in the world of arts, etc. etc.....but....if I want to say thing's like that regarding India, the rulers of Wikipedia won't let me.....and I was told the reason is, because, that India is an offical page, and China isn't. So now im asking has that changed? Is China an offical page? If so then someone please tell me why does the page on China get to say some nice things that elevate the country and can I please put down things of that nature for the India page then so here the and ? ? 71.105.87.54 (talk) 23:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Since, according to you, the China page allows bragging, the easiest solution would be to brag about India on the China page. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 01:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Your suggesting POV pushing? Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 02:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

it ain't worth a dime replying to wiki-disneylanders. --Car Tick 03:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I could give you examples of what I think should be added here, and it's actually pretty logical. But I get the feeling, judging from my history of dealing with you dictators and those of you like to "pick and choose here" , that your probably not going to read down everything I write, and if you do, you probably won't take it into consideration and / or give me logic.....I mean none of you have explained why it's ok to prep up China on it's article, but you can't allow that with India then. I mean would any of you people like examples on what I think can be added to this India page? ? 71.105.87.54 (talk) 22:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not a question about being ok for China but not for India. Unwarranted promotion is not good for either article. If you think that the China article 'brags' in a way that is not suitably referenced, you should comment on the Talk:China page or just go ahead and boldly remove material that is unwarranted. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Even if I did that, isn't their a chance someone might just undo what I might do? And then if I kept doing it they might block me......anyway where is the consistency? If China is allowed to say things that might elevate it, which I dont neceessarily object to, why can't India then? If it's not ok for China why is it allowed? If it is ok for China, why can't India get it....I mean im not saying can I just lie and say India is great. But their are things that the dictators won't let me put, and it's not even that bad then. But they won't let me put it. If you want I can give you examples. So if I can't put things that I don't even think are that bad then, and someone might make it seem like I just want to brag about India then, which might be true, why does the article on China get to have thing's that might seem like it's being bragged about then so? Im not saying I necessarily object to what's on China's page . But it's a matter of consistency....for example....I can't put down how India has Aryan hertiage, which is true then. But China get have something like how it was a leader in the arts then? So I cant put something thats at least maybe somewhat true, but China can put something like that (which is ok then) but isn't that kind of a contradiction then? Kind of maybe then? Water then? 71.105.87.54 (talk) 03:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

ARYAN818, your posts are getting fouler and fouler, stop calling people dictators and perhaps take Fowler&fowler's advice. -SpacemanSpiff 03:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Dont feed the troll. It's pointless trying to make him understand anything because he has porved it four times on this talk page that he doesnt want to. And he isnt realy concerned about the article, ultimately all he cares about is the Aryan race and proving that it is supreme. For those of you who dont know User:Aryan818 was blocked because his username was offensive. 818 is the numerical for H-A-H: Heil Adolf Hitler. (Now watch as he says that 818 is his area code and not HAH ). So the next time this IP makes any edits, save yourself and others some trouble and revert his trolling. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 04:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Althought, I don't agree with what this IP is saying, I do understand where he is coming from and it is a problem. There are many instances where certain topics have been left off this page, such as the Science & Technology section, which many other countries have. Similarly, a template with multiple city skylines is present on many many country pages. Nikkul (talk) 19:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The main reason we cannot write anything we want is that the editors of this page have worked very hard to earn this page featured status. This distinction is held by very a few (I think less than 1% of all Wikipedia articles). It means that this article follows the ideals and standards of Wikipedia, and that Wikipedia considers the India article an example for other articles to follow. We should be proud of this distinction. The editors have sacrificed the opportunity to self-aggrandize India, so that Wikipedia will recognize this article as a factual and reliable source. Sure the editors of the China article and others may brag, but that is why Wikipedia will not stand by what they write. JNG71886 (talk) 15:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Who keep's erasing my replies? And some of you wonder why when I use the word dictator? lol 71.105.87.54 (talk) 01:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I do, and here's why: Its because you treat wikipedia like some forum. Your messages are all about "I, me , myself" not about "improving the article". You are an attention seeking little kid who does not understand that building an encyclopedia is a serious activity. You treat talk pages like some chat group on orkut or facebook. Your "cool dude" kind of talk only , calling others names only betrays your lack of seriousness. You have failed to get consensus four times but that has only added to your self-centered wailing, not encouraged you to become more constructive. Your behaviour on this page falls into the category of trolling. That is why you get reverted all the time. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 04:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

improving the article?India does have an aryan heritage in the north.This is even given in ncerte textbooks(certified by the goi).The question is,can we present teh material in a good way yet not make it look like a brag.Zoravar (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

don't you think there are many more important things to talk about ?Idlichutni (talk) 16:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Aryan heritage is very very old. We used to read about in our history books. With some solid references a paragraph on "Aryan hertiage" should be added to this articles. No one will delete sentences with valid references. In case some one is trying to delete a large paragraph/content, he/she should discuss in the talk page first. Skarmee (talk) 22:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Transportation

This article is missing information about its transportation. --Extra999 (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Demand for new states

Please make appropriate changes in the government section to show the decades old demand for new states such as vidarbha,etc. and the current formation of the state telangana.

Percy1005 (talk) 14:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it's crystal balling and the hunt for new states isn't notable for an article about India.Hometech (talk) 11:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

But I think it is. -- Extra999 (talk) 12:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Not here, I havent seen any other country article which mentions statehood movements(seperatist movements are mentioned though). You could consider adding it to Politics of India --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 13:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I too agree that demands for new states is not noteworthy enough for this page; when the demand is actually realized, we can update the India article. In the meantime, the content can be added to Aspirant states of India or Separatist movements of India, depending upon whether the separate states intend to remain part of the union. Both those articles need work, and sourced and neutral contributions will be welcome there. Abecedare (talk) 14:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Demand of separate states can be added to this article as it is a significant political development. Mr D'Souza demand of separate states are not seperatist movements. seperatist movement is generally lead to a separate nation. Like happening in Kashmir. Skarmee (talk) 21:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Home to Indus Valley Civilization and region of historic trade routes , the Indian Subcontinent...

Is this article about republic of India or the Subcontinent? Besides the last time I saw , the Indus Valley was located outside India. I think this is misleading and it would be better to refer to something like Chola Dynasty or Mauryan Empire which are more Indian-Centric. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.20.26 (talk) 02:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The article is about the Republic of India, an entity which came into existence only in 1950. With respect to the history of India, there did not exist any specific concept of a nation covering the present geographical area in the past, and hence the article refers to the subcontinent in that context. As to the Indus Valley Civilisation, it extended far beyond the Indus Valley itself, covering modern-day Pakistan and India. Hope this clarifies. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 13:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)