Talk:India/Archive 11

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

Thanks! I have corrected the semicolon in the geography and cricket in culture. As for dollars, US$ is accepted, as with USD (ISO 4217). $ is ambigious so we do not use. Please aquaint yourself with the WP:MoS before making further proposals. =Nichalp  «Talk»=  19:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW, "the following" is a redundant word. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  19:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

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


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

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

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

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

Same suggestion given on the same page ref:Sansad bhavan pic not good. Please discuss there. --59.182.34.192 10:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * For whatever its worth, I uploaded a derivative of that picture on commons. A little closer up.. What do u guys think? Sarvagnya 11:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It's nice, but what about the following picture: http://www.iloveindia.com/images/parliament.jpg Universe=atom 17:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Univers=atom - that pic on the iloveindia site is most probably copyrighted by the site or by somebody else. we cant use that on wikipedia.  Sarvagnya 18:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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



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

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

~rAGU

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

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

Government of India Main Article: Government of India Sub Articles: -Politics_of_India -Politics_of_India

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


 * "Since 1959 criminal trials have had no jury in India." (last sentence of "Government" section) Should not a comma be added after Since 1959, since it is a nonessential prepositional phrase?
 * Yes you are Damn right!--~KnowledgeHegemony~ 07:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "The legislature of India is the bicameral Parliament, which consists of the upper house called the Rajya Sabha (Council of States), and the lower house called the Lok Sabha (House of People)." (third paragraph of "Government" section) Should not the comma between (Council of States) and and be removed, since it does not connect two independent clauses?
 * Yes. Even I feel The same..--~KnowledgeHegemony~ 07:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "In the 2004 Indian elections the Indian National Congress won the largest number of Lok Sabha seats and formed a government with a coalition called the United Progressive Alliance, supported by various left-leaning parties and members opposed to the BJP." (last sentence of "Politics" section) Should not a comma be placed after In the 2004 Indian elections, since it is an adverb prepositional phrase in the beginning of the sentence.
 * Yes a comma should follow elections. --~KnowledgeHegemony~ 07:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "In recent years, India has played an influential role in the ASEAN, SAARC, and the WTO." (second paragraph of "Military and Foreign Relations" section) Should not a the be placed before SAARC because article consistency should be maintained in a series. (in common words: there is a the before ASEAN and a the before WTO; why should not a the be placed between SAARC?)
 * Don't know. Lets see what others say?--~KnowledgeHegemony~ 08:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "India has a labour force of 509.3 million, 60% of which is employed in agriculture and related industries." (fourth paragraph of "Economy" section) Should not the word people be added after 509.3 million, for in this case, 509.3 is an adjective describing million. Million, though, can not stand alone as a noun; instead, numbers are usually adjectives describing an object.
 * "Textiles, jewelery, engineering goods and software are major export commodities." (fifth paragraph of "Economy" section) The well disputed serial comma is here. Let me make one fact clear, though. Most of the series in this article follow the serial comma, and this is one of the rare ones that do not do so. So, why leave it like this?


 * "It has unresolved territorial disputes with China, which in 1962 escalated into the brief Sino-Indian War; and with Pakistan, which resulted in wars in 1947, 1965, 1971 and in 1999 in Kargil" (fifth paragraph of "History" section) Same thing as above (serial comma.) Also, although this is not a grammar mistake, why is that the years 1947, 1965, and 1971 are wikilinked, but the year 1999 is not?


 * "Many classical dance forms exist, including bharatanatyam, kathakali, kathak, kuchipudi, manipuri, odissi and yakshagana." (second paragraph of "Culture" section) Same thing as the previous one.


 * "The cuisine of India is extremely diverse, as ingredients, spices and cooking methods vary from region to region." (fourth paragraph of "Culture" section) Same thing as the previous one.


 * "In the Indian Ocean, India is in the vicinity of Sri Lanka, Maldives and Indonesia." (first paragraph of introduction) Same thing as before. (Let one more thing be cleared, though. In the same paragraph (first paragraph of introduction), there are two other series before it, and all of them follow the serial comma. Why should this be left out.)


 * "The many notable Indian writers of the modern era, using both Indian languages and English, include Rabindranath Tagore." (third paragraph of "Culture" section) There is just something about this sentence that is odd. Perhaps it is that the subject is plural, but the predicate nominative is singular. In other words, perhaps more writers should be added along to Rabindranath Tagore. This, though, is unsure of; please give it a second thought if you change it.
 * The sentence structure is flawed. So how will you reframe it??--~KnowledgeHegemony~ 08:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "India's national sport is field hockey even though cricket is the most popular sport in India." (sixth paragraph of "Culture" section) The dependent clause should be separated by a comma from the independent clause (in other words, a comma should be put after field hockey)


 * "India is home to the age-old discipline of yoga, and also to the ancient martial arts, kalarippayattu and Varma Kalai." (sixth paragraph of "Culture" section) This sentence has two grammatical mistakes. First of all, a comma should not be used to separate two items in a series, as it is currently doing (in other words, the comma after yoga should be removed.) The second mistake is the following: a comma should not be placed before essential appositives (in other words, the comma before kalarippayattu should be removed.)


 * "In 1998, the BJP formed the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) with several regional parties, and became the first non-Congress government to complete a full five-year term." (second paragraph of "Politics" section) A comma should not be placed between a compound verb (in other words, the comma between regional parties and and should be removed.
 * True.--~KnowledgeHegemony~ 08:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

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


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

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

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


 * By point-wise 59.182.18.175 means write every mistake you think exists using this format

--KnowledgeHegemony 06:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * mistake #1
 * mistake #2
 * mistake #3
 * mistake #4

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

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


 * I agree; perhaps the semi-protection should be put back. Universe=atom 15:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hallelujah! It's put back! Universe=atom 10:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

I am suggesting that the following image of the 1000 Rs. paper money be put into the "economy" section, partially because of the long length of the section: Universe=atom 16:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


 * Hi Chanakya, how is the wealth distribution in India better than that in the US (or China)?  Please discuss and provide evidence here first.  I have reverted your edits pending presentation of such evidence.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As per List_of_countries_by_income_equality India has a better Gini Coefficient compared to China and US. --(Sumanth|Talk) 12:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, by Gini index, India (GI=32.5) is better than not only the US or China, but also Australia, Ireland, Canada, Switzerland, Belgium, France, Italy, United Kingdom, Spain, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Israel, Greece, ... (which are all in the top 20 of the UN Human Development Index; whereas India is 126 on the HDI) and worse than Pakistan, Bangladesh, Kirgizstan, Rwanda, Azerbaijan, ...  See UN Report here.  I don't know that such comparisons are very useful.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

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


 * The data in that table is so outdated that it makes little sense to quote it, for example India's GI of 32.5 is based on 1999-2000 stats since when India's GDP has almost doubled. Secondly, the data for different countries corresponds to different years, and it makes little sense to compare them.
 * By the way, I agree with C-the-G that The Australian newspaper report is an inadequate source for the main India article; we should instead look for a scholarly study on the topic by a well-known GoI bureau, international body or commercial institution. I'll try to locate something along those lines Abecedare 01:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * BTW, I had nothing to do with the writing of the economy section. I'm just trying to make sure that redundant information doesn't go in.  It may be that the data in the UN report above are old (although the UN report itself is from 2006), but I'm not sure what the point of adding a statement like, "Wealth distribution which is fairly uneven is found to be better than the certain developed countries like the United States and the fastest growing economy People's Republic of China" is. It is better to give some real information about income inequality in India than make such comparisons.  The US economy (nominal) is $12,455,825 million, which is more than 16 time bigger than India's $771,951 million (2005 figures).   The US per capita income (2006) is $44,571, which is more than 45 times larger than India's (2007) $979.  What does it mean then to say that India has less inequality than the US?  I agree with Abecedare that The Australian is not a reliable source, but its numbers are probably not inaccurate.  Here are some reliable sources for malnutrition in India:
 * UNICEF 2006. The Picture in India: Nutrition.
 * According to the FAO (2003), India has the largest number of undernourished people of any country in the world.
 * The World Bank. Press Release 11 May 2006. Urgent Action Needed to Overcome Persistent Malnutrition in India, says World Bank Report.
 * The World Bank. India: Malnutrition Report. Released 10 May 2006. India's Undernourished Children, A Call to Reform and Action.

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


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

OK, here is my proposed replacement: Indian economy has grown steadily over the past few decades, but progress has been uneven among social and economic groups, across regions, states and the urban-rural divide. Though income inequality in India is still relatively low, it has been rising and despite significant progress, roughly quarter of India's population still falls under the poverty line and child malnutrition rates are higher than any other country in the world. The whole passage can be referenced to the World Bank 2006 report listed above (see esp. page 1 and 17-27). Comments, revision etc welcome! Abecedare 05:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. I would suggest a slight revision, if you don't mind. "The Indian economy has grown steadily over the last two decades; however, its growth has been uneven when comparing different social groups, economic groups, geographic regions, and rural and urban areas. Although income inequality in India is relatively small, it has been increasing of late.  Despite significant economic progress, a quarter of the nation's population earns less than the government-specified poverty threshold of $0.40/day.  In addition, India has more undernourished children than any country in the world: 46% of the country's children under the age of three suffer from malnutrition."

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

I have replaced the paragraph in the Economy section (diff) as per F&F's revised version above. Some final tweaks that I made: Further revisions welcome ... as always. Abecedare 18:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed the first sentence, "Wealth distribution in India, a developing country, is fairly uneven, with the top 10% of income groups earning 33% of the income." since it was incorrectly conflating wealth distribution and income distribution and citing a non-standard metric (Gini coefficient is used much more often in this context).
 * I revised the last sentence to point out that India has not only the largest population of malnourished children (which is not surprising given its population), but also the highest rate of malnutrition among children - the latter is shocking and therefore I have left in two reliable sources for the fact.

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


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

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

Wealth distribution in India (2)

 * I am confused by seeing total paragraph. I agree that we have to project positive & negative points, achivements & successes. I have given below my opinions about various sentences in the same paragraph.


 * The Indian economy has grown steadily over the last two decades; however, its growth has been uneven when comparing different social groups, economic groups, geographic regions, and rural and urban areas


 * Is there any country in this world whose growth is "even" among all social groups, economic groups and geographic regions, rural and urban areas. Only classification between countries could be in some point between "more even" or "more uneven" which needs to be proved by measurable metrics. As far as I know only measurable metrics is Gini Coefficient which is favourable to India compared to many countries. We can even write that Income inequality in India is less compared to many developed countries. National sample survey 2004-05 has calculated Gini coefficient among various social groups like OBC, SC, ST etc  and found it is between 33 to 38 for various social groups. Citation given in the article only says India has succedded in reducing income inequality


 * Although income inequality in India is relatively small (Gini coefficient: 32.5 in year 2000), it has been increasing of late.


 * Do we have any citation to prove that it is increasing...We need to have some citation which compares Gini coefficient over the period of few years.


 * Despite significant economic progress, a quarter of the nation's population earns less than the government-specified poverty threshold of $0.40/day.


 * This sentence seems to be OK. WE can even emphasise that India's measurement of Poverty is different from UN measurement of poverty. If we measure poverty as per UN definition then more than 70% people will be below poverty line.


 * In addition, India has a higher rate of malnutrition among children (46% for children under three in year 2007) than any other country in the world.


 * This sentence seems to be OK. But it is not economic measurement. It can appear in demographic section. --Indianstar 21:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is my take: Aside: Although ~25% poverty rate in India is pretty high, it is down from ~50% rate (using same definition) in 1980 hence I think the "significant progress" is as noteworthy as the raw statistic. Also (for my personal curiosity), is there a source for the $0.40/day metric ? According to (footnte on page 2) the GOI standard is based on available calories. Abecedare 22:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You are right that the uneven progress is expected by economists and has been also been experienced by China etc. However IMO it remains a significant fact, worthy of being stated in the article.
 * Yes, there are many reliable sources available to attest to the increasing inequality; for example see pages 17-27 of the referenced UN report and the citations within. Also see the references listed above. For some reason, the Gini coefficient for years after 2000 is not yet available, so direct comparison of that metric cannot be made - however several other metrics have been cited in these references.
 * I am ok with including the malnutrition information in the Demography rather than economy section. IMO, that decision finally boils down to the judgment whether the statistic reflects upon the people of India or the economy of India, and for that reason I slightly prefer leaving it in the economy section.


 * As you pointed out, significant progress has been made in poverty alleviation which can be stated in the article.


 * It is not $0.40/Day. It is Rs 276/Month or roughly $0.25/Day..


 * Citations given only discusses Income inequality, it never compares India's position vis a vis other countries. Only metrics available is Gini coefficient and we should go as per that metrix. Scandinavian countries are best performers in the world in Gini coefficient with value around 0.25-0.28. India has Gini coefficient of 0.32. If it is steadily increasing in India, was it closer to scandinavian countries few years back. When we don't have data why should we say it is steadily increasing. India is performing badly in many areas economically. E.g 1) Its World trade is meagre and even small developing countries whose per capita income is comparable to India like Thailand, Indonesia exports more than India. 2) Its achievement in Manufacturing sector growth is pathetic compared to other developing countries. We have lot of things to mention about its failures economically. So,I am not convinced why we should choose Wealth distribution/Income inequality as negative side of Indian economy. Wealth distribution anomalies are universal phenomena. Pareto distribution was discovered mainly because of wealth distribution anomalies and subsequently applied in many areas.


 * If everybody feels Malnutrition is suitable in economic section, I am OK with that. CIA Fact book and other encyclopedia classifies Infant mortality/Malnutrition etc in demographic section.--Indianstar 23:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Now I am confused. Which of the two part of the statement, "Although income inequality in India is relatively small (Gini coefficient: 32.5 in year 2000), it has been increasing of late.", do you think is unsupported ? Note that the "it" does not refer to the Gini coefficient but to "income inequality". Abecedare 23:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I am saying there is no reliable citation available to prove that income inequality(Which is measured through GINI Coefficient) is increasing of late. Also I feel Income inequality is not worthy enough to be mentioned in this article. It is one of the very few parameters where India's achivement is better. --Indianstar 01:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Indiastar for listing the concrete objections. Here is my analysis: "There are three dimensions to the increase in income inequality. As discussed earlier, improvements in mean urban incomes outpaced rural incomes, widening the gulf between rural and urban India. Interstate inequalities widened as rich states grew faster than poor states. Within-state urban inequality also rose, reversing a previously declining trend (Sen and Himanshu 2005)." (page 24) "India’s rapid progress in the 1990s has not been uniformly shared among its people. As documented in chapter 1, income inequality has risen, although India still has a relatively balanced distribution of income by global standards." (page 165) "This prudent approach has sidestepped major shocks, and the changes in inequality consequent upon these reforms have been modest by the standards of, say, the transition economies. Rural inequality has risen at a slower pace than have urban and overall inequality. The rise in inequality has been the result of three factors: (i) a shift in earnings from labour to capital income, (ii) the rapid growth of the services sector – particularly the FIRE sector2 – with a consequent explosion in demand for skilled workers and (iii) a drop in the rate of labour absorption during the reform period. There has also been an increase in regional inequality, especially in the incidence of rural poverty. This rise in inequality has implied that, despite better growth, poverty reduction has been sluggish." (page 3) I apologize for this looong reply, but hopefully I have addressed the points you raised. Regards. Abecedare 03:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "there is no reliable citation available to prove that income inequality is increasing of late.". A reliable, secondary citation is the referenced World Bank (2006) report "India: Inclusive Growth and Service delivery: Building on India’s Success." (esp. pages 17-27) from which I quote:
 * Here is another independent references for the same. From R. Jha's paper "Reducing Poverty and Inequality in India: Has Liberalization Helped?", which was published in Inequality Growth and Poverty in an Era of Liberalization and Globalization.
 * "income inequality(Which is measured through GINI Coefficient)". It is true that the Gini coefficient is the most popular measure for Income Ineqaulity, but it is hardly the only one. For example see wikipedia's article on Income inequality metrics or the University of Texas Inequality Project . In particular see the tutorials on the various metrics. Note also that the Gini coefficient for India is calculated based on expenditure, rather than income data, and therefore some economists argue that it underestimates the income inequality for the country. To be clear, I am not proposing that we discuss any of these technical details in the India article - instead we should rely on reliable secondary sources, such as the ones listed above, to filter the conclusions in layman terms.
 * "Also I feel Income inequality is not worthy enough to be mentioned in this article." Maybe, though I feel otherwise. I think World Bank's lead economist Branko Milanovic and members of MacArthur Foundation-funded Network on the Effects of Inequality on Economic Performance will agree with me, while Amartya Sen will probably argue that inequality measure are as important as per-capita metrics, given his pioneering work on inequality and causes of famines.
 * "It is one of the very few parameters where India's achivement is better." I agree! But why should that be a reason to exclude it ?


 * Hi Abecedare, You had asked above how the 0.40 cents/day poverty line was computed.  I am in a bit of a hurry right now, but here is what I wrote in answer to a similar question in Archive 22 (this page): "The Indian poverty line (which is the inflation-adjusted amount that would have bought 2400 calories in food per person per day in rural areas and 2100 calories in urban areas in 1973) is now Rs. 540 per month, or $12 per month (at the Rs 45 = $1 exchange rate), or 40 cents per day. This assumes that the entire income of Rs. 540 is being spent on food. With this definition of the poverty line (ie. 40 cents per day), the proportions of Indians below the poverty line is 23% or 25% (depending on what statistics one quotes)."  I'm sure we should be able to find a source for this.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

(reproduced from above)


 * I don't see anything wrong with the Toda hut. It look rather beautiful. Include some more ;pictures if you wish but dont remove that one. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 10:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I too am in favour of retaining the Toda Hut and Peacock pictures (note that both of them are Featured Images). Also please read the extensive discussion on the images included in the article in Archive 22 and Archive 23 (see in particular these discussions on Toda Hut and  Peackock images). While reading the comments, keep in mind that users Indianhilbilly, XavierIcI, huniebunie, Coollemonade and Bangalorevenkat were all later found to be socks of Nikkul. Abecedare 11:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yup. The Toda Hut image is great, and we've already been through an enervating debate over it.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No it is not great. Their is no text supporting it.  In the past that has definitely been used as a criteria for removing some of the other images in the article.  It makes no sense for a random Toda hut image to be there and do not even try to propose adding text for it in the article as their are far more significant things that have been turned down for the sake of space.  Furthermore, the fact that people keep bringing it up should IMPLY that MAYBE their is a NEED to CHANGE it.  It is not something critically significant to the article.  In fact, given its lack of significance to the overall article, it is an entirely a subjective choice.  I would imagine that a subjective choice that keeps causing problems should be given a long and hard look at instead of attempting to dismiss it as "yet another enervating debate." --Blacksun 08:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * However, no matter how good a picture may be, it does not fit in the article if there is no text on it. Does anybody see any text in the "Culture" section about Toda Huts, or even Indian homes in general, or do I need better glasses? Universe=atom 17:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That is an easy fix. I have changed the caption.  The hut image is not about homes, but rather about (traditional) art and design&mdash;a topic discussed in the first paragraph.  Speaking of captions, some other images too could use more informative captions (without going overboard, of course).  Compare Australia, for example.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That is quite a stretch, dont you think? Furthermore, we already have an image of Taj for that architecture part of the culture section.  I would think that it would be far better use of space to represent something else like dance or sports (for instance) than put another "building." Compare Australia culture section. If you really want murals their are plenty of famous temples, some even world heritage sites, with murals.  --Blacksun 09:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is it a stretch? It certainly is about art and design. As for your other assertions, I can only repeat what I said above: we went through a long enervating process in mid-March and a majority wanted both the Apatani and Toda pictures in. I understand that there is no explicit WP policy, but we can't keep having these debates every 6 weeks because one or two persons change their minds. Let's wait a little longer before we revist the issue. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  12:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * PS. I would in fact ask the question, why is the Taj Mahal image there?  Taj Mahal is on every Indian website and is an instantly recognisable (and somewhat cliched) symbol world-wide.  That image doesn't add to a reader's knowledge of India, whereas the Toda hut image does.  Why not replace the Taj Mahal image with the "Sari fabric" image shown on the right?  The Sari image is a Wikipedia featured image, and the brocade shown is a syncretic art form with links to Mughal art etc.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I dislike both of them. Taj image for what you stated and Toda image because I do not find it relevant to the section.  Not to mention that tribal images are over-represented in the page currently.  However, in regards to Taj image, the fact that it is ubiquitous gives it relevance that is hard to ignore.  Encyclopedia has to be relevant - it is not our job (nor do we have the ability) to decide what is and what is not interesting.  To me the issue is clear - their are images far more directly relevant to the text and we already have another architectural image in the culture section + a tribal image in demographics. --Blacksun 13:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * What is wrong with the Taj Mahal image? I think it fits in the article because, other than giving the reader an idea of why so many tourists visit India each year, it also gives the reader an idea of Mughal architecture at the time; by the way, it is also in perfect place in the text, where it talks about architecture and also mentions the Taj Mahal in particular. The Toda Hut image, though, seems to make some sense now, since the caption changed, but still, nothing in the entire "Culture" section mentions anything about it, though (it is between the festivals, sports, and clothes of India paragraphs; above the clothes paragraph is the one about the cuisines, above which is the literature one, above which is the music, above which is the one where it talks about the Mughal architecture and the Taj Mahal). As it can be seen, the picture is still a "solitary island" in the text where it is put. BTW, perhaps the caption should also mention something about the tiny door, as it does in the image page. Regards, Universe=atom 15:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I had already once in the past whined that the Taj pic was an eyesore. Really.  It is an eyesore seeing it popup anywhere and everywhere from hotel menus to tourism brochures to wikipedia.  Now I realise that the 'eyesore' part has more to do with the front elevation that we get to see in 999 out of 1000 Taj photos.  Couple of years back my desktop had an awesome Taj wallpaper where it was pictured from atop and at an angle.  I've been searching for that but have never been able to find it.  I'd be grateful if somebody can find a good picture of the Taj in a different 'pose' and upload it on GFDL.  Sarvagnya 09:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, there are two pictures on flicker.com that I like. Both pictures were taken by a gentleman called Captain Suresh, who seems to be a good photographer.  The first one has a group of boys playing cricket on the sandy river bank with the Taj Mahal as a backdrop (see here).  (It has the advantage that it combines sport and architecture, both of relevance to the culture section.) The other, my personal favorite, has some women and girls resting and seeking shelter from the mid-day sun, again with the Taj gleaming the background (see here).  The second picture too combines architecture with apparel (sari and salwar kameez), both themes of the culture section.) If there is enthusiasm for either of these pictures, we could try and get the gentleman's permission and then nominate the chosen picture for Featured Picture consideration.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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


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

Finding it difficult to replace two images. Why not the Golden temple and in the demograhic section a chart that shows the poverty reduction graph or a population of India map. Chanakyathegreat 13:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


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

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


 * Support: I think the population density map suits well in the "Demographics" section because it shows a great illustration of the main topic of the section. Perhaps it can even be nominated for FA status. Universe=atom 10:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Err This is regarding Toda hut image in the culture section. I think we should stick to that instead of debating about multiple images. --Blacksun 12:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Ajanta Caves
The Ajanta caves image is barely distinguisable and is a very poor representation of Indian history.Nikkul 12:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi. Do you think that sharpening the image contrast would help? Or is a totally different image required? Saravask 14:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that the Ajanta Caves image is fine. Universe=atom 15:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ive tried looking at the image from several computers, and it takes a few seconds to make out wut the image is showing. It's very unclear/ indistingishable (spelled horribly wrong). Nikkul 12:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)




 * Perhaps ancient paintings were supposed to be in those indistinguishable brownish colours. Universe=atom 08:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Nikkul, I apologize in advance and I don't want you to take it the wrong way, but I'd like to warn you that a number of people are very suspicious that you and Universe=atom (and Johnsmithcba) are the same people. I hope you are not trying to set up a "fake" exchange here to prove otherwise.  Be aware that Wikipedia has some sophisticated means to root out sockpuppeteers.  Again, you are very welcome to contribute, but please don't repeat what has not worked in the past.  Regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Fowler, I encourage you to do a checkuser on my account and universe=atom and johnsmith. Infact, I will even be a contact if you'd like. Please go ahead. I encourage it very much because I know how wrong your assumption is and I'd very much like to prove it. But until you do a checkuser and until you are found correct, please refrain from blaming. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nikkul (talk • Nikkul 01:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, please stop blaming others of being sock accounts just because you have reasons of your own. Instead, use official means, such as checkuser, and check me nikkul with and johnmitcba, johnsmitcba with me and nikkul, and nikkul with johnsmitcba and me, and whoever else you think is sock of other account, because I know that I am innocent and am not a sock of any other account. Also, just because I agree or disagree with another person does not mean that you can go around accusing people of being socks, with absolutely no evidence behind your claims. Instead, I am again asking you to do a checkuser and give me an opportunity to make others stop picking on me as a sock. Universe=atom 08:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Got this great image from flickr- I think this should replace the ajanta caves one since they both come from the same time period relatively.

Nikkul 13:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

Personally, I find Hindi-Urdu-Persian-Hindustani thing very confusing...
 * Moreover, non- Indians may also find it so.. I guess. Any suggestions?

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


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

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

indic text tag
the tag is being added and removed repeatedly. Lets discus peacefully ?
 * I support its inclusion because not all readers will have configured their sytems to support indic scripts . i myself had the same problem when I first started reading Wikipedia and it was thanks to this tag that I came to konw how to configure it. If placing it at the top of the infobox is a problem, cant we put it below the infobox?--Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 05:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Support Every sentence Deepak wrote above matches my experience and opinion too. Abecedare 06:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Of course. It's a must.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Support: It was originally in the "External Links" section, but I moved it to the top of the article because the reader should know before reading the article why they see all these question marks or other symbols. Below the infobox would not be good because it would not look good, or at least according to me, because templates like these should be on the top. Examples where it is on the top include Flag of India and China. Universe=atom 10:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Support: Quite necessary.~KnowledgeHegemony~ 11:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Indic Tag Placement
I support having the Indic tag, but not at the top. It drags the whole info box down and makes the article much harder to read. Even tho most would like the tag in the article, I dont think most people would like it at the top. Lets discuss other options of placement. Nikkul 19:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess it wouldnt hurt to place it below the infobox! Any disagreements? --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 05:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that it should be over the infobox. Universe=atom •Talk•Contributions• 13:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

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

This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale!
Referring to 3rd template on top of this Talk page

When one clicks on [show] this is what it shows:-

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


 * Additional information:


 * FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale.


 * ??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.


 * This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.


 * This article is a vital article.


 * I am confused!?! --~KnowledgeHegemony~ 12:10, 10 May 2007


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

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


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


 * Though 'The multitude of "citation needed" tags you have added after statements that are easily verified through any reference on India (including the ones listed on the page in the General References section) are unnecessarily defacing a featured article. as stated by Abecedare above is true.


 * Those 'facts' should be verified, but ofcourse as you said in the main article. --~KnowledgeHegemony~ 18:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, U=a, you can't make the changes first and then bring them up on the talk page later. If you persist in these unilateral edits, we will begin to consider your changes instances of vandalism. As I have already told you before, this page doesn't need your help. The changes you make create a lot of work for others (in undoing them). That was true with your compulsive and en masse addition of fact tags (when you clearly don't understand what the summary style is about). Similarly, your "grammar mistakes" corrections are for the most part either incorrect themselves or merely bookish changes, that anyone with a working knowledge of modern English would not make. As I have said repeatedly earlier, there are lots of India-related pages that need help, and yet, you still keep insisting on working on a page that is a long-standing featured article and doesn't need help; why don't you help with the pages that need help? Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  19:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "Sorry, U=a, you can't make the changes first and then bring them up on the talk page later." - sayz who? Stop browbeating new users.  Also, you dont own this page.  Nor has anybody appointed you the official watchdog around here.  One of the most basic things on wikipedia is that anybody can completely rewrite your or anyone's edits.  Read up on WP:BOLD.  Read up on WP:VANDAL.  Basically, read up on every basic policy and guideline on WP before you start pushing newbies around.  What U=A did was anything but vandalism.  It is perfectly alright for users to make a change first and then take it to the talk page.  And above all, U=A left an edit summary saying exactly that.  And even on the talk page he has mentioned that he is not exactly wedded to his edits and that people could revert him if something was wrong.  Learn to assume good faith.  It takes some time for newbies to learn the ropes.  Dont fault them for trying to do too much too quickly.  Its infinitely more difficult to motivate users to join an encyclopedia building project than to kill their enthusiasm.  Thanks to people like you, WP loses tons of well meaning new users all the time.  Sarvagnya 20:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

-

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

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

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

--

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

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


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

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

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

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

Moving Some Images to the Left Side...
Recently, I have moved the images in the "Politics," "Geography," and "Economy" sections to the left, in order to give a better balance between the two sides in terms of images. This edit, though, has been reverted by F&f, saying that it was "undiscussed". (BTW, I do not have to discuss every single edit, that I make, in the talk page.) So, does anybody else support this decision? If sufficient support is provided, I shall again put the images to the left. Regards. Universe=atom 18:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Regardless of what some self styled watchdogs might thing, you dont have to ask for permission every time you want to so much as sneeze. Go ahead and edit in good faith.  Be bold.  But always make use of the "preview" button before you "save".  Sarvagnya 19:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with the imperative to be bold. However with heavily edited articles such as this one, from a large number of users , there should be some discretion: Go ahead and make an edit by al means. If is reverted once (which signifies that there is a disagreemnent) , and you feel it should be put back it is better to discuss on the talk page than to start an edit war. In my own case for heavily edited articles, or contested content I prefer putting a message on the talk page first and waitng for a response before I make a change. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 04:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I dont condone edit wars either. But many times, it may be easier to show people what you propose to do it and then discuss it, than spend hours just explaining to a revolving audience what you even intend to do.  Like I said, edit in good faith... meaning you're not going to add nonsense.  If it is resisted(read reverted), then, you can always take it up on the talk page.  The problem arises only when some people decide resist it just beacause you got some esoteric grammar wrong or some such trivial issue(which can easily be fixed by them without having to resort to stonewalling on the talk page). Sarvagnya 06:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

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


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

Navigation section 2
Do we need all the navigational templates in this section. IMO only Template:Indian ties should be retained and all others are unnecessary clutter that should be removed, for the following reasons: I'll wait for other editors to chime in before making any changes in the section. Abecedare 07:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) If a user is interested in knowing what other countries are in Asia, South East Asia, UN etc, he can as easily click on the links provided in Template:Indian ties as the hide/show button in the respective template.
 * 2) While Template:Indian ties provides information about India's membership status and is therefore relevant to this page, the other templates provide information that is more relevant to someone interested in the organization than in the specific member country.
 * 3) Where does it end ? Will be have ~75 navigational templates corresponding to the organizations listed  in Template:Indian ties (and that list culled from  surely is not a complete list) ?.


 * I have two different suggestions. First, perhaps the Navigation section could be made like the one in United Kingdom, which gives two unofficial heading-coloured subsections, one for the Geographic Locale and one for the International Organizations (please visit it for further details). My second suggestion would be to do the following: chop off the templates about the international ties of India (WTO, ASEAN, etc.) (but now the specific one, though). The ones which tell the geographic locale could perhaps be retained if this suggestion is followed. BTW, I have stated a reason (of why I put several templates about the ties) in the other "Navigation Section" discussion on this talk page. Regards. Universe=atom 15:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response:
 * I think using Template:Indian ties is a better idea thanfollowing the United Kingdom model since the latter is (1) more cluttered, (2) less scalable and yet carries (3) significantly less information (~10 vs ~75 organizations) and (4) incorrect information (Monarchies is not an international organization).
 * Is there a reason for wanting to geographical locations separately, rather than as part of Template:Indian ties as is currently the case ? What additional information does that provide the reader ? Abecedare 18:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think there are some reasons why there should be some separate templates about the geographic locale of India. First of all, the name of the template is misleading (geography is not part of the international ties of India). Second of all, if the  is the only one to remain in the section, there would be too few templates in the Navigation section to retain its status as a separate section; then, perhaps it would again have to be merged with the "External Links" section. About the separate international ties templates, what do you think about perhaps retaining the five (or six, for that matter) templates about the most important international ties of India? Regards. Universe=atom 19:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * To address your points individually:
 * (1) The name "India ties" is not misleading IMO because the template itself demarcates, Asia, South-East Asia etc as geographical and geopolitical ties.
 * (2) We shouldn't retain the numerous organization templates that provide no additional informational, just because we want to fill in space and fatten up a section. You are right that it would be better to delete the Navigation section altogether (which anyways is non-standard and not prescribed by WP:LAYOUT) and remerge the "Indian Ties" template with the external links section as was the case until recently.
 * (3) Isn't trying to determine the 4-5 most important organizations, just asking for trouble ?! There is unlikely to be a reliable source which will help us make the decision, and that will only set-up endless and unnecessary debate between well-meaning editors trying to decide whether SAARC is more important than IOC or ILO or ASEAN etc. Even this would have been justifiable, if there had been a encyclopedic (rather than aesthetic) reason for including those templates - but that doesn't seem to be the case.
 * Abecedare 20:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree with you. Only Template:Indian ties should be retained.~KnowledgeHegemony~ 08:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * OK: I have removed all templates except the . Also, I have remerged it with the "External Links" section. Any other suggestions of changes? Universe=atom 10:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

On the lighter side :-)
What the hell:? "India has always led in the educstion because THEY ARE SMART." We lead in "educstion" because we are smart!!!!! --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 04:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hehe~KnowledgeHegemony~ 06:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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


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

-- Knowledge Hegemony  08:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

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


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

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


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

Knowledge Hegemony  09:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. I am in favour of it now. However, in which section will you put it? Universe=atom •Talk•Contributions• 13:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's the problem.-- Knowledge Hegemony  14:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * One would generally think that the best solution would be to put it in the "Military and Foreign Relations" section, in the military part. Personally, though, I feel that the "Culture" section would suit better. Universe=atom •Talk•Contributions• 14:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

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


 * That is a point. The article should be balanced in terms of POV. <span style="background-color:#FFBF00;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:2px solid#120A8F;text-align:center;color:#7BA05B;"><span style="background-color:#FFBF00;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:2px solid#120A8F;text-align:center;color:#7BA05B;">Universe=atom •Talk•Contributions• 17:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Demographic Image Problem
The Apanti image is too specific to be an appropriate and representative image for the demographic section. Since only one in a couple thousand indians follows Apanti customs, it is not fair to use that image to represent all of India. An image should represent the text. The apanti image may be fit for the tribes of india page, but since tribes are only 8 percent of the total population, it is not fair to the other 92 percent to have the tribal image used to represent that 92 percent. Let's try to find a solution.
 * Yes, I've pretty much written a book about this particular problem myself. Many of the other users here agreed in principle to using a demographic visual like there should be in the demographics section, but we never got around to choosing one.  I think that it is about time.  The Behnam 15:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think there is and always has been a majority in favor of not having that image. What has divided everyone was the replacement. Let's first decide to not have that image there. And only after we have a no image demographics section should we vote for a replacement.Nikkul 12:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Nikkul, please don't go down that path again; that approach is clearly disruptive given past discussions and your personal actions. The process towards replacement which will avoid an edit war, is to (1) find/create a better image, (2) make sure that there is consensus for your choice on this talk page. I would also highly recommend that you read the archived discussions - the ones you (and your socks) participated in and the ones that occurred while you were blocked. Thanks. Abecedare 14:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Abecedare, I am not going down any path again. I have already read all discussions and since nothing has been done about anything, I am bringing this up again in a civil manner. The approach you are talking about has already been tried and has failed desperately. I think that most of the users do not believe that the apanti image should be there, and I say that after reading the past discussions. That belief has brought us together. What has separated us is the fact that four or five users bring their own images and then no clear majority exists. So let us talk about the Apanti image for right now and whether is should stay there. Nikkul 23:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, What is wrong with the Apanti image is that it does not represent India in its entirety, and no one can argue that. Nikkul 23:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well the fallacy inherent in that argument has been discussed before, so I won't repeat it here.
 * Anyway, is it your point, that the India page is better without any image in the Demographics section, than with the Apatani image (since that is what you are proposing to do by removing the Apatani image even before a replacement is found) ? If so, I would recommend that you initiate a request for comments, and see how many editors share your POV. Finally please note that it is Apatani, not "Apanti" Abecedare 23:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll try this again. In the past, maps were rejected because there were already a good number of them, and a simple population graph was rejected because it was, well, simple. So, I will suggest this graph instead, which has more substance to it and isn't unappealing. Hopefully this option can resolve the subjectivity problem in that section and bring this article in line with similar sections in other articles. As has been the principle, it is most relevant to use a visual displaying demographic information in the Demographics section. Anyway, here is the picture taken from the article Demographics of India:  The Behnam 23:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I would support it if you updated the information and provided citation for current information presented in the graph. I know that their has been new information regarding percentage of population below poverty line in the past couple of years.--Blacksun 11:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The Behnam, I do agree with you in that a chart of some sort would be the only possible option, however, if we all start putting in our own replacement images, nothing is going to happen. Thats why i urge you to hold off on the replacement and vote just on whether you feel the Apatani image is relevant. We can talk about the replacement later on. If we do it now, nothing will ever happen as shown in the past. Nikkul 14:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think that if a replacement is found first, people may be more open to replacing the picture, for as I recall from last time, people didn't want to get rid of the picture without having a replacement first. I'll contact the author of the chart to see if there is better information to be had, though I personally think it fine the way it is.  The Behnam 14:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The map is fine, although I think a map of India showing percentages below the poverty line by regions would give more information about "demographics" in contrast (say) to the "economy." Maybe one could do both, i.e. represent the variation in poverty in both time and space.  The caption should also explain the "poverty line" though.  See the discussion here (end of the section).   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

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

I hope this will solve the problem once and for all. If sufficient "Retaining" support is reached, the image will be kept. If sufficient "Removal" support is reached, we can discuss on what new image to put before removing the Apatani image altogether. BTW, after this discussion is over, perhaps a copy of it can by put in the talk page's FAQ. Thank you. <span style="background-color:#FFBF00;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:2px solid#120A8F;text-align:center;color:#7BA05B;"><span style="background-color:#FFBF00;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:2px solid#120A8F;text-align:center;color:#7BA05B;">Universe=atom •Talk•Contributions• 18:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Just vote. No comments here, Just retain or reject

People in favor of RETAINING the Apatani image:

People in favor of REMOVING the Apatani image:


 * 1) <span style="background-color:#FFBF00;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:2px solid#120A8F;text-align:center;color:#7BA05B;"><span style="background-color:#FFBF00;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:2px solid#120A8F;text-align:center;color:#7BA05B;">Universe=atom  •Talk•Contributions• 18:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Universeatom, I have moved your voting thing down to a new section so that it does not intervene in the comments section here. Hope you dont mind thanks. Nikkul 00:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC) No you haven't, this is very much a part of the discussion.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * We have already been through that kind of a vote (in March) here (see section end), where it was decided to keep the image by 14 votes to 11. The issue of having a chart instead of an image (as suggested by The Behnam, Dab, Sarvagyna, Blacksun, and others) is a different one,  and could be discussed here again.


 * Cursorily looking at different country pages, I notice that most European countries have charts. However, many South American countries do have images in their demographics sections (as do some Central Asian countries).  Also, both Britannica and Encarta (the last I checked) had images in their India demographics/people sections.  I can do no better than to quote dab (this talk page, 10:30 12 March 2007): "Do you suppose the "typical Swiss" looks like this? People in industrial countries look the same worldwide, they wear suits and cram themselves into suburban trains. "Demographics" images should point out the peculiar, not the boringly average. I think people protest "we are not savages" rather too much -- it makes them look provincial. Nobody even remotely suggests the average Indian lives in tribal societies. The point is merely that India has a precious store of ethnic diversity not yet completely wiped out by industrialisation and globalisation."  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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


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

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


 * I do not think that the religion graph placed earlier by Nikkul should be placed in the "Demographics" section because its information does not match with the text. I think the best option would the population map that I placed earlier but which was removed. Anyways, before we start arguing and potentially fighting about the replacement, let us first decide (once more, as I hear) if people here want to retain or remove the image. So, I request everybody here to cast their votes before trying to find a replacement. Thank you. <span style="background-color:#FFBF00;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:2px solid#120A8F;text-align:center;color:#7BA05B;"><span style="background-color:#FFBF00;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:2px solid#120A8F;text-align:center;color:#7BA05B;">Universe=atom •Talk•Contributions• 14:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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


 * OK. Considering that the word demographics means "the statistical data of a population" 1, I have found a perfect image for the section (which was, BTW, put there previously by me but was reverted). It is the image on the right, or wherever it happens to be on your monitor.




 * This image represents the basic idea, or theme, of the section, the ENTIRE population. It gives a basic overview of the entire section, as that is what the section is supposed to be based upon (the literacy rate, education rate, etc. are all based on the population of a country). Thank you. <span style="background-color:#FFBF00;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:2px solid#120A8F;text-align:center;color:#7BA05B;"><span style="background-color:#FFBF00;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:2px solid#120A8F;text-align:center;color:#7BA05B;">Universe=atom •Talk•Contributions• 17:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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


 * So, are you saying that we should all vote on keep or remove before deciding on a replacement. If so, why is not anyone voting? <span style="background-color:#FFBF00;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:2px solid#120A8F;text-align:center;color:#7BA05B;"><span style="background-color:#FFBF00;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:2px solid#120A8F;text-align:center;color:#7BA05B;">Universe=atom •Talk•Contributions• 13:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Universe=atom, the reason no regular editor is voting or participating in this rehash-of-a-debate is because this issue has already been discussed to death and the consensus established that the Apatani image should be retained unless a clearly superior image has been found/created. See the link that F&F provided above and note the discussion about what type of replacement image would be preferable. Also read WP:Consensus, from which I quote: A good sign that you have not demonstrated a change in consensus, so much as a change in the people showing up, is if few or none of the people involved in the previous discussion show up for the new one. Seriously do you believe that repeatedly discussing the Apatani image is the most productive use of our precious time on wikipedia ? In contrast, please see the amazing effort User:Fowler&fowler is investing nowadays in improving the Indian mathematics article. Hope we all can emulate that! Regards. Abecedare 16:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

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


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

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

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

Replace

Support:-
 * 1) Nikkul 16:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sarvagnya 18:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) <span style="background-color:#FFBF00;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:2px solid#120A8F;text-align:center;color:#7BA05B;"><span style="background-color:#FFBF00;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:2px solid#120A8F;text-align:center;color:#7BA05B;">Universe=atom  •Talk•Contributions• 14:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Chanakyathegreat 09:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Support:-

Keep but add another along with it

Support:- This is stupid! =Nichalp  «Talk»=  14:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Knowledge  Hegemony  15:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Vishnuchakra 20:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Frankly speaking I have no problem with the Apatani tribal lady image. A free image of this quality like the Apatani one is hard to get. We all should feel fortunate. It alone gives an incomplete outlook. But now lets drop the issue(came to this conclusion seeing the archives).

Still, I feel we should be more open to improvements to this already very good article. As far as the text is concerned its excellent. But if you compare the pictures to that of Australia, Germany, Japan and Pakistan this article lacks images. Not a single picture of any landscape in a natural resource rich country as India.
 * There is not a single picture of the Himalayas.
 * India being an agricultural nation we could have a pic of tea-garden(since its the largest producer of tea) or some paddy field of farmers tilling a field or some farmers sowing rice
 * Not a pic of any river, lake, waterfall.
 * Picture in culture depicting popularity of Cricket.
 * Picture to depict Bollywood or any Indian film industry. When we all know films play a major role in our culture!
 * Atleast one of these could be included.
 * -- Knowledge Hegemony  16:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

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


 * Who cares if it is a featured picture or not? We need pictures, and the topic, not the merits, of a picture should be looked at. <span style="background-color:#FFBF00;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:2px solid#120A8F;text-align:center;color:#7BA05B;"><span style="background-color:#FFBF00;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:2px solid#120A8F;text-align:center;color:#7BA05B;">Universe=atom •Talk•Contributions• 17:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see the archives of past discussions. That should answer why. Regards, =Nichalp   «Talk»=  14:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Nichalp, do not call our efforts stupid. They are completely relevant. The term Demographics certainly does not mean "characteristics of .00006 percent of a population" Also, there is no regional balance unless you consider a hut to represent the culture of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala and Tamil Nadu. Also, please read the discussion about attachment to featured images.
 * Also, an image has to relate to the text. There is no mention of tribes in the demographics section The India article summerizes. The demographic section summerizes the demographics of India. The demographics image should also summerize the dems of India. The Apatani image is too specific Nikkul 21:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Really Nikkul, how many polls does it take make this effort stupid? The last time you were banned for bringing on sockpuppets and accusing me of harassment. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  07:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

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


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


 * As for the replacement, I feel the demographics map that was suggested recently would be a more relevant pic for the section and the Apatani pic needs to be replaced. Sarvagnya 03:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There is nothing funny about having a featured picture. It represents a level quality that we can certainly do with. Have you even read my proposals in a previous talk page archive on why I mentioned it? Please do before accusing me of what not. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  07:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sometimes, perfectly good pictures can not be featured because they are a tad bit smaller than the required resolution. This is why they dont get featured status. But does that mean that they are any less good?? Not at all. I think we're all on the same page except user:nichalp Nikkul 14:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by a tad smaller? Do you know what a featured picture is? Please try and get some featured. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  15:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Nichalp: A reading of the archives of a talk page is not needed to judge common sense. It is not at all important whether a picture is featured or not. We have to look at how it relates to the text and what it actually is. For example, a picture of a piece of crap can be featured. Does that mean that we should include it in the "Culture" section just because all Indians, sooner or later, have to excrete waste products? <span style="background-color:#FFBF00;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:2px solid#120A8F;text-align:center;color:#7BA05B;"><span style="background-color:#FFBF00;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:2px solid#120A8F;text-align:center;color:#7BA05B;">Universe=atom •Talk•Contributions• 18:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. Featured pictures cut down subjectivity. Please let me know if you read the recent archives first. If not, I won't waste my time typing the same stuff again. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  15:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Nichalp: By your comment "Yes it is," do you mean yes to the comment on the featured crap or yes to the comment of the reading of the talk archives? <span style="background-color:#FFBF00;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:2px solid#120A8F;text-align:center;color:#7BA05B;"><span style="background-color:#FFBF00;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:2px solid#120A8F;text-align:center;color:#7BA05B;">Universe=atom •Talk•Contributions• 17:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW, Nichalp: Yes, I just read the archive that you were probably talking about. There, you point out why a picture should be featured to be on this article, which is a comment on which I partially agree and partially disagree. However, in the same comment, you also put that the pictures should be regionally balanced and should relate to the topic. This comment, which is you own, contradicts your own favorite picture (Apatani). Talk about wasting time on typing! <span style="background-color:#FFBF00;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:2px solid#120A8F;text-align:center;color:#7BA05B;"><span style="background-color:#FFBF00;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:2px solid#120A8F;text-align:center;color:#7BA05B;">Universe=atom •Talk•Contributions• 17:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Aptani was never my favourite image. I only defended it's featured status and regional balance to the hilt. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  18:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No please don't. You, Nikkul and Sarvagyna have already done that a few times on this page.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * F&F, can you please specify what exactly you are talking about? <span style="background-color:#FFBF00;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:2px solid#120A8F;text-align:center;color:#7BA05B;"><span style="background-color:#FFBF00;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:2px solid#120A8F;text-align:center;color:#7BA05B;">Universe=atom •Talk•Contributions• 20:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Spoken article?
While the article claims to have a spoken version, all I can hear is the Indian national anthem playing. Did somebody replace the original recording?--Seraphiel 10:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, is there something I am missing? Did I play the wrong file?--Seraphiel 06:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's anything wrong. Did you play the right file? Image:India.ogg? =Nichalp   «Talk»=  07:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I followed this link from the article itself. And it seems to be playing the same file that you just linked to. I tried again, and all I can hear is a rendering of the Indian national anthem with some extra stuff added. No voice recording at all.--Seraphiel 16:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've removed the spoken article link from the article now.--Seraphiel 10:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess you are playing the wrong file. I can hear a spoken article. --(Sumanth|Talk) 10:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * How can that be? Did you try the link I pasted above?--Seraphiel 10:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I downloaded the file and played it in Windows media player (you need install a plugin for that).--(Sumanth|Talk) 10:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What difference does it make if I stream the file (using Wikipedia's built-in Java based player) or download and play it? It should give the same output, right? Why is it that I hear the national anthem playing?--Seraphiel 10:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Streaming doesn't seem to work for me. It shows some error and doesn't play the file at all. Someone else needs to check this--(Sumanth|Talk) 10:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Demographics Vote Results
From the vote taken a few weeks ago, here are the results:

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

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

It's certainly not as black and white as you put it. Please read the comments carefully before assuming that people voted in entiretly for removing/keeping. =Nichalp  «Talk»=  07:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No. Nikkul was closer.  Though, it certainly wasnt as black and white Fowler had counted it last time around. Sarvagnya 09:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The results of the previous vote were as follows -

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

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

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

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

That would bring the tally to,
 * Remove - 15 17
 * Keep - 10 9

Unless there are any objections in the next few days, I will replace the existing Apatani pic with the pic above. Sarvagnya 08:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Chanakyathegreat has just voted in favour of replacing the pic. I have updated the scores.  Sarvagnya 09:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

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


 * I'm not too keen on the map of India. It seems, well, sterile.  I'd rather, as I said in the last debate, have two contrasting pictures of Indian people. BovineBeast 13:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, even my views match Bovine's. That's why I voted for Keep but add another pic too. -- Knowledge Hegemony  14:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Nichalp will argue that this will disturb the regional diversity...but there is none unless a hut represents the culture of AP, TN, Kerala, and Karnataka. Also, if we want regional balance, we can change another image in another section and make it an image from the north east. There is no condition that only the demographics image must be from the north east to preserve any sort of regional balance that apparently exists.Nikkul 14:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I totally support the addition of the Population Density map and the replacement of the Apatani image with it. Nikkul 14:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, the population density map is a good replacement because it shows the demographics of all of India, instead of just a small corner. Also, the votes show that most people are in favor of replacing it. So, the times are just right to do so. BTW, does anybody think that it is good enough to be nominated for Featured status? <span style="background-color:#FFBF00;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:2px solid#120A8F;text-align:center;color:#7BA05B;"><span style="background-color:#FFBF00;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:2px solid#120A8F;text-align:center;color:#7BA05B;">Universe=atom •Talk•Contributions• 16:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * KH - I am afraid, adding an extra pic is not an option here. Grave concerns have been expressed over article size and 'unnecessary bloat' and it is feared that adding any more content/pics to the article will take it past the tipping point and the article may self destruct.  Sorry.  If you want an extra pic, start a new discussion about it and in my humble opinion, such a discussion may take the good part of the next six months to bear fruit.  There are far too many filibusters around here.  Thanks.  Sarvagnya 18:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. Some people just think that they own this page and that this page is their property. So, according to me, such a discussion will never get anywhere. <span style="background-color:#FFBF00;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:2px solid#120A8F;text-align:center;color:#7BA05B;"><span style="background-color:#FFBF00;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:2px solid#120A8F;text-align:center;color:#7BA05B;">Universe=atom •Talk•Contributions• 18:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * BTW, I am about to replace the Apatani image with the population density map due to the recent vote. If you have any objections, speak now or hold your peace forever. <span style="background-color:#FFBF00;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:2px solid#120A8F;text-align:center;color:#7BA05B;"><span style="background-color:#FFBF00;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:2px solid#120A8F;text-align:center;color:#7BA05B;">Universe=atom •Talk•Contributions• 18:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! MUBARAK HO! THE PROBABLY-LONGEST-NEGOTIATIONS IN THE WORLD HAS BEEN PEACEFULLY RESOLVED AFTER LONG MONTHS OF DISCUSSIONS! CONGRATULATIONS TO EVERYONE HERE! <span style="background-color:#FFBF00;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:2px solid#120A8F;text-align:center;color:#7BA05B;"><span style="background-color:#FFBF00;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:2px solid#120A8F;text-align:center;color:#7BA05B;">Universe=atom •Talk•Contributions• 20:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * :) Sarvagnya 21:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank god. Nikkul 01:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hallelujah! I never knew if this would happen. Thanks all.  The Behnam 18:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Delhi is a state since long
I am surprised to see Delhi as 'Union Teritory' under the section 'Administrative divisions'

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

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

I hope it gets corrected soon.

Thanks,

Nitin

nitinoct@yahoo.com

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


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


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


 * the States separately
 * the Union Territories separately and
 * Delhi separately as National Capital Territory(NCT).
 * It does not consider NCT a part of Union Territories.

-- Knowledge Hegemony  15:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It's an error on their part. =Nichalp  «Talk»=  17:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As per Part I, Article 1 of the Constitution of India, the sudivisions can only be 1. States 2. Union Territories 3. Acquired territories
 * As per Part I, Article 2, the Parliament may admit new states when it sees fit.


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

-- Knowledge Hegemony  06:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't be a bad idea to insert a note about the official status of Delhi.

-- Knowledge Hegemony  14:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Constitutional status of Delhi- Stating Delhi a Union Territory from WikiSource Knowledge Hegemony  15:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Pics from the NE
Has anyone thought of getting pictures from NE India featured? I'm sure our resident scout Nikkul can get some good ones. =Nichalp  «Talk»=  15:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Why only the NE?? Knowledge Hegemony  06:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

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

I think we should first think about getting pictures from NE. Then we can get them featured (which is not a requirement). I think we should replace the Ajanta caves pic with one from the NE to create regional balance since BSE already represents central india. Nikkul 11:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What's the harm in gunning for featured status? =Nichalp   «Talk»=  16:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Nikkul, BSE (Bombay Stock Exchange) is in Western India.-- Knowledge Hegemony  06:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

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


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

I know that all these images relate to the Himalayas, but that is what Northeast India is famous for. Also, please add more images relating to NE India if you find more good ones. Thank you. <span style="background-color:#FFBF00;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:2px solid#120A8F;text-align:center;color:#7BA05B;"><span style="background-color:#FFBF00;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:2px solid#120A8F;text-align:center;color:#7BA05B;">Universe=atom •Talk•Contributions• 15:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * None of the above images are from NE India, geographically speaking. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  11:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

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

TODA HUT
Problems with the Toda Hut Image:


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

The reason why the Toda image is there is because no other picture represents South India. Unfortunately, the Toda image does not represent the culture of South India. We should change the Toda hut image and replace it with an image that represents more of South Indian culture. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nikkul (talk • contribs). at 11:51, 30 May 2007.
 * I do not see why it occurred to you that it should represent southern India at all. It is a fine picture representing a little known culture in India. But I do have an apprehension about the image. I cant get a perspective on its size. The door seems too small to let humans inside. Can someone clarify?--Seraphiel 16:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess it shows the back side of the hut.--(Sumanth|Talk) 11:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, personally, I do not have any affinity to regional balance. But one of our "fine" administrators insists that regional balance be conserved. Because of this, it is said that the Toda image represents South India since no other image is from South India. But the problem is that the Toda image doesnt represent Indian culture since most Indians dont wake up ina Toda hut every morning. Nikkul 02:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If anyone is interested in what official guidelines have to say about these matters, it should be noted that WP:Images says nothing about the supposed 'need for regional balance.' The Behnam 06:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * To an extent, it is a matter of common sense to have the main zones of the country represented. Also their are relevant Wikipedia policies on such matters that tend to give examples of East versus West but the logic applies.  Fact of the matter is that lot of "mainstream" Indians cannot even relate to parts of country like North East.  At a time when those parts of the country are facing rebellions, it would certainly be best to underscore them being an integral part of India by representing them in the article or so I would think? --Blacksun 11:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You will find little support for your cause by being sarcastic and condescending towards a member of as high a caliber such as Nichalp. He IS a fine administrator and has certainly contributed more than most of us.  Toodles.  --Blacksun 11:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't push my luck if I were you Nikkul for fear that I might awaken some sleeping giants. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  11:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * PS To Seraphiel, The is indeed designed to be small to keep wild animals out, so says the Toda people page, which also gives the width of the door to be 3 feet. I agree with you that in this particular image the door seems to be only about a foot or foot and a half wide (upon comparing it with the adjacent patch of grass).  It could be that the Toda doors are a foot and a half wide and people have to squeeze through, or that this particular hut is a "demo" hut and therefore smaller in size than a functional one.  But, yes, the caption should say something about the door.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


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

BTW- a little off this topic, I replaced the BSE pic with another(which is without wires hanging and the satellite). The new pic is taken from a different angle hiding the ugly satellite. worth mentioning both pics were taken by Nichalp Knowledge  Hegemony  16:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Nikkul, your proposals are as usual ridiculous and baseless. If as you say the Todas are not part of India culture, then they do not deserve to be on this page. So what are they? Aliens? Why are you on a witchhunt to purge images from rural India? =Nichalp   «Talk»=  12:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As Behnam, pointed out there is no wiki rule which says regional balance has to be maintained. Whether Australia article has pictures for North, South, East, West, Northwest Australia?. Whether United States article has pictures for all regions?. Those articles has pictures which represent the country as a whole. Tajmahal/BSE Building/Parliament has to be kept because it represents India not because it represents north or west. Let us not allocate regionwise Quota. Toda Hut is beautiful picture, I understand its artistic value... but it was here for such a long time.... Let it be replaced by another beautiful picture. Nikkul, I suggest you to put forward your points instead of passing sarcastic comments against people who contributed more for this project.--Indianstar 14:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The issue is not if the image represents N,S,E,W but having all regions of India adequately balanced while still being something very unique to "India". There may be no official rule about regional balance for images, but there is certainly a project WikiProject Countering systemic bias which deals with this for the article scope. Nikkul could very well read the project details. I still reiterate with my proposal that images should be featured, regionally balanced and pertinent. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  14:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Images should be pertinent and featured and I have no adversity towards rural images as long as they represent most of the rural areas. What I do not like is having images of very very very small groups representing a culture of a huge country. '''Say, hypothetically, there are a 100 people in India who dance around a fire and live in holes in the ground. They eat leaves for lunch and never wear clothes. Could we put an image of them dancing around a fire semi-naked as an image representing the culture of India?''' If we follow Nichalp's logic, They might be part of Indian culture (since they are Indian) and yes, they do deserve to be on Wiki India... but then dont Keralites, Maharastrians, Todas, Apatanis, Tamil Nadu people, Assamese, Kashmiri's, also deserve to be on the page? Who's going to decide which group deserves to be on the page? Nikkul 17:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You misread the plot Nikkul. Nobody is stating that Keralites, Maharashtrians et al shouldn't be in culture. Neither have I defended any single image. Instead I've consistently maintained that the images should be featured, pertinent, and should be regionally balanced across the page. If you find a suitable image from South India which is a) featured b) apposite in the culture section, I'm sure no one is going to stop you from repacing the Toda hut. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  18:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Nichalp, an image must not have to be featured in order to be on this page. Yes, it would be a plus, but it should not be a requirement. Also, a Toda hut is not apposite in the culture section since there is no mention of housing in that section. Nikkul 23:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not about housing (as has been repeatedly stated on this page before), but rather about folk art, which is inextricably a part of culture. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Nikkul, why do you have this morbid fear of getting a good picture featured? =Nichalp   «Talk»=  06:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This page from Frontline magazine says Todas mostly live in modern bungalows.(Not even in regular huts). There are hardly very few Toda huts available. Many information about Todas are myths. They never lived near forest so there is no need for door design to prevent wild animals. Door in the picture definitely shows not only wild animals even human beings cannot enter inside it. Toda people article itself is marked as POV for having copied from old version of Britanicca.(Information is Based on 1911 state of Toda's).
 * Today Todas don't follow tribal lifestyle. There are so many tribals still living in India managing their tribal lifestyle. United states has lakhs of Amish population some of them don't use electricity or modern technology in any form. Most of the countries have aboriginal or tribal population. But when we talk about culture for country, Culture of majority followers is normally discussed. So I am not convinced about arguments for retaining Toda Hut Picture to maintain regional balance for south India.--Indianstar 01:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Section break


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

Few words to put the pic in context - It is easily one of the finest(if not the finest) palaces anywhere in India and also belongs to the Wodeyars who ruled from this palace until independence and the last king Sri Jayachamarajendra Wodeyar(who I believe continued as the Governer of the modern Indian state of Mysore/Karnataka) even retained the palace until 1974. That makes this palace and the Wodeyar dynasty probably one of the last(may even be the last) of the princely states to fold. The architect of this palace was Sir Henry Irwin who also is the hand behind several such structures of exceeding grandeur across India. This palace patronised arts and artists from across South India and several legendary artists from across South India found patronage at this palace. The biggest names in Indian(not just South Indian) music and dance continue to perform at this palace every year during the Mysore Dasara celebrations. The architecture of this palace is a supreme example of the Indo-Saracenic style which in some ways is a fusion of Indian, colonial/European and Islamic styles. If somebody doesnt like this particular pic, I am sure other pics of the palace arent difficult to find Sarvagnya 05:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If you say it is the finest, please put it up on WP:FPC. Thanks! =Nichalp   «Talk»=  06:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * For starters, I didnt say the pic was one of the finest(it may well be going by reader comments on flickr); that comment was about the palace itself. And I certainly dont think its an exaggeration to call that palace one of the finest in India.  Anyway, would you please stop harping on "Featured Pic".  If I feel like putting it on FPC, I will.  Or if you want to put it up on FPC, feel free to do so.  In any case, FPC is besides the point here.  If you have any comments about what I am proposing, please reply.  If you want to make it a wikipedia policy that articles or featured articles or the India article specifically should have only featured pics, take your suggestion to the Village Pump.  Keep it out of the discussions here because it has nothing to do with what we are discussing.  Thanks.  Sarvagnya 07:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I really don't have to post it on the Village Pump or anywhere. Jimbo has clearly stated that he wishes to see quality over quantity Toward a better Wikipedia. Given the present circumstances, I can't see why we can't afford to be choosy over the quality of images on this page. Why are you shying away from getting images featured? Are you afraid that it will fail? =Nichalp   «Talk»=  11:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * IMO, this image of Mysore Palace is not best for "culture" section. The section already has the image of Taj mahal, the most well-known architectural creation in India. No need to place two such architectural images in the section. Well, Toda hut is also an architectural image, but belongs to a different style - Indian vernacular architecture, rather than palacial or monumental architecture.
 * Since there are so much debate over the Toda hut image in Culture section, we can try to find the image of a festival. However, this also has some problems. Which festival to find? Diwali?--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As I have argued at length before, I believe that the Toda Hut-Taj Mahal picture combination is an excellent choice for the culture section of the article, since the two images together depict the cultural diversity of India, which perhaps is its defining characteristics. Of course we can replace the image by one depicting, say, an Indian festival, Indian textile or Indian cuisine (as has been proposed earlier) - but how will that be of greater encyclopedic value ? Even assuming that the chosen image is of equal aesthetic quality, at best, we will be depicting two random examples of Indian cultural artifacts, instead of the larger editorial point implicit in the currently image choice.
 * Please note that the point I raise above is distinct from the ones raised earlier regarding Featured Images and regional balance, and I would like to see it addressed on the talk page before there is a rush to replace the image(s). Finally, I would like to point out that repeatedly raising objections to the Apatani/Toda Hut image after failing to find support for their replacement on earlier attempts, smacks of "Asking the other parent" and is tiresome and disruptive in my opinion. Abecedare 08:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Good. Now since we have somebody talking about something other than "featured pic" nonsense, let me add.  The reason I've proposed the Mysore palace pic, is because, apart from its hallowed place in history and culture, it is a fine and rare example of something that blends Hindu, Muslim and European styles.  That is the main line of my reasoning.  And if anybody didnt notice, wasnt even proposing replacing the Toda pic.  I was only talking of adding this pic to the article.  Whether such an addition has to be at the expense of another pic or whether it shouldnt be added at all, I leave to the consensus here.  Sarvagnya 08:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I tested replacing the Taj Mahal picture by the Mysore Palace image on the main page, but while the image itself is good its, approx. 2:1 aspect ratio makes it look relatively tiny compared to other pictures on the page. What do others think ?
 * Also, irrespective of whether we decide to use the Mysore Palace image on this page, it would be a good idea to try to get this picture featured. I would nominate it myself, but I am currently unfamiliar with the Featured Image norms, and may take some time to read up on the requirements and process. Abecedare 09:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Replace the Taj Mahal pic with Mysore palace? You guys must be joking!! The Taj pic will have to stay. If you want to replace a pic replace some other but not the Taj Mahal. Knowledge  Hegemony  09:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No. I didnt suggest removing the Taj pic(though I personally dont like the cliched pic all that much).  Nor do I think Abecedare proposes that.  I think he just replaced the Taj pic only for 'testing' out the palace pic.  Sarvagnya 10:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Its cliched for a simple reason. Knowledge Hegemony  11:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


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

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


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

If that is true (that the Toda image has been around for a long time), then why don't we replace it with the Sari image (which is also a featured image) and suits the contents of the culture section? The brocade is a Indo-Islamic art form and the sari is mentioned in apparel. We can then nominate other appropriate images for FP consideration (including the Mysore Palace). As I had mentioned in Archive 24, there are two pictures on flicker.com that I like. Both pictures were taken by a gentleman called Captain Suresh, who seems to be a good photographer. The first one has a group of boys playing cricket on the sandy river bank with the Taj Mahal as a backdrop (see here). (It has the advantage that it combines sport and architecture, both of relevance to the culture section.) The other, my personal favorite, has some women and girls resting and seeking shelter from the mid-day sun, again with the Taj gleaming the background (see here). The second picture too combines architecture with apparel (sari and salwar kameez), both themes of the culture section.) What do people think of these pictures? If there is enthusiasm, we could go to the next step.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


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

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


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


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


 * I think that of the two images in the "Culture" section, perhaps the Taj one could be replaced. Of the five replacements proposed here - Mysore Palace, Boys & Cricket with Taj, Ladies with Taj, Sari Fabric, and Lotus temple - the best could be the Mysore Palace. The reason behind this is that it is an excellent example of Indian architecture (BTW, so is the Taj, but there is one problem with it: On every single website relating to India that you visit, the same image comes up over and over again, and it is automatically presumed with India. I think that something unusual yet equally relevant should be put here). Also, it has a good resolution, prodigious view, and shows the immense international diversity of Indian architecture. (BTW, we could certainly try to get it to FP status, although that is totally not a requirement, but it would be a bonus. However, whether it passes or fails as an FP candidate should not influence our decision to accept or reject the image). If this replacement is not liked, my alternative would be to replace the Toda Hut image with the Sari fabric image, partially because of its FP status (which is not a requirement but certainly a bonus), because of its high relevency to the text, and because of the beauty of the picture itself. Regards. <span style="background-color:#FFBF00;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:2px solid#120A8F;text-align:center;color:#7BA05B;"><span style="background-color:#FFBF00;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:2px solid#120A8F;text-align:center;color:#7BA05B;">Universe=atom  •Talk•Contributions• 16:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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


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


 * I have nominated Mysore Palace for Featured status. Please come and express your support (or opposition) on WP:FPC. Thank you. <span style="background-color:#FFBF00;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:2px solid#120A8F;text-align:center;color:#7BA05B;"><span style="background-color:#FFBF00;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:2px solid#120A8F;text-align:center;color:#7BA05B;">Universe=atom •Talk•Contributions• 17:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

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



The Mysore palace is not only a fine example of Hindu, Muslim and Gothic styles but it is also a center of fine arts. Artists ranging from Parveen Sultana to Bhimsen Joshi to MS Subbalakshmi, from Birju Maharaj to Padma Subramanyam, from Pt Vishwa Mohan Bhat to Mandolin Srinivas to Zakir Hussain all perform at this venue regularly. Artists from across India would kill to get a chance to perform at this place. Fowler's ignorance clearly shows when he compares this to the Victoria Terminus. VT may very well be an architectural wonder, but I cant see how a railway station can be a cultural icon on the same plane as the Mysore palace. I also cant think of many places in India that can boast of the history and grandeur and that can also boast of playing host to such diverse arts and artists as the Mysore palace. This palace keeps a tradition of the Vijayanagara empire alive to this day by organising the 'world famous' Mysore Dasara and the Jumbo Savari for which millions of tourists throng to Mysore every year. Mysore Dasara incidentally is the state festival of Karnataka apart from the fact that Dasara is also big in Bengal(East) and Gujarat(west). Millions of tourists also come to just see the palace. I neither can think of any Parveen Sultana or Bade Ghulam Ali Khan singing on the VT platforms nor can I think of millions of tourists thronging to VT just to "see" it. The credentials of the Mysore palace as a cultural icon is second to none. Sarvagnya 19:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with Behnam and Sarvagyna. Toda's population is 1100 and most of them live in modern bungalows like urban people. They wear modern dresses. Total no of Toda huts available in Nilgiri is in few dozens.(As of 2000). Toda hut is not the right example to represent India's culture. Taj Mahal can be moved to History section. Mysore palace can be put in culture section. Only one picture is sufficient for Culture section. Alternatively keep only Tajmahal picture in culture section --Indianstar 21:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


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


 * Reply to The Behnam: It is well-known fact that featured status is not a requirement in featured articles and the relevency should be given priority. However, feature status of a picture would be a huge bonus to selection because it represents clear analysis by others and the approval of others in thinking it to be one of the best images on Wikipedia. Also, I fully agree with Sarvagnya in that the Mysore Palace is one of the best examples of Indian culture (at least in the Architecture area). If the Mysore image is put in the "Culture" section, the Taj image would have to be removed, since two images of architecture in one section would look awkward. That would leave the Toda Hut hanging on debate. Although I am not a big fan of that image, we would have to remember that it is the cultural diversity of India that makes up its culture. In whether to keep or remove it, I am neutral. Also, if the Taj image would be removed, it could not be placed in the entire article, because the "History" section already has two images; anywhere else in the article would not at all be relevent with the Taj. Also, if you like the Mysore Palace image, please do not forget to express your support on WP:FPC, even if you like it but do not want it to be in this article. Thank you. <span style="background-color:#FFBF00;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:2px solid#120A8F;text-align:center;color:#7BA05B;"><span style="background-color:#FFBF00;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:2px solid#120A8F;text-align:center;color:#7BA05B;">Universe=atom •Talk•Contributions• 16:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


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

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


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

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

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


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

Toda hut or a temple?
This particular image is titled Toda Temple. It looks exactly like the Toda hut image we have! Knowledge Hegemony  14:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Toda temples are constructed in a circular pit lined with stones and are quite similar in appearance and construction to Toda huts from Toda_people. The picture of a temple is also given. But interestingly, The Hindu calls an entirely different structure as a Toda temple. See here.--Seraphiel 11:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

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

This talk page is probably not the correct place to inform about the FARCs. However, this being one of the most-watched India-related talk pages, I'm advertising here. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Finally..a Wikipedian with some sense. I'm pretty new here and was coming to think that all people do on Wikipedia, is fight over images.--Seraphiel 11:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * To add to the list, economy of India (another featured article) has a message requesting it to be updated.--Seraphiel 11:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Economy of India was FARCed in August 2006. It was greatly improved and provided with citations then. It may need statistical updates though.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Replacing Toda Image
We should replace the Toda Hut Image With One of the Pictures Below Because:
 * There is no mention of housing in the culture section at all
 * Toda Image does not represent the culture of Karnataka, Andra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, and Kerala, but it is the representative image from South India
 * Toda Image does not represent the culture of all of India
 * Toda's apparently live in modern homes nowadays

Please add images that could replace the Toda Hut image only

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


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


 * Don't know what the heck you're trying to pull dude, but you're getting to be tiring, especially when you start new discussions (e.g. Toda) when there's already one going on upstairs.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Lets's just have a vote to bring about a consensus as discussions are leading nowhere. Pages and pages are being filled with same points and stances. Its about time we start a poll on this issue.-- Knowledge Hegemony  15:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Im not trying to pull anything. And the reason this discussion was started was to try to get images for the toda hut replacement. I started a new one since the discussion upstairs shifted to the Taj image and then to the history section. Please feel free to insert any image you would like to replace with the Toda hut one. Thanks. Nikkul 01:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * are we going to remove the Taj Mahal image because 99.99999% of Indians are cremated or interred in graves significantly less spectacular? The images are not intended to illustrate the average but the peculiar, and India's tribal cultures are extremely valuable in terms of worldwide cultural diversity. Of course your average Indian lives in a city and wears a tie. Along the lines of your argument, all country articles will have to be illustrated with depressing images of urban commuter crowds. dab (𒁳) 11:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


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


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


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


 * Aside: I have reason to believe that the IP is a sock/meatpuppet of . I don't propose to take any further actions at the moment, but I hope such disruptive activities will stop. Abecedare 22:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * whatever -- you see, the same sort of argument might be made on any picture on any country article. It just so happens that Talk:India gets continuous obsessive haggling over images, while the attitude is generally relaxed on other articles. You have to accept that images can only convey so much, and will include arbitrary choices no matter what. If we're really going to be all that rigirous, the only solution will be to remove all images from this article (which is obviously not what I would endorse). dab (𒁳) 07:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


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

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


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

Article History of India
The article History of India is a candidate for Article Creation and Improvement Drive (shortened to WP:ACID). However, just a day or two ago, it became overdue. However, we can still save it by voting for it ASAP. Please excuse my posting of this non-India-article-related comment. However, I knew that this talk page was the one most watched by a group of Indians who might want to get India-related articles featured. If you don't want the article to be cut from the list due to being overdue, please go to the page (WP:ACID) and vote ASAP. Thank you very much. <span style="background-color:#FFBF00;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:2px solid#120A8F;text-align:center;color:#7BA05B;"><span style="background-color:#FFBF00;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:2px solid#120A8F;text-align:center;color:#7BA05B;">Universe=atom •Talk•Contributions• 14:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * History of India is also the India collaboration of the week for the week that started on 10 June 2007. Please help improve it. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Its not a justice if this article remains without any temple pic.
We are representing TODA with few thousands huts as India culture. Taj is excellent...why Mysore Palace? Mughal contribution is not the only contribution. Life of the masses in India revolves around temples. There are many South Indian and North Indian temples, we now need picture of temple to represent ancient and modern culture of millions of masses. Secularism on this article is welcomed, But pseudo-secularism is bad! This article should remain secular but definately not pseudo-secular. Holy Ganga talk 22:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


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

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

Wonders of the world
The Taj Mahal isn't one of the seven "wonder of the world" as is claimed in the caption of the pic. It didn't even exist when this list was made. It is however one of the "touristic wonders".
 * I have changed it. Thanks for pointing that out. Universe=atom  Talk•Contributions 19:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's all vote for the Taj on the Seven New Wonders of The World here Nikkul 01:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I did, from net and cell phone too :) sorry to comment here, I know this not forum. sorry again :)Kittu 07:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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


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


 * Accoridng to Verifiability, "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged". I don't think India's currency being a rupee falls in that category by a long shot, and note that the fact is easily verified through the "General References" listed in the External Links section. I think excessive footnoting not only degrades the readability of the article, but also dilutes the truly significant information and references. For example we could add a reference for India "borders Pakistan to the west" but that would not really being doing a service to the reader; rather it would bury the important footnote about the Government of India considering Afghanistan to be a bordering country.
 * Also, I don't think "tribe in Africa" is the standard followed by wikipedia; if it was we would need to reference each phrase of the article - after all we can speculate that there may be some person in the world who will perhaps dispute almost any statement in the article (to pick a random examples: Demonym form of India in Indian). In general I support any efforts to add high-quality citations to an article, but I don't believe we should leave common sense behind in this effort. Abecedare 19:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Abecedare that 'Rupee' doesn't need a reference since clicking on its internal link provides enough info. Rather the HISTORY section requires some references regarding the time periods mentioned. Numbers, dates, special features and potentially 'too- good-to-be real' statements should be referenced.-- Knowledge Hegemony  13:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * (Addition to my comment above) The lead paragraph does not require references. Thus, I am not amused to see references being added about India being second most populated and seventh largest when 'second most populated' and 'seventh largest' have been internally linked. Too much referencing looks as if we are trying to justify 'controversial' claims. Hence am removing these two references.-- Knowledge  Hegemony  14:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not that we are trying to justify claims. The reason for why I put the refs there is that if there are already references in the body for India's status (in this case: seventh largest country and second most populous), why not just copy them into the lead. After all, when measuring an article's length, the references, external links, pictures, and charts should not be counted. Only the prose (the text) should be counted. So, while adding more refs, the article can never get too long, because the refs dont count. It would only make the article better. Also, I still support putting the ref. for the Rupee there. (BTW, aside, to Ragib: have changed signature) Universe=atom  Talk•Contributions 15:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

U=a, I think you might not be allowed to have an "=" sign in the signature, since it interferes with the output of the Wikicode: and produces:, instead of the usual output. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  02:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * F&F, the way to get over that problem is to type which produces . (I had found this sometime back discussed in some dark wiki corner). Abecedare 03:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Abecedare!  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  08:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

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

67.173.165.210 03:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)Hemendra Bhatia


 * See Talk:India/FAQ. --Ragib 03:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Adding a note in the caption of the map about it not being recognised officially by the Government of India would give a better idea to readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KnowledgeHegemony (talk • contribs) 13:46, 18 June 2007


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

Now, I'm not really sure what the anon was talking about. The locator map looks the same as the Indian-controlled territory as shown in Image:India-states-numbered.svg (which BTW is quite self-explanatory in showing the status quo). As for anything else, see Talk:India/FAQ. --Ragib 01:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * sigh, it appears that the one-billion-populace of India has a particular propensity to be insulted in unison, and in allcaps, at every other turn. dab (𒁳) 08:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hemendra Bathia, You're not lamenting the fact that some portions of the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir are now administered by Pakistan and shown to be such in Wikipedia maps, are you?  If you are upset about this mess, you have the Sikhs under Ranjit Singh of Lahore to blame.  Had they not appointed Gulab Singh to be the Dogra King of Jammu in 1820 (which they were to regret later), he wouldn't have had the cash to buy Kashmir from the British after the Anglo-Sikh war in 1846.  Kashmir would then have been a province of British India (instead of being an artificial princely state cobbled together under an artificial ruler).  The entire state would then (under the terms of the transfer of power) have gone to Pakistan&mdash;the British were clear about that.   Even so, there was wide expectation in August 1947 (even among Indian leaders like Nehru) that the Maharaja (of a state with 77% Muslim majority) would accede to Pakistan.  So, thank your lucky stars that the India map has any portion of J&K to show.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  09:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know about "lucky stars", but whatever the historical reasons, J&K happens to be disputed territory today, hence Wikipedia will show it as disputed territory, and that's really all there is to say about this. dab (𒁳) 10:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rather than projecting your Indophobic lens on history, why dont we just (like dab said) look at the reality that Kashmir is split between three modern nations. What or who we think should own it is irrelevant. Baka man  18:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Proposed new links to the "External Links" section
I am thinking about adding the following links to the "Government" subsection of the "External Links" section. Please give your feedback. Please add more to this proposed list if you can find more. Thank you. Universe=atom Talk•Contributions 16:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The official site of the Parliament of India.
 * The official site of the President of India
 * The official site of the Prime Minister of India
 * The official site of the Vice President of India


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


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

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


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


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

Too many brackets in etymology
Can anybody come up with a solution to decrease the number of brackets.-- Knowledge Hegemony  06:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I took a stab at making it more readable. I also added language templates, which are useful for auto-readers and mentioned the languages Hindi and Urdu explicitly so that a reader who does not know the scripts can understand what those "glyphs" in the brackets stand for. If someone feels stringly about the issue they can change the descriptors to the relevant script Devanagari and Nasta`liq script/ Urdu alphabet instead of the particular languages. Abecedare 06:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Good work.-- Knowledge Hegemony  07:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Correction required
It says India's economy is 4042 trillion in the fact box. --Blacksun 09:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I saw the period as comma. --Blacksun 09:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If India's economy had been 4042 Trillion i.e. per capita GDP of ~$4M, we could have used the technical term bazillion-gazillion instead :-) Abecedare 09:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

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