Talk:India/Archive 3

Military of India
I think its not a bad idea to mention a few lines on the Indian military in the Government section. --User:Deepak gupta 21:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Holidays
I think that the Holidays list be annual and updated anually since the dates change annually. I have also added this holi image. --Electron Kid 02:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Pronounciation of Bharat

 * IPA: bɦəːɾət̪h OR
 * Dictionary: bhα:rət

=Nichalp  «Talk»=  11:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Who is Kumar Kaushik?
Some one just added Kumar Kaushik to the India article. But who is he? I did a google search and have not yet found him. Please add a reference about him. -- Ganeshk 21:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Indian Literature
An anon added that Indian literature is the oldest in the world. I have some doubts about that, so far as I can remember, the Epic of Gilgamesh is from 2100 BC. Indian literature may be "one of the oldest", but it is certainly not "the" oldest. Thanks. --Ragib 21:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Ragib, Ramayan and Mahabharat date from about 10, 000 BCE. India was already a very prosperous nation, alongside Greece and Egypt, who were actually Hindus like Indians (note a similarity in the deities of these three civilizations?) It was actually Max Muller and the others who fit India's entire history in 4000 years.

Northeast India
I think we should find a picture of a tribal dance from either Nagaland, Manipur, or Mizoram. It will show some unexpected diversity in India.


 * I fully agree. I've also asked on a Nagaland site for a free image, but unfortunately as with all India-related sites we get a 'no response'.  =Nichalp   «Talk»=  05:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Culture
"A sizeable number of Hindus (almost entirely in the cities) also eat beef, though not so openly" -  I request you to remove 'almost entirely in the cities' from the above sentence as this is not true. People generally relish Chicken than beaf in cities.Subramanya


 * Fixed. Now removed. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  07:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

How about some description of India's rich religious traditions? It seems strange to me that this is not really mentioned in the article. Why demote India's greatest treasure to some sub-section of the culture article. 12:25, 29 November 2005
 * Its not strange. Its a summary of India's culture. You can add it to Culture of India. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  04:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

History of India link
I removed this link from the top section, but didn't transfer it to external links because I'm not sure how appropriate it is. It seems to be more focused on Pakistan history with some coverage of the surrounding countries. Furthermore, I'd like someone with more knowledge of the region to review it for political agendas. Jasmol 17:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC) 
 * The link was totally unnecessary. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  07:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Fauna and flora of India
This article needs more work. Please feel free to improve on it and add to article. Shyamal 11:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Please direct such issues to Wikipedia talk:Notice board for India-related topics. This page is the India article only. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  12:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I meant, a section on the same could be added to the India article. Shyamal 03:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * A line or two in the geography section can't hurt. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  03:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Bhārat Ganarājya
Why is there a final 'a' in "Ganarājy" and not "Bhārat"? Should it not be "Bhārata Gaṇarājya"? Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 23:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Anyone? :D Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 13:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * My browser is picking up an unrecognized character ṇ between the "Bhārata Ga" and the "arājya". This may have been something done in cutting and pasting. --G. Moore 23:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * No, that's the correct transliteration for 'ण'. You'll probably need to install correct fonts for your browser.  Have you tried Code 2000 or Arial Unicode MS? IE is a bit crappy at selecting the right font, so you might wish to use Firefox to see it.  Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 11:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Satyamev Jayate

 * In the article, Meaning of this statement is written as written as "Truth Alone Triumphs"

I think It should be "Truth only Triumphs" Does anyone object?? - Shilpa Choudhari


 * No, "Truth Alone Triumphs" is correct. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  12:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The Bengal Famine of 1769-1773 and the great Calamity period.
In 1757 the troops of the the British East India Company seized Bengal and plundered the Bengali treasure. The British East India Company monopolized the trade of Bengal. The Bengali craftsmen were inevitably fixed at foreign posts of the Company, where they were obliged to render their labor at minimal compensation while their collective tax burden increased harshly. The result was the famine of 1769 to 1773 in which 10 million Bengalis died, followed almost a century later by the catastrophic Great Calamity period, resulting in part from an extension of similar policies, in which up to 40 million Indians perished from famine amidst the collapse of India's native industries and skilled workforce.

That is true History. Don't rv Ben-Velvel 12:47, 2 December 2005, St.Petersburg (UTC)


 * Did you read this above: All sections are a summary of more detailed articles. If you find any points missing, please add it in the section's main article rather than on this page to keep this page size within reasonable limits. So it will be reverted even if it is true. -- Pamri &bull; Talk 17:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Headers
Is there a good reason why the notes and references sections are at the end of the article instead of before External links, according to Manual of Style (headings)? Just curious. --Jtalledo (talk) 04:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The MoS is just a guideline, mentioning the preferred structure. References are usually at the end of any encyclopedia, so its ok here.  =Nichalp   «Talk»=  07:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Map of India is wrong!
This map incorrectly depicts the section of Pakistan occupied Kashmir (PoK) as being part of Pakistan. It should be noted that The entire Jammu and Kasmir is a sovereign part of India. Please upload a map that correctly depicts the borders.

Thanks.

-From amitroy5 I have to agree with that. The map of India is done from an "American" perspective. We have to remember that America's view is also biased. I think that China and Pakistan occupied Kashmir should be labled as such. Also, the disputed mark for Arunachal Pradesh should be removed because no country other than China sees it that way. Plus, the whole state is under Indian rule. This article is about India, and it should be written from an Indian perspective, not in an American perspective. -From amitroy5


 * No, it's written from a neutral perspective. Mark1 00:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

-From amitroy5 At lesat if we want to be neutral, we should clearly label on the map what is POK and China-occupied Kashmir. Also, for Arunachal Pradesh, that is Chinese perspective, not neutral.


 * No. The Chinese perspective is that AP belongs to China, not that ownership is disputed. That ownership is disputed is a neutral fact. Mark1 00:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Please give any document that Arunachal Pradesh as a "disputed" territory is neutral. At least we shoud write on the map that it is Indian territory and claimed by China, not the other way around.
 * A google search will throw up the relevent results. The map, supported by the footnotes and the appripriate colouring is perfectly fine. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  04:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree that the map of Arunachal Pradesh should be marked as an integral part of India. Because the American perspective also shows the bias. This article is about India. We don't want to give the wrong perception that India took this land illegally from China, like some Chinese want the world to think. In fact, the Chinese claim that the India-China war for China was a defensive war to take back China's lost territories. I see that the views here are split. And I think I will change the map to reflect what is correct. And to show it in an Indian perspective, not an American perspective. Also, on Pakistan's page, Pakistan Occupied Kashmir is NOT marked as disputed. If that's the case, why can't India show what should be her's? Either Pakistan's page should be fixed or the Indian page will change.


 * Please see Neutral point of view. It is not an American perspective. We have to mark all territories which are claimed. China regards AP as its soverign territory. We have to mark the region as Claimed by China, administered by India. It is an easily verifiable fact. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  09:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Please explain why Pakistan isn't marked then. That shows Wikipedia's bias towards India. Like I said, if someone doesn't change that, then I feel India should be marked the way India sees it. Not the way the United States does.


 * Read this. Hopefully it will clear things up for you. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The United States way? How about the way 'the rest of the world' does? The Pakistan article on wiki doesn't even have a proper map, just a grey-green map marking the location of the country in the region. The 'ethnic groups in Pakistan map' shows that the Kashmir border is disputed. --Soman 21:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia is bias in the holocaust too. You mention that it should be neutral. Then it deserve mention about people who deny it. Just to take all sides into account. All of us agree that the holocaust happened, but we are taking a side. We aren't neutral.

Aryan Invasion
-Key parts of Indian history, the Aryan invasion, the invasion of the Persian Empire, and the arrival of Alexander the Great are left out of the history section. The Persian Empire isnt even in the History article. As key periods of India's history, these should be included. Every time I add them, they get erased. I dont care what some fucked up Hindu nationalists think, an Aryan invasion did happen, they did not brind Hinduism with them, they made it with the Dravidians once they settled down. Theres genetics to prove. Give me a break. -a historian
 * Please also see the top of this page


 * Please see Neutral point of view. -- ran (talk) 03:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Please see the footnote at the bottom of the page. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  04:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Agnotheism
What is the percentage of the non-religious of India's population?

--204.60.171.230 17:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Most people in India who do classify themselves as atheists generally put down the religion they were born to during the census. The exact breakup though is not available from the Indian census site. It seems to be classified under "others'. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  04:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

wiping with left
anyone know the significance in wiping their bum with their left hand only?

A Call To Arms
Friends, there is a swiss-german admin of wikipedia called Dbachmann User: Dbachmann who holds deep hatred of Hindus and Indians in his psyche, for reasons best known to him only. He has been vandalizing any good article edits which even mildly favorable to Hindus. In place of that he spreads lies like Bhagvad-Geeta was written after Jesus christ's times and so on.

He was unknown to most Indian wikipedians till he tried to mess up the Rajput article. A cursory glance of his contributions on wikipedia convinced us to report this guy to other admins. He deserves to be banned from wikipedia altogether, and at the very least his admin previledges needs to be revoked. We have filed a complained against him. Here is a link to that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dbachmann_%282%29

All self respecting Indians are called upon to go to this link and sign the petition. A complete list of charges against this user can be found in the petition.

Thanks everybody Sisodia

Your A Call To Arms is chauvinistic, xenophobic and myopic. Most experienced Indian wikipedians know Dab pretty well, and has been helping out on the History of India for a long time now. Dab does provide verifible sources, so I doubt that that it is his personal research. Please familiarise yourself with the wikisystem, and get credible and updated sources before you launch an RFC. Regards =Nichalp   «Talk»=  04:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:MalayalamScript
Template:MalayalamScript has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Templates for deletion. Thank you. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 18:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Please place such requests in the Notice board for India-related topics. This page is for the India article only. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  04:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Question of Map of India for Jammu & Kashir
The state has 2 capitals. Jammu is the winter capital city, Srinagar is the summer. Shouldn't the map reflect this?

-amitroy5

Cultures of the World
Could the people that edited this page improve South Asia's section in the new Cultures of the World page? Someone with good background knowledge could help a lot.

Willing to Compromise on Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh
I'm willing to make a compromise on this. I like how China did its map. We should color code the map. We should write the following examples and label my color coding:

Claimed by India, administered by China; Claimed by India, administered by Pakisatn; Claimed by Pakistan, administered by India; Claimed by China, administered by India


 * That's the most informative and encyclopedic way to do it. -Pgan002 09:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Holidays in India
Noting that sombody wanted to add more information today that seemed relevant to me, but it was quickly reverted, I thought I'd take a look around. What's going on here?
 * The template is used only in this place. That's an inappropriate use, and hits the servers hard for no purpose. Get rid of it.
 * Only 3 holidays are listed. Previous lists had:
 * 4
 * 5
 * All travel sites, including those indexed by the ministry of culture, list at least 5 as national holidays.
 * The ministry of personnel has considerably more!
 * A lot of interesting information about the holidays and festivals has been removed,leaving a bare list.
 * --William Allen Simpson 19:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't speak of the List of Festivals in India, but can comment on the others.


 * New Year is *not* an official holiday. It is a working day in many parts of India.
 * May 1 is celebrated as Maharashtra Day and Gujarat Day in their respective states and takes precedence over ILD.
 * The pdf contains holidays that are applicable to only Central govt employees. Holidays mentioned in the pdf closely match holidays which are declared by individual states. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  07:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Making a list of holidays in India is a dicy issue. It isn't possible to include religious holidays. I have found documents on the India Government site that only contain hlidays for single states, which means that states declare the holidays in the end. In my opinion, the section should be redone to link to the state pages, and the holdiays of each state should be listed there.
 * --Arjun Muralidharan 13:28 CET, January 15 2006

Map
please standardize maps to reflect the indian version of the Kashmir dispute, as is stipulated by the Govt. of India. The Pakistan country page is free to use their version of the map. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pizzadeliveryboy (talk • contribs).


 * Interesting viewpoint. The India article doesn't belong to Indians solely, nor does the Pakistan article belong to Pakistanis. I don't understand why each country page should reflect that country's version of the map ... Wikipedia is not an Indian or Pakistani Govt site. This encyclopedia belongs to the world, should reflect issues as perceived from a neutral point of view. Thanks. --Ragib 23:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Reverted your map change. As Ragib said, this is NPOV. - Ganeshk T/C\@ 00:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I am considering changing the map to show the Indian viewpoint. There are advocates for people to create an independent Puerto Rico. Should that be marked as disputed? Mark all land as Indian, or I will do it. Also, who recently changed the maps, they are TERRIBLE!

Oh yeah, I also have to add this. If Wikipedia is neutral, why doesn't it offer an alternate view about the Holocaust. People have provided evidence that it never happened. I'm not saying that I deny it, but you claim that "all views should be expressed." If I don't see this in the holocaust page, why should India be givin a "neutral view?" If this doesn't change, I'll add the true Indian map.

Finally, this goes to Ragib. Ragib, how do I know you aren't bias? A lot of Bangladeshis hate Indians. - &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shellymelly (talk • contribs).


 * Please refrain from making comments based on people's origins. If you want, check out my contributions. And please, sign your comments by using ~ after your comments. Thanks. --Ragib 07:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm trying to make a point here that all parts of Wikipedia are bias to their respective country's perspective. Please read my post above and see if you agree with it. Thanks! Shellymelly

Ancient???????????????
The changes have been made in both pre colonial histories of India and Pakistan.

India and Pakistan were formed in 1947. Thats just 50+ and certainly not ancient. India, Pakistan, Bhutan, Nepal, Bangladesh are all third world countries, with shared histories and cultures. It's stupid for India and Pakistan to crib about 'My culture' and 'My History'.

Changes are more in Pakistan article, as whoever wrote that article seems too much bent upon proving that Pakistan was never a part of India. India and Pakistan were never together, technicaly they never could have been. Guys GET OVER IT. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cyberwizmj (talk • contribs).

get over it?? ok burn up all our text books?? y dont u ppl get over christ saving our heathens n stuff?? Bijun 10:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)user:bijun

Too much to edit.
I suggest that a common ancient histroy page be created. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cyberwizmj (talk • contribs).

india and pakistan were together they were bought together by the mughal empire then during the british rule they STAYED together the partition occured because jinah was anxious that muslims would not be represnted equally and therfore requested a partition with india. gandhi agreed to partition because he wanted to avoid a civil war in india from occuring.


 * First: the name India was given to the subcontinent by the ancient greeks - so the name has been around for atleast 2500 years, or even more. We have adopted the european version of the name of the nation for historical reasons. Moreover, the people living within what the Greeks called India have consistently been a culturally homogenous unit since the time Alexander came in here....may be not politically, but culturally, India has been a nation for that period of time.


 * So ya, India is ancient - get over that!!!


 * Pizzadeliveryboy 15:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

FYI: INdia has one of the oldest civilizations in the world stats: 2006

Template:India ties
I've replaced the footer templates with Template:India ties. Such templates on country articles have been deprecated for some time, after lengthy discussions at Wikiproject Countries. Since most countries belong to at least a half dozen international organizations, which creates quite a mess at the bottom of articles when a box is added for each. Since my knowledge of India is very limited, I recommend you to make changes to improve this template. (See also United Kingdom and Canada for examples). CG 20:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The new template needs work before it can go into the article. So I had to revert your change. I will work on merging the templates later today. - Ganeshk T/C\@ 20:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

to pizza delvirey boy i was making a point to those who thought india and pakistan should have had a seprate page. i lived in india for 13 years and in my point i completley agree with you but i feel that india and pakistan are two ggreat nations they should share some of thier history together. i sincerely apologize if my comments hurt your feeling. thanks nihit mehta

Do some research, India was around way before 1947 or when ever, it was conquered by Alexander the Great, Kenghis Khan's Mongol's, the Mougals, some British Company, and the British Queen. After the queen took over it became a colony, so has you can clearly see if you a mind India was around for a a while.

some changes
Most of the changes have to do with punctuation and sentence construction.

I have replaced "delta islands" with archipelago, which is what the Sunderbans is.

Added a ref. to PV Narsimha Rao

The counterpart of economic size in terms of PPP is GNP.

the sentence regionally as well as globally is correct and could be used, but does not fit into the sentence construction properly even in the older version - hence removed, but can be reinstated if propely constructed.

The Sepoy Mutiny is also called the Sepoy Rebellion (BBC), though Indians call it the 1st war of independence.

The sentence on Mahatma Gandhi leading the independence movement was mangled. Split it for easier reading.

Need to use caps for describing the features of the Indian Constitution.

Expanded on the Emergemcy a wee bit, with a date.

BPO and Software are service industries

Pongal and Onam are celebrated in their resp states.

removed ref to Indian Cricket Team - more appropriate in a seperate article.

A prev version had the foll:

In 1977, a united opposition, under the banner of the Janata Party, won the election and formed a non-Congress government for a short period after the unpopular 'emergency rule' imposed by Indira Gandhi in the previous Congress regime.

First there is no explicit mentioning of the lifting of emergency. Moreover, I think the use of unpopular is a mild POV. So played around with construction, thats all.

Pizzadeliveryboy 20:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

change in links
I have changed the links for India's national bird and flower to the specific species

Pizzadeliveryboy 16:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

reverted image change
I have reverted Vastu's image change since a south indian temple is already depicted above (in the end of the history section). Moreover the argument (Perhaps a temple of the southern style would be better here?) itself is a bit queer.

Pizzadeliveryboy 14:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It was an evasive way of saying it looks better :-) Maybe the one above then should be changed to some Orissan or Rajistani temple or something, just so that we can showcase some of the grand Chola temples for anyone interesting in learning about India?  To be honest, thats what an article like this is for - people who want to learn about small temples and everyday life in India can delve into that after being impressed - no need for modesty where other nations dont show similar restraint in flaunting their greatest acheivements.  Vastu

I have removed some images: =Nichalp  «Talk»=  07:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Please keep images relative to the section that their in. A Golden Temple photo looks out of place in the sports section
 * 2) Try and balance the locations of the images. The page should pick 'appropriate images from different corners of India.
 * 3) Colourful and hi-res images should be given a priority over similar ones.


 * Yeh its kinda hard to both balance images of India's diversity, but also show off all the best things in an article which will likely effect many people's (hundreds of thousands? millions?) knolwedge of India - perhaps the table showing the national symbols of India could be moved into one of the paragraphs, as it isnt really a picture, and odsent conform to the 270 pixel formatting of the pictures it is with - this would free up some space for an image of an Jain or Sikh monument. Perhaps also some sort of reworking could be done about the maps - they both take up a lot of space where perhaps only one map showing the states could do the job of both?


 * Other than that, could do with a larger version of the rupee note, just so that it will be 270px wide in the article, or could resise everything else, or remove it because the BSE building is already there, or whatever. And now that the early south Indian style temple of Raja Raja is gone, maybe there is some way we could put a nice beauty-shot of a gopuram or something somewhere, perhaps instead of a konark wheel, which is afterall just a sculpture compared to an entire monument.  Ill let others decide, whats been done so far is definatly an improvement though, as there was really no need for a picture of random street vendor selling stuff, or of a poor example of mandirarchtecture.


 * I just dont like to see steriotypes of India being a third world nation with no culture, (which is what some uneducated people believe), being reinforced by our own article, when other countries flaunt all their best monuments first. India may have problems, and I dont give a crap about nationalism, etc, but I do care about people being educated, and presented with images that challenge such ignorances - the world is better off for it, when people are more aware that there are many cultures throughout the world equal to their own.  Whatever you decide, good luck. Vastu


 * P.S. heres some nice stuff from wiki commons - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Khajuraho - of Khajuraho, which are higher res, and just as fine examples of rock sculpture as the wheel:



response to vastu
I agree that the article is and should be a show piece to create a first impression. But more importantly, it is important to depict the diveristy of India.

Hence it would be better to include some northern indian temple, not because south indian temples arent grand enough, but because there is already one instance in the article. Something like somnath or dilwara or Golden temple would be apt (there is no reason why it should be only a Hindu tenple, and not a sikh or jain templle or a mosque or church or synagogue or fire temple - think about that).

Pizzadeliveryboy 14:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeh sounds good, only reason I suggested that type of archtecture in perticular is because in terms of being a showpiece, there is not much in India that rivals the granite temples of the Cholas - a Cathedral might show diversity, but it dosent showcase indiginous design and culture, as better examples of such edifaces can be seen in other countries - maybe the Ellora rock cut temples, although there is already an example of a Buddhist stupa... Maybe Jain temples, or the Golden Temple.  Ill let you or someone else decide, theres some good stuff on wikimedia commons these days.  You see, while I am not perticularily hurt by your assumption that I didnt think about India diversity in all its extent, (because frankly, there are lots of people who think like that these days, so I cant blame you for wanting to point that out), there is good logical reasons for showing off 'Hindu' or 'Indic' achievements, without neccecarily being some Hindutva nationalist ;-) Vastu


 * In the last line, the sentnce construction implies Hindu = Indic. Thsta srubbish!!!


 * Pizzadeliveryboy 17:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I assume you are joking there, seeing as most scholars would define 'Indic' religion as the four major dharmic religions, and I didnt imply anything by adding Indic achievements should be shown off too, other than what you have read into it in a sort of Macarthyan witch hunt for Hindu nationalists ^_^ :-P BTW< this debate was rather pointless to start with seeing as the only reason I did use a (oh my gosh) Hindu building, is because


 * a). it looks good,


 * b). it stuck with the topic of the former image, i.e. the majority religion of India (im an atheist)


 * c). those temples are world engineering marvels, with a phenomenal level of craftsmanship that nobody outside India knows about, perhaps because they have been reading articles that, ahem, dont show them off....


 * Anyway, heres a nice image you we wanna use, ill change it, and if you have any problem with it, change it back. It isnt the best exampe of Indian work, but I guess flaunting culture is secondary to making sure we dont offend the obiously fragile feelings of India's abrahmic minorities lol ^_^ Vastu



Question: Why the fixation with edifices? =Nichalp  «Talk»=  09:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Fixation is awefully strong isnt it? I know that people will be most impressed into further reading by big objects that look good - its human nature.  Also if your question is deeper, like 'why should we not show the little things', ive answered that above, and again, its a matter of what people find impressive and beutifull.  Vastu


 * Lets brainstorm on other themes rather than edifices. Sports can have something on cricket/kabbaddi etc, history can have some famous person's photo. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  11:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * OK efidices are out - something about sport. There is abso no mention of the PHL - I believe some good work is being done in there...


 * Pizzadeliveryboy 16:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * May I suggest now that you have removed the only decent example of a Hindu temple on the page, that you replace the konark wheel with one? It simply just wont impress anyone right now, as Sanchi, despite its historical importance, is hardly as grand as either the Rajastani complex, or the South Indian stuff - I will replace Konark with the temple, if you think there is something wrong with that, then feel free to edit it back... Vastu

Republic Day 2006
Happy Indian Republic Day 2006 to all!!! --195.229.241.187 13:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

granting vs. gaining
The use of "granting" implies that the British willingly, on their own accord, gave up India (and thereby 'mutually consented' in 'according a previlege or favor' to the Indians - see dictionary for correct meaning of the verb 'to grant'), without any due credit to the Indian independence movement. This is untrue since there is a long history of struggle on several fronts, which eventually led to the people of India succeeding in gaining (thereby, acquiring (through struggle)) their independence from the British.

Pizzadeliveryboy 16:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Official Languages
How many does India have? The info table states "Hindi, English, and 21 other languages" whereas the number rises to 24 at List_of_national_languages_of_India --Wotan 05:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * French is not an official language of the Indian Union. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  08:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

it is in pondicherry Bijun 10:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)user talk:bijun

Discripencies in the map of India.
The map of India that has been shown on this site is erroneous. This is so because the occupied Kashmir part has been painted in the same colour as that of Pakistan. I would like to say that this is a serious discrepency since the Pakistan occupied Kashmir is still not recognised as the part of Pakistan. The official line is that Kashmir is an integral part of India. It can be depicted as a disputed part but showing it as a part of Pakistan is not acceptable.61.246.165.179 04:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The mentioned part is administered by Pakistan. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  04:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The disputed areas should be coloured differently; this is the most informative and encyclopedic approach. -Pgan002 09:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Look at how Pakistan and China portray their maps. Pizzadeliveryboy 15:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hashed lines would be the best to represent Kashmir and AP. The maps need to be updates since wikipedia is moving to SVG based maps rather than standard png ones. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  03:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

emblem
The new emblem is actually correct one (it has the motto below the figure, which the earlier one lacked), though the saffron color is a little suggestive. Does anyone have an image like the earlier version, but with the motto subscribed below, and of a higher resolution (the earlier version was too small, and when force-fitted in the template, led to a loss of resolution)??
 * I believe the first one is a prank. I had originally uploaded the correct emblem with the Satyamev Jayatate inscription, but it seems to have been altered. I have reuploaded. Note that India's emblem is monochrome. Eventually we would be moving to an svg version of the emblem. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  04:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

last edit
I have reinstited some classical dance forms and classified them into south and north. all of these are patronized by Sangeet Natak Akademi and several other classical art institutions of a national level. I am not sure of Yakshaganga, but someone can verify.

As far as festivals, need to include non-hindu ones too, esp of the phrase melting pot in the beginning of the para has to have any meaning. Pongal and Onam are local south indian fests, much like GC and DP.

Pizzadeliveryboy 14:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * True, but we simply can't list all dances and festivals out here. I'll leave it to you to cut it down. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  18:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess keeping some south and some north indian items would be balanced. Same applies to festivals tooPizzadeliveryboy 00:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Some, but having more than six is absurd. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  12:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

national bird
The national bird of India is the male variety of the species Pavo cristatus. The common name of the bird is peafowl, but only the male species has been granted the honor.

Please check National Bird of India search entry in Google.

Pizzadeliveryboy 15:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

cuisine and culture
Wondering y cuisine and culture are in the same section. Also there is no mention of folk or classical art (painiting/sculpture) - only cinema, dance and music is present. The section should actually be Art and Culture, and cuisine/eating habits/staple diet should be another section, not in culture.Pizzadeliveryboy 00:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * As per WikiProject countries, cuisine & arts is included under the =Culture= section. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  05:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

official languages of India
Wondering what are the official languages of India? How many are there, and which ones? Are all state recog off languages also off languages of the Republic of India. What about Part XVII of the Indian constitution? Any pointers to sites outside wikipedia which point to the exact number of official (not recognized) languahes?

Pizzadeliveryboy 00:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * 22: Assamese, Bengali, Gujarati, Hindi, Kannada, Kashmiri, Malayalam, Marathi, Oriya, Punjabi, Sanskrit, Tamil, Telugu, Urdu, Sindhi, Konkani, Manipuri, Nepali, Bodo, Maithili, Dogri and Santhali. English enjoys associate official status.

--source; Manorama Yearbook 2006, pg 507, ISBN 8189004077 =Nichalp  «Talk»=  12:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Culture sec
Considering that the culture section has distinct paras on dance, music, art and cuisine, all relevant main pages should be listed in the main article section, instead of the see also secPizzadeliveryboy 17:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No, the main article is Culture of India. All other articles are linked as main in that article. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  18:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

use numerals
Using numerals for numbers makes sense since its shorter, easier to be caught while just glancing thru text, and if we stdize this across the article, the length of the article will go outta hand!!!

Pizzadeliveryboy 18:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Please note: I have only changed the 'number as a word' in the lead! The lead is supposed to ease a reader into the topic. 7,000 is an approximation of the coastline length, and so can be written as a word. It is easier to read such words in the lead and keeps it clean. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  06:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * My point is this - If you are including information in the lead of an article, the purpose is to catch the instant attention of the roving eye - esp if the reader is out looking for statistics to hold his/her attention to. This is the reason why you have a infobox right at the beginning of the article - to get all statistics (numbers) in one place. And as far I understand it, a numeral representation (4 digits) is easily more succinct, and easier to catch within reams of text than a full wordy representation, never mind whether the stat is approximate or not.Pizzadeliveryboy 15:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No, as any good copyeditor worth his salt will tell you, this is not done for such cases as numerals look jarring. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  15:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Flag vandalism
Can you please change the picture of the Flag which has been vandalized. Thanx


 * When you say the picture has been vandalized, how exactly has it been vandalized? Green Giant 21:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

ambiguity between C Asian and Persian vs Afghan invasions
All reference to Afghan invasions refer to incidents involving Pashtun peoples. The incidents involving C Asian and Persian rulers involve Turkic and Persian peoples (themselves distinct), which is different from the former. Hence, they are generally classified as Muslim invasions.Pizzadeliveryboy 13:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

National costume?
Is there an official national costume for India? I seriously doubt if it's there. How about a national calendar? If these are not official, they need to be removed from the table of national symbols. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 11:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I dont think there is a national costume, though sari is generally accepted as one for the ladies!!! Yes the government does accept the Saka era as the national calendar, though the Gregorian calendar is accepted as an equal.Pizzadeliveryboy 13:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm removing Sari from that list until someone cites a source to favour its inclusion. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 09:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * What is the purpose of this section - to promote Indian traditional dresses, or to document the current and past general trends in apparel amongst Indians?Pizzadeliveryboy 15:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

national holidays
SVP Jayanti is not a national holiday, and Diwali is a religious one.Pizzadeliveryboy 00:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Further reading on India
...is an article listing some book sources on India for the interested persons. As it is not an encyclopedic topic, it would be better to delete that article and move the content to India article. Since India is a featured article (and I don't know how to delete an article), I am requesting to major contributors here to give this idea a thought. Thanks. Ashish G 19:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Affirmative action
I have removed the topic in demographics which included affirmative action. One reason is that the Constitution only provides for the setting up of educational institutes by minorities. Reservations were supposed to last for only 10 years when introduced by Ambedkar. The reservations are based on sops introduced by the government. =Nichalp  «Talk»=  04:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification, Nichalp. Even I felt uneasy about those statements as I was trying to fix the flow in an anon's addition. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 04:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Questions

 * 1) What is the length of Sino-Indian boundary according to the government of India?
 * 2) What is the length of Sino-Indian boundary according to the government of China?

Indian Online Classifieds Industry
Would any editors who have native or resident knowledge of India care to comment on recent edits to this article? I remove the review sections as well as the external links; the original author feels that the links are important. My problem is that I have no sense of how notable the sites mentioned are. If they are as notable as Craigslist and/or meet WP:CORP, then I'd say that they merit their own articles and should be internally linked. Thoughts?  OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I am the author of the online classifieds in india article. I would like to request that the original article be reverted to on the main site so that knowledgeable users on India can review it like ohnoitsjamie mentioned.  bluesargam Talk 23:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Bechna, Rediff, Craigslist, Sulekha and Times are notable. Agreatindian isn't. - Ganeshk  ( talk ) 23:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Censorship over the Caste system?
The caste system has been systematicallty ignored and then deleted. India cannot be considered a democracy when there exists such an apartheid institution that violates the very basic principle of human rights. The 'untouchables' or haryana are a realiy and murdered. Get real and mention the cast system Trompeta 11:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I had made an edit to remove a reference to the caste system from a sentence about India being a democracy with the comment "Caste system is social while voting is political. Can have social inequality w/in a democracy so suggest caste info be added to another section". While I stand by this comment, I agree that the caste system has not received the coverage it deserves both as a historical and current force in India--however I think these comment would belong in a 'Society' section showing how Indian society has changed over time and how caste has been an important social force that shape the lives of many (especially rural) people. Here are a few pages that seem to offer a fair background on the caste system in India if not an authoritative source of information:  If you don't agree with the particular edit I made, I'd suggest you make comments in Talk referencing commonly accepted definitions of democracy. As far as I can tell, most Political Scientists and Historians agree that India has been a long standing democracy. See for example: . Based on this template it looks like a 'culture' section might be more appropriate although in my opinion something like  Pakistan's 'culture and society' would be more appropriate. Antonrojo 14:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure as to what you mean by there exists such an apartheid institution that violates the very basic principle of human rights? The caste system is mentioned under: Language, religion, and caste are determinants of social and political organisation within the highly diverse population. The article is a summary, no need to get into specifics. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  14:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't claim much knowledge of Indian history, however both references to caste in the article mention it in passing and make it sound like a problem of the past. I have mixed feelings about adding information on caste. If it really is a factor that leads to inequality in the lives of many Indians I think it should be discussed more critically and/or in more detail. At the same time, I recognize that others would point out that race is a major determinant of social and economic outcomes in the United States (the country I happen to call home) and I don't know that references to the US as a 'racist country' would be appropriate in that article although they would belong in an "American Society" section IMHO. At the least I think caste should be mentioned in a sub-article on Indian history and society which also discusses the effect of the imposition of English culture and social systems on India's history and society (the first reference I list above gives some interesting background on this). Also, I added a link to the definition of caste in the article, should a reader not be sure what it is or of its history. Antonrojo 15:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Caste discrimination is not prevalent all over India. It is prevalent in most states though. There are other forms of discrimination too. If we get in to a debate on the caste system and reservations here, the article will deviate from the core Indian theme. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  05:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I am not an expert. The cast system is not political in the sense that it is not defined in any constitutional terms. However, it is a central social factor. It affect marriages - overwhelmingly cast-based. It affects recruitment, government positions, accessibility to employment, etc. It is less prevalent in the 'dravidian' south than the 'arian' north, but I think it needs to be indicated in the core article. But I will not add anything on the main page because I am not an expert. Trompeta 10:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The subject is India, not caste based results. It is mentioned that caste plays an important role in social and political realms. We can't have everything included in the main page, else it would be too large to handle. 11:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Indian Nationalist's
Someone's deleted a sentance ive put in a few times. Would you like to discuss it? It is extremely misleading to say india has the 4th largest economy in ppp terms - yes that is true, but you are using economical statistics to mislead people (5/6th of Wikipedia community who are not Indian). India ranks 152nd when it comes to GDP/capita ppp figures. Any Economist who who can understand basic World Economy can tell you that. Anyways there is a section on India's Economy allready I think it is unneccessary over here.Its good to be proud of ur country, but not if it blinds you from the truth. The Mystic
 * It is well known that India has a very large population of over a billion and therefore I doubt most people would infer India is a rich country from that. Moreover, India's GDP per capita is also stated right away.  So what is misleading here? Gtmshine

Yes India's GDP per capita is also stated straight away - I put it there. Together they are fine but one buy itself leads to bias.

Inline citations
Has anyone considered switching to inline citations? Guidelines have changed since this article was featured. It would be useful if people looked into it and made sure this article still adheres to new guidelines instead of waiting for FARC. (Blacksun 05:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC))
 * Inline citations are present. We've used invisible notes inote which are perfectly acceptable and makes the page look neat. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  07:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Some might argue that it makes it very unaccessible for anyone who might want to check the source, especially the casual readers. Also, their has been repeated complaints in regards to this.  But I will respect the editors choice (for now). --Blacksun 05:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the inote may be changed to easily clickable citation format, may be Harvard, or other. inote format is not much user-friendly, though the allow a speedy read.--Dwaipayanc 06:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Akshardham Temple
The image lists it as being in Delhi, but isn't Akshardham Temple in Gandhinagar? --Soumyasch 16:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * They finished a new one in Delhi last year. (Blacksun 16:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC))

Foreign Relations of India
Is it possible that the To-Do list is outdated? Because my edits on foreign relations were rapidly reverted. If so then it would be nice if we did get an updated to-do list so that potential editors could get more work done.  Noble eagle  (Talk)  06:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I apologize for my rather harsh message in the edit. However, you need to make sure you dont bring statements that break NPOV. I am not sure if todo list is outdated or not. And a lot of the things you are adding is mostly a rehash of stuff written in history like indo-pakistan wars, dispute with China, etc. Their is no need to repeat that.(Blacksun 07:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC))
 * That's alright, I understand if you want to make sure the article maitains its strong standards. I'll have another look at the section sometime tomorrow and edit a bit more carefully in order to incorporate relations with Pakistan (peace co-operation) and a bit with Africa the Commonwealth and the E.U.  Noble eagle  (Talk)  07:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I did not revert your edits this time. However, the person who did it I think is a long time editor of this page. You might want to pm him. Three things you have to be careful of are: 1) NPOV 2) it should not be just a list of bla bla 3) it has to be very short and concise. In fact, I dont think foreign relations really belong in this article. At best a very general statement that gives an overall picture of india's foreign relations. However, that is almost impossible to do in a nice manner. Hence, we simply link "Foreign relations of India" page. --Blacksun 05:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm the one who reverted the edits and put up the to do list a short while back. The recent foreign relations had only to do with the United States. We need to describe relationships duing the Cold War scenario, USA, USSR, EU, China, South Asia, Asia and the Commonwealth nations. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  06:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * My edits contained relations with Pakistan, China, the Commonwealth and a bit about the E.U. and Middle East as well as some stuff I'd read about Indian bilateral talks with African and Latin American nations. This version can be seen here. It was reverted by Blacksun as POV, which is understandable since it may have needed a bit of cleaning up to do. I agree with Nichalp as well seeing as it seems a bit less effective when only relations with the U.S. are discussed.  Noble eagle  (Talk)  08:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

speaking of foreign relations how the heck was india a founding member of the U.N when it achieved independence in 1947 after the U.N was made? if it was a founder during the british period then i dont think it should be mentioned as at that time pakistan was a part of it and its foriegn relations were obviously being handled by the british. if such a comment is to be made, it should be within the context of british india, which should actually be a separate article. so ive removed this erroneous line.sorry i dont know how to make a new topic. Falcon7385 16:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point raised. Independent India took over the role of British India, in the same manner Russia took over the seat of USSR in the UN. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  16:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

But with one major difference - Russia was not a colony of USSR but India was a colony of Britain - Hence this should be attributed to Britain and not the Indian people who were only involved in world war 2 because of britain.if it is to be stated that India was among the founders then i think Pakistan should also be considered as such because it was a part of India at the time.As you can see this is going to lead to some misunderstandings.In truth the foriegn affairs of india were not being determined by either the pakistani's( or the muslim freedom fighters as they were back then) or the indians.Thats why it is erroneous to consider the India of today as a continuation of the India at that time since it's government back then had its prioirities being determined by foriegners.Equating the past and present India is a more likely pitfall for newcomers ,than in the case of russia simply because russia had a different name back then. that's why i think a separate article be made to deal with this era of the subcontinents history (note that i havent used the term indian history deliberalty as this implys the modern india). Falcon7385 18:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Falcon, most people will agree that India is the sucessor country. It is like Yogoslavia. Serbia is the sucessor country. Even if the India was under the British, it was still a different "nation". Thus, it is fair to consider India occupied by the British, not "apart" of it.

Cinema industries
I am wondering what the relative sizes of various regional film industries in India are? I would have thought that the Bangla film industry is one of the bigger ones, but obviously that's not true, looking at the list of regional industries mentioned.--ppm 01:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Caste system

 * There is nothiin this article, or in any other articles about India that I can find, that explains India's caste system. Shouldn't this go under the "culture" section of this entry and be explained in greater detail in the main Culture of India article?


 * The caste system does have an article, but I don't believe it should be mentioned here. It is not a contemporary system in urbaized areas of India.  Noble eagle  (Talk)  22:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It is mentioned in demographics with a wikilink to main article. I am not sure if the wikilink was always there or if its a new addition. Anyways, their are various other India-related articles that touch the topic. You must not have looked too closely? --Blacksun 22:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The article is on India, not on specifics. Regards, =Nichalp   «Talk»=  05:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the Caste system deserves a mention. Much of life in India [70% or so] lives outside :the so-called Urbanized areas. [Dalit]]'s are the tragedy of this nation, and I dont understand why someone would want to paint a Indian shining picture here, unless you run for the election! --பராசக்தி 00:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Differentiating between Politics and Foreign Relations
The two topics are similar but different. Perhaps it would be better to seperate them and expand a little on both. It just doesn't do justice to have Indian politics and foreign relations summed up in that tiny paragraph. It also doesn't fit in the page to have a heading called Politics and Foreign Relations. Opinions?  Noble eagle  (Talk)  06:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. Foreign relations is an important topic and deserves to have a separate section. I would also like to take this opportunity to divert the attention of fellow Indian wikipedians towards Foreign relations of India article. I've done some work to improve the article and any comments are always welcome. --Spartian 06:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * They are both interrelated. Politics has to do with political parties, and political parties set the agenda for foreign relations. Splitting and expanding would result in a much larger page article. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  12:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Nichalp. Their is no reason to split them here. --Blacksun 14:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Indians and Race
Aren't Indians anthropologically caucasoid? If so, why are they classified as Asian, unlike all other caucasoids are classified as White.


 * Rcaial makeup of Indians is pretty diverse and no single racial orgin can be ascribed to Indians. Yes though majority (both Indo-Aryan and Dravidian) speakers are "Cauasoid" but they do have significant Asiatic and sometimes Australoid ancestry.

अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey 13:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * How do you define Asian? =Nichalp   «Talk»=  16:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * There are two ways in which Asian is defined. To tell you the truth, in most Western nations, Asian people or Asian languages or Asian food describe East Asian and South East Asian things. But geographically, India is an Asian country. However, India can in no way be classified in the same way as European nations simply beacuse of the people's racial origins.  Noble eagle  (Talk)  02:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually that's mainly used in America and Canada, but in Europe Asian is applied to south asians while oriental people are put in the category of chinese or other. (I think)
 * The "Indo-Aryans" of India may have Caucasoid ancestry but how can the Dravidians (mostly modern South Indians) have originated from Europe? More importantly, which part of the India article are you referring to when you say Indians are classified as Asians? This better not be a general discussion on racial classifications on Indians, otherwise it should go the Reference Desk! GizzaChat  &#169; 02:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

DaGizza, dravidians are said to be descendents of Pre-Vedic Anatolian migrants to India. Atleast thats what i read... moreover DaGizza we dont originate from Europe, our race originates from Central Asia thats where Caucasus is... अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey 14:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Underconstruction tags, detailed history, language etc.
I don't see any edits since placement of "underconstruction" tag, so I assume the editor who placed it is not doing anything at least today. Hence, I'm removing it to allow cleanup of the article. Next, I've reverted the history sections huge dump of colonial history. India has a history spanning at least 2500 years, and the colonial part isn't ALL of it, it gets its due share in the History of India page. The history section in THIS page is supposed to be a summary, which it does just fine.

I also reverted the language comment, Sangskrit is not the ONLY major language root in India, the southern areas developed their own language independently.

Thanks. --Ragib 05:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * PS, partly due to the "underconstruction" tag and the mess in the history section, India ended up in featured article removal candidates!!! I hope removing this tag and the disorganization from the history section at least works positively for the article. --Ragib 05:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Certainly looks that way. Good job with the clean up - that was some massive dump. --Blacksun 05:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't bother too much about the nomination. Bob would have to point out specific areas where the prose is bad, and his case is rather weak. =Nichalp  «Talk»=  16:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Our strategy should be to quickly fix any grammar issues in FARC and not contest them. Subjective criteria not listed in WP:WIAFA can be opposed. =Nichalp  «Talk»=  07:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * One thing I would recommend is to convert the references to the new citation tool style (using refs). The older inotes worked fine when this article went to FA, but now that the citation tool has been added to mediawiki recently, converting the inotes to refs would be a great improvement. Thanks. --Ragib 07:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * See my note below. Regards,

Headings
I have reverted the recent restructuring of headings. The heading levels of the article is strictly based on recommendations of WikiProject Countries. Also, having a single subheading is considered bad style. Regards, =Nichalp   «Talk»=  07:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Nichalp, from what I can see from WikiProject Countries, you can put "States and union territories" in a separate section. But there's no saying that the section "Government" can be any different from that for "Politics". It'll be wise to combine the two sections into one by making one of them a sub-section of the other.
 * Also, it did not say that "Holidays" can be a section of itself, but that it could be made into a separate article with a list of celebrated holidays of that country.--Ryz05 07:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * In any case, a single subheading really doesn't help the article. If you want to merge the sections then the subheadings should not be used. Also remember that this article is currently a candidate for Featured Article Removal, so we don't want to take too many potentially consequential risks.

 Noble eagle  (Talk)  08:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware that this article is a Featured Article Removal candidate and I'm sure by catgeorizing "Holiday" and "Politics" (or Government) into the "Culture" and "Government" (or Politics) sections respectively will not hurt the article in any way. In fact, I think it'll help the article by conforming it better to WikiProject Countries. Also, it doesn't matter if it's a single subheading or not; as long as it conforms, it's good.--Ryz05 08:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I actually dont really care either way and can definitely see holidays as part of culture section. In any case, FARC is for weak and potentially lousy reasons and I am not worried about it.--Blacksun 13:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I just want to remind that he's seriously bordering violation of 3RR. Looking at the History of this article, I notice 3 reverts in the last 4 hours. Thanks. --Ragib 08:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the potential violation as I was caught up in improving this article. Thanks for checking.--Ryz05 08:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Ryz05, I appreciate your efforts to improve this article but the use of such subheadings are structurally wrong. To justify the use of descendents, you must have at least two subheadings. Secondly, if you need to make use of subheadings, the lead matter before subsections must be an overview of the content that follows. ie ==Section== [overview of the sections to follow] ===Subsection=== ===Subsection===

I agree that the politics and government sections are similar, but merging content together will create a very large section. Conversely, having =politics= as a subsection of the =Government= is structurally wrong, as shown above. [Note: I do this stuff in my non-wiki life]. The compromise would be to have separate top level headings. Regards, =Nichalp   «Talk»=  17:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Deciphering Inotes
What does inote|tongues mean? I dont understand how to make sense of some of the inotes in the article. I went to the inote discussion page but that was not very helpful either. I think someone who knows about inotes needs to go through them to make sure they are correctly formatted. I am also debating whether we should have a debate over switching the system after the FARC is dealt with. --Blacksun 13:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The syntax is like this:


 * The first argument is the text of a note and the second, optional, argument is a suggested label for the note. The advantage of inote is that it makes the page more reader friendly, one very bad example of overreferencing is W. Mark Felt. However, having cite.php for a few figures in the article can't hurt. It comes to a balance between easy referencing and readability. I'll go through the inotes tomorrow and improve on them. Regards, =Nichalp   «Talk»=  17:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes I definitely see the advantage of inotes. But some sort of balance would be very useful as you said.  Also, "tongues" does not really tell me much unlike "See Jordan page 25".--Blacksun 17:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I'm not completely averse to footnotes, I have used footnotes in the Nepal and Bhutan articles. Will be converting a few tomorrow. Regards  =Nichalp   «Talk»=  18:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Inline referencing has been spruced up. =Nichalp  «Talk»=  10:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Bombay Stock Exchange image
The image of BSE is very relevant to the economy section. Stock market is primary source of Foreign investment in India. The caption on that image makes it very relevant to the article. It has been readded. --Blacksun 23:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Hindu Temple picture

 * If you are so inclined to include a picture on the Hindu temple, then the best idea would be to also add a religion topic under the Culture section. This way, the picture would fit better and the Holidays section could be included under Culture to make it two topics under one section.--Ryz05 21:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Demography of this country is more than 80% Hindu. So, Temple picture can be posted in demographics section. I don't see any problem here.
 * I also agree with your suggestion. Yes, i am very inclined to include a picture of Hindu temple because i believe an article on India is incomplete without Hindu Temple. - Holy Ganga 21:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * A picture of Hindu temple can be included in a section called Religion. It's more fitting to have a picture of people in the demographics section as opposed to that of a building. If you feel the article is incomplete without a Hindu temple, then perhaps you can provide a summary of religion in India and include the picture in that section. --Ryz05 23:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * A separate section on religion is pretty pointless in a country article. Their are already good articles for Hinduism, Islam, etc.  It is not that big of a deal to add temple picture in demographics as religion is mentioned there.  Technically, this picture can be added instead of the picture of south indian food palette.  However, its not like the article is filled with images and temple image is not irrelevant in demographics. Furthermore, it would be impossible to find a picture that represents people of India.  But ya, if someone can find a good picture for people than we can remove the food picture and add the temple one there. --Blacksun 23:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Education comment
It is insane to suggest that "efforts to eradicate illiteracy has met with little success." At the time of independence, the literacy rate was in the 20s. And given the gignormous size of the population, when 1% composes 10 million people, it is commendable progress. By 2011, it should be above 70%. Rama&#39;s Arrow 13:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It has definitely improved As Indicated Here. And in states such as Goa, Kerala and Punjab the literacy goes into the 90s of percentages.  Noble eagle  (Talk)  23:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Umm...Kerala had a high literacy rate even before independence.  So the statement was probably correct. --  thunderboltza.k.a.D e epu _ Joseph 11:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Caste system

 * The caste system belongs to India as a major sociological factor of its culture. If this is not explained, this article should immediately be removed from the list of featured articles, because it does not show one of India's most important aspects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.167.139.226 (talk • contribs)


 * The point mentioned has already been discussed above in "Caste system". See for yourself and if you are not convinced, discuss it centrally and don't repeat the discussions. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 11:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If you wish to include the caste system, please do so in Culture of India instead. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  04:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The racism belongs to United States as a major sociological factor of its culture. If this is not explained, this article should immediately be removed from the list of featured articles, because it does not show one of United State's most important aspects. Okie any takers?


 * [[Image:England flag large.png|20px]] अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey [[Image:Flag of India.svg|20px]] 21:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The US is not a featured article. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  04:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The caste system influences the way of living in India, and you want me to tell that it should only go into the Culture of India? Shouldn't a country's culture go into the main article as well? Yet it is not even explained in a few sentences.

Major World Religions
According to major world religions, Sikhism constitutes 0.36% of the world's population, which I'm not sure constitutes as a majowr world religion and Jainism is not even listed as a world religion. Jainism's population is listed as 4.2 million (which is less than 0.07% of the total approximate population of the world) --Jibran1 22:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It is generally accepted that their following is large enough to be considered a major world religion. To me they are major, as when someone says they are Jain or Sikh, you know a bit about the religions already.  Noble eagle  (Talk)  07:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Sikhism and Jainism are both in the worlds major religions. Read up on the religions..I think it's their somewhere. I also remember learning in school (yes unreliable at times i know...) the 6 major religions, in which they were both in

Too many iamges in culture
Holy Ganga, I removed the latest image uploaded by you in teh culture section because their is no way that section can support 4 images. Also, the caption in that image required a reference. If you really want to keep that image than replace it with the food or holi image.--Blacksun 03:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, i agree 4 images were looking too much for that space. I am removing food image because i don't think thats a great pic for the main page. Indian classical dance is ancient and very important face of Indian culture even today. I think, we should add this image. It's licensing and summary is provided.- Holy Ganga 08:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I still have issues with the captioning. It is too long and it has a date in it which usually requires citation.  Please try to make it one sentence caption. --Blacksun 20:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is the University of New Mexico holi photo in the India main page? The section is Culture of India, not Indian culture. Naus 01:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

New holiday section
Its pretty bad in quality and that image is quite crude. What was a pretty short yet straight forward section before has been butchered under the pretense of expansion. Please do a better job with it or revert it. --Blacksun 03:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

India Map problem

 * Discussion moved to the more appropriate Image talk:IndiaMap2.PNG page. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  13:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

SVG Map
Important: please Comment. =Nichalp  «Talk»=  16:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Tamil Letters in the beginning of the article
I don't understand the need to put the name of Republic of India in Tamil letters in the beginning of the article as Tamil is one of the languages which belong to India and there are many languages other than Tamil in India.

Any comments? Subramanya 05:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know who added it, but I've removed it now. All recognised Indian languages are official languages of India. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 06:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Total Population
On one occasion under demographics it says 1.19 bilion people and up on the right it says 1.09 bilion population. Confused

Holidays
As far as I know there are only three national holidays in India and not four. I have changed the number accordingly. I tried searching the official websites of India but could not come up with a number. However, the linked article in this section also mentions only three national holidays and not four ramit 11:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's a reference: http://india.gov.in/myindia/national_days.php. Can somebody pls make the appropriate changes as I am not very good at editing ramit 11:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There are three. A recent bout of vandalism has given one extra one. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  11:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Jinnah's Photo
Do we really need to have Jinnah's photo in an article on India? Subramanya 08:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting question. The addition seems to stem from a similar discussion in Talk:Pakistan about having a picture of Gandhi and Jinnah there. Personally, I don't see any problem in having the historic picture in both articles. --Ragib 08:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm.... I don't think so. It may find a place in the History of India, but not here. Sumanthk 08:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Even I don't think so. But the page was locked after a heavy bout of vandalism, so it will be removed after the lock is lifted.  =Nichalp   «Talk»=  11:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Well the rational behind is that to show that these two countries shared their history.. its the same thing done in the Pakistan article.. The people there also criticised.. (me included) that the picture of Gandhi was unsuitable for that page.. but in order to show neutrality and lack of prejudice i think its a good idea.. because either choose to put both pictures of gandhi and jinnah in respective webpages of histories of pakistan and india, or show the photos on both webpages.. to not support any specific side.Iquadri


 * With all due respect for your intentions, Wikipedia should not endeavor to make political statements - what is the need to prove neutrality and lack of prejudice of Indian and Pakistani Wikipedians on Wikipedia? NPOV does that. The respective prejudice of India and Pakistan is a business for their own government pages. Why should Wikipedia attempt to resolve their POV issues?


 * If the editors on the Pakistan page wish to pull out the picture of Gandhi/Jinnah, it will make absolutely no difference to the facts and legitimate history of the era, much less the souls of the departed men. There are plenty of pictures to pick from in Jinnah's bio article. The decision of some edits of the Pakistan page to put up a Gandhi-Jinnah pic doesn't convey any obligation of reciprocation to the editors of the India page, and neither should it be so under any circumstance, as it would be the insertion of politics into Wikipedia.


 * Strictly as a picture, there is nothing wrong with Jinnah-Gandhi. But when there are better pics available, and when the subject is of India's founding leaders, Jinnah does not come into the picture. Rama&#39;s Arrow 20:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * With a desire to clarify my statement above, I state that such a desire to address the issues between two nations is as much POV and politics as making an explicit case to remove all mention of Gandhi and India in history of Pakistan, and vice-versa. Any desire to improve the attitudes of Indians and Pakistanis on Wikipedia should not take place on an article page. Rama&#39;s Arrow 20:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Jinnah did not have a significant role to play in post-independence India (ofcourse) whereas in the context of pre-independence, i am sure there were leaders of greater significance. The effort to "improve the attitudes of Indians and Pakistanis on Wikipedia" is a noble one, but this is an online encylcopedia, not a political forum.. please pull down the jinnah-gandhi snap and put one of nehru-gandhi or patel-gandhi instead.--Keynes.john.maynard 10:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting.. the same debate was being taken in pakistan article webpage some time ago.. i would advice you to go there and read the discussions.. the same question was raised that Gandhi had nothing to do with post pakistan.. but pre pakistan there was a history between Gandhi and Jinnah.. you cannot turn your back on history. If we can accept the picture as a tribute to history, why should it not be recognized as same here.. Infact, it shows that the two leaders while having difference of opinions, were trying to work hard to attain peace between the two nations living in Indian Subcontinent at that time, while working to drive the British out of that region. Its not a political image, but a tribute to both countries histories. Both indian and pakistani writers have agreed that these pictures show history, its not anything politic, but its heritage. iquadri 18:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I really dont care if their is an image of jinnah in the article. Furthermore, I dont give a hoot about what happened on Pakistan page.  I can't remember the exact wikipedia policy but their is definitely one about not comparing what happened on another article to justify edits.  Finally, an image of Nehru, the first prime minister of India, with Gandhi would be far more significant to this article than Jinnah.  But, hey Jinnah-Gandhi image is better than just an image of Gandhi alone.  So if someone has a good image of Gandhi-Nehru or Gandhi-Patel then use that otherwise this is fine.  Afterall, Jinnah was an Indian ^_^ --Blacksun 21:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, if the only rationale to put that picture here is that it is on the Pakistan page, then it can be removed since the two articles cannot be linked. Remove it. Anand Arvind 20:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree Qaid-e-Azam has no relevance to independent India. He was born in present-day Pakistan, so he can't even be considered Indian-born. Prasi90[[Image:Flag of India.svg|25px]] 17:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Tamil & National Language Conflict
Does someone not want to mention an ideological conflict of the Aryan and Dravidian cultural clashes, and the general-expectation of rest-of-India to expect Tamils to know Hindi, and the associated Racist behaviour? --பராசக்தி 00:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

What for? kevin 13:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)kevin_b

I wouldn't use such strong words, but yes, the cultural differences and accompanying issues need be mentioned, but not here. See Summary style. A mention could be made in Culture of India and Languages of India if and only if we have reliable citations. Original research is not allowed here. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 07:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no such significant clash, only a minor thing much hyped about.Cygnus_hansa 09:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Gandhi and Jinnah image
Well, I have nothing against the image as such but why Jinnah? I think an image on Gandhi and Nehru is more appropriate. Thanks --Incman|वार्ता 06:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * While it's true that Nehru had a much bigger impact on the history of Republic of India, an image of Gandhi and Jinnah sort of completes a semantic picture in history. I'm not opposed to the new image though. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 06:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No good Nehru-Gandhi image are present in commons. --Blacksun 21:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Some changes
I have expanded the section on government of India to show a clearer picture. The existing piece was not enough to give a clear picture of the govt. Further, I have readded a section on races in demography (please dont be a racophobic: as an academic discussion, each country's article has racial demographies). Also, I removed the lnaguages to a section on its own. The article on Hindustan was biased and factually incorrect. I have added to it and corrected the mistakes. Much of the material is from Webster's New World dictionary.Cygnus_hansa 09:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Text
The article has deteriorated in quality since I last saw it. It seems that new edits are not scrutinised closely. Even the refs have been tampered with!! =Nichalp  «Talk»=  15:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The page seems to be on a downawrd spiral, with a lot of uncited claims being inserted every day. --Ragib 06:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I've added a for the section on races. I don't know that it portrays accurately the racial breakup of India. I think appropriate citation is required to justify the inclusion of that statement. AreJay 13:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Caste System and Religion

 * Though India is Democratic and Republic Country caste system is prevailing for last 3000 years. The main two political parties Congress and Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP) both supports the caste system and religion openly on many occassions.  Indian Parliament have enacted many Acts and Laws which support the caste system and religion and there is no uniform code for Citizens. All The Prime Ministers and Presidents of India have openly supported Caste system and Religion officially and unofficially and greets the Citizens on Many Religious Days.vkvora 03:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * So? =Nichalp   «Talk»=  04:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Constitution of India say for scientific thinking and head of Constitution the President of India (present Prisident being from Science strem) also violet and instead of supporting science support religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vkvora2001 (talk • contribs)


 * Hi Vkvora, please do not create new sections such as the one you have just done. The caste system is linked in the lower sections. Thanks and regards, =Nichalp   «Talk»=  06:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I added some mention mention of the caste system with a more anthropological bent and did so without adding a great deal of text as the article is better off without the added weight of more text as one can say just as much by adding a link and a few references, which is what I try to do with featured articles that are overly long such as this one. Tombseye 06:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Ayyavazhi
Is this relegion important enough to be added here ? Tintin (talk) 06:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Definitely not, IMO. The entire group of articles related to Ayyavazhi was created by a single user or a cluster of IPs that I think belong to the same person who has also created the articles in Tamil Wikipedia. I've expressed reservations at Talk:Thoothukudi, Talk:Vaigai River, and other places. I respect everyone's right to religious freedom, but to list a "religion" in a summary article like India requires that it's part of census classification at least. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 06:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with Sundar. The religion is far too small. I'm from Kanyakumari and I hadn't even heard of this religion (it's supposed to be "popular" there) till I found it on Wikipedia. Kingsleyj 06:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Why this is objected. On my view the religion should be studied on the basis of cutural, idoelogical, philosophical, and religious background. As far as i've learned Ayyavazhi is quiet commonly objected right from the begining only for the reasons of the lack of official recognition and backing the number of followers. This sort of study is fit for "listing world major religions" or the "number of adherents" etc. But when ever a religion have a strong cultural, idoelogical, philosophical, and religious background it is noted. And in that sense Ayyavazhi is placed in this article but not on the basis of adherents.


 * On an article, the main notables related to that is usually placed in introduction area. And I've done that.


 * And above it was noted that Ayyavazhi was hosted in Wikipedia by only a few number of users. I accept. But that is a pity for Ayyavazhi but that doesn't mean that Ayyavazhi is not fit to be placed. And Kingsleyj said that he is from Kanyakumari and not even heared about Ayyavazhi. The day of incarnation of Ayya Vaikundar was a holiday for the district. Even after that if you don't know about it, friend that's your mistake and some times to an extant mistake of the preachers of Ayyavazhi.


 * And if any one doubts Ayyavazhi to be a culturaly, idoelogicaly, philosophicaly rich, I personally strongly object and it would be understood on studying the scripture of Ayyavazhi. But some how it was unknown to the world. Sociologically saying, Vaikundar done more than any reformers in South India. But still unknown in history. see this link. I don't know the reason. But on my vision it souldn't be like that any more. If there is any thing better than a best in the world it sould be lifted up. On my own view Akilam do. But on my world wide view it may atleast be better one.


 * The situation of Ayyavazhi is similar to that of early Hinduism. I think till the 18th century philosophical and ideological background of Hinduism is unknown to the world and it was not even considered as one. But now things changed. Similarly, Right now Akilam seems to be the worlds longest Ballad. Putting back all others, being longest it receives a world wide view. Such views may come in series.


 * And in the matter of adherets, it was addressed and estimated as a million I was not here to highlight that. Because on my view it rests on official recognition and the govt approved list. So on the world stage Ayyavazhi's demerit is only the official recognition. That's all. And as far as I've learned the leaders are trying to it. But on my vision a acceptance of a religion doesn't need official recognition and a large number of followers. Beacause sociologically, a religion took birth when the thought and belifs of it deviates far away from the mainstream. And all these, the official recognition and followers will be the secondary.


 * On summarising I say, official recognition and the number of followers sould not make a thing notable. Just look beyond that and find if there is any thing else and then make it notable. - Vaikunda Raja 09:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * See WP:NOR. We can mention it *when* it becomes a major religion. Until then, we don't need to "look beyond" that, and conduct our own original research here. Thanks. --Ragib 09:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Please don't get it wrong. None of us are telling anything against the richness of the religion. But, if you read the policy document cited by Ragib above and Verifiability, Notability, you'd understand why we're a tertiary source and not a primary source of information. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 09:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to say I agree. I've seen this "religion" (is it a religion in its own right, or a sect of Hinduism?) creep in to all sorts of pages and I was completely unaware of the movement before I saw it on Wikipedia.  I'd actually go as far saying that it's virtually unknown online  outside of wikis.  I'm not saying it doesn't deserve a place on Wikipedia - but I am saying I think its prominence is too great for the size of the movement.  Then again, I may be completely unaware of the movement in South India, so any corrections in my view are appreciated.  Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 10:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I had a look at some of the articles at random, while the author has gone into much trouble in editing these, I couldn't see a single reference or citation on any of the pages. How does one trust that this is Verifiable and not original research? There are a number of such sects and cults out there. IMO the only difference between them and Ayyavazhi is that someone had taken the enormous effort to create pages on wikipedia for them. - cheers Parthi 01:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Prem Rawat is another whose followers have gone to an enormous length to create articles whose length and number are very disproportionate to his notability. I had never heard of this person before seeing him here. Tintin (talk) 01:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have been googling "Ayyavazhi" for past half hour and literally all sites in the results were either directly from en.wikipedia.org, www.answers.com or one of the syndicated online encyclopaedia sites. The user who has created these pages has also created stubs in a number of lang editions of Wikipedia. Without passing judgement on the notability of Ayyavazhi, it is very concerning to realise that it is practically easy to disseminate any information via WP if one is determined enough to do so. The power of WP is truly frightning. - Parthi 03:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we all can see a bad case of original research and propaganda here. Of course, I don't mean any offence to the followers of the religion, and the religion itself, as I respect all religions of the world. However, the point everyone is trying to make is that, wikipedia is not the place to do original research, and we don't want wikipedia to be the primary source of information on any topic. Until the religion becomes notable by itself and with a large following, we do not want to have wikipedia used as a propaganda and proselytizing medium. Thanks. --Ragib 06:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Is there anything we can do as acommunity to address this particular set of articles? - Parthi 06:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the first step would be to rid the pages of propaganda, uncited claims and proselytizing material. People familiar with the region can comment in that. Seems like some of the editors from the same region commented of their ignorance of the movement ... perhaps they can edit out the fictitious or amplified claims and boasts. Thanks. --Ragib 06:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Articles which are wholely about the relegion is not too harmful. But intrusion of it into articles like Swathi Thirunal Rama Varma should be dealt with more seriously. Tintin (talk) 06:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Add : Or this - Is Thiruvasakam an Ayyavazhi based work ? That is the impression that this article gives to the readers. Tintin (talk) 06:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * :o That was extremely misleading. I've moved the article to Thiruvasakam (Ayyavazhi) and blanked Thiruvasakam pending some stub there. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 08:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the discussion is moving far away from the main thing (matter of keeping Ayyavazhi in the introduction area.) we discuss earlier and towards the Ayyavazhi-related stubs and citing them. Any way I had the responsibility to answer.


 * In the introduction area the sense in which the religions are mentioned is the richness of the religion. It (the sentence) was " Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, and Sikhism–all have their origins in India." In this sentence here it doesn't note any thing about major religions or eny thing else. Here the citation needed is to verify whether Ayyavazhi is a religion or not. But not to verify it a major religion or a recoginised. For that see the second external link of Ayyavazhi article. It will show the presence of a religion Ayyavazhi. And I accept all other things in this matter.


 * Comment: The intro mentions the Major religions to start in India. Apparently, even people from the region of origin of Ayyavazhi do not know about the religion. This, perhaps, highlights the limited number of followers of the religion. As I said before *When* this religion becomes a major one, we can include it in description in the top level country page. Otherwise, we'd be forced to mention all other derivative religions starting out from India, with or without a lot of followers. --Ragib 07:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * And Parthi highlights the presence of Ayyavazhi only inside Wikipedia. I too agree. But there are pages outside but not upto the level. But this website shows the presence of Ayyavazhi and Akilatthirattu Ammanai. The stubs related to Ayyavazhi was created on the basis of the scriptures Akilaththirattu Ammanai and Arul Nool. In tamil wikisource I was creating Akilathirattu Ammanai and Arul Nool as sources and nearly 7% of the works are completed in the last few days. And  I will try to complete as asoon as possible.


 * The reason that Ayyavazhi is unknown in web is mainly because of the poor nature of the followers of Ayyavazhi. Most of them were from the sub-altern section of the society right from the beginning till know.


 * Comment: Well, show sources outside wikipedia. Having not enough mention outside wikipedia often proves the existence of an effort to promote something as what it is not. I'd suggest you provide contemporary news paper (not any blogs or websites devoted to the religion) references on the topic in the related articles. --Ragib 08:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * And in the matter of Swathi thirunal Akilam mention him as Kalineesan.


 * Thiruvasakam is not an Ayyavazhi based work. I mean the Thiruvasakam by Manikavasakar. But this Ayyavazhi related Thiruvasakam article is a part of Akilam. There are four Thiruvasakams in Akilam in the sence the message send by God to Human at different times. We can create a disambiguation. Thank You - Vaikunda Raja 07:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I looked into the Ayyavazhi page itself, and it doesn't seem to contain *ANY* references to established sources at all. Where are the sources? Uncited material is very much likely to be original research, and hence need to be converted to cited/referenced text, or removed altogether. Thanks. --Ragib 08:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, and I share this concern with Sundar who has brought it up in other articles as well. I doubt if this talk page is the right place to discuss it though. Perhaps the Ayyavazhi talk page is a better place.


 * Vaikunta Raja, there are thousands of religions or deities that originate in India, but we cannot reference them all. For example, we cannot mention each hero stone (நடுகல்) in India, though undoubtedly, most of them are worshiped, often by the same "sub-altern" demographic you mention. I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I feel the introduction of Ayyavazhi into a number of contexts where it is not notable violates Wikipedia guidelines. Also, create sources in Wikisources or Wikibooks for their own value - not to validate encyclopaedic entries. Kingsley2.com 09:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I've added unsourced tags to some pages, most of which have quite outstanding claims without a shred of references. I also suggest we do any further discussion in the related pages. The amount of original research is outstanding!! I hope editors from the south or those who are familiar with the area could comment on this topic, and look into the articles mentioned in List of Ayyavazhi-related articles. Thanks. --Ragib 08:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I accept that many entries are without citation and I'll try to give some. But I don,t agree with the view of User:Kingsley2.com pulling Ayyavazhi in to the category of herostone (நடுகல்) worship . Because in all the sub-altern worships only the historiography or the genesis of the temple or herostone and a set of rituals varyies from one another but not the central beliefs or thoughts of the main stream Hinduism. For example 108 Divya Desams of Hinduism have different Sthala purana of their own. But they do not tell any thing different from Hinduism in thought, belifs, philosophy, ideology etc. But here in Ayyavazhi there is a seperate scripture which tells the old had lost their substances. Which means the previous texts should not be followed further. The central belief of Hinduism, the Dharma;It varries. The circular conception of time in Hinduism is changed to linear in Ayyavazhi. Personification of Evil, as Kroni ect... So undoubt fully Ayyavazhi should not be understood as an offshoot of Hinduism.


 * My this argument doesn't mean that from the view of Ayyavazhi Hinduism is False. But from the Kaliyuga all the hindu scriptures had lost their substances as per Akilam. My sugesstion is in this scripture of Ayyavazhi it is noted that all the privious had lost their sustances. Then how Ayyavazhi could be added into the religion which is based on that scripture which was told by as gone awry?


 * And in the matter of citation I will try to do my best. Thank You. - Vaikunda Raja.


 * I have no claims to be any kind of expert on comparative theology, but armed with nothing more than a preliminary reading of the articles and a good understanding of Hinduism, here's my 0.02
 * Is Ayyavazhi a religion - Firstly, it does seem that the underlying philosophy has a strong underlying theme of good vs evil, which seems quite distinct from the pantheistic foundations of Hinduism (where everything has a place within an attributeless whole). Secondly, it is important to remember that Tamil culture is documented to be very ancient and there is evidence that Hinduism in Tamil Nadu state exhibits a different chart of progress, when compared with the rest of India. Indigenous faith symbols like Ayyanar, Mariamman etc. are speculated to predate the advent of Vedic Hinduism. It would be incorrect to dismiss these symbols as "hero stones" or aberrant one-off streams of Hinduism, as the rituals and folklore underlying these symbols are intricately woven, rich as concepts, and widely known. These deities are thought to have become syncretized initially with Vedic Hinduism, and later with Shaivism and Vaishnavism. In fact the worship of the deities Muruga and Meenakshi, are also unique to Tamil Nadu. Though, they are today identified with Subramanya and Parvati (deities from a common Hindu stream) the mythology surrounding the two seem localized to Tamil culture (with frequent references to places and customs in Tamil Nadu). Ayyavazhi seems to have evolved from a similar development of ideas. In fact, Sikhism and Jainism are recognized as syncretizations of Hinduism (the ideas of Vishnu and Hari are prevalent in both these faiths), but are recognized as distinct religions. So, it would seem logical to accept Ayyavazhi as a religion in its own right.
 * Is it a "major religion" - Quite simply no. The only way to classify a system as a major religion would be to base it on the numbers. With no documentary evidence or a credible popualr estimate, one cannot do that.
 * Citations - This is a frequent problem in India-related articles. There is a wealth of information to be documented with very few citations, simply because there is very little acceptable source as yet available. There is a very low penetration of the internet into rural India, and academically rigorous research materials into localized cultural beliefs are in short supply. No doubt, it is important that Wikipedia strive to be rigorous, but not at the cost of ruthlessly putting down every bit of information, for lack of supporting evidence.


 * I strongly feel it is better to be "inclusionistic" when dealing with such articles. Deletion of content painstakingly provided by a few users who have the knowledge will only discourage them from participation and only help to maintain the persistent "Ameri/Euro-centrism" in Wikipedia. Chancemill 12:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Indian repository of images
I am making an Asian repository of images. Please complete the India part as you see fit, preferably similar to those of France, Britain et al:

List of images/Places/Asia

I will be working on Iran's section. Thanx. Nemeste.--Zereshk 01:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

India a Refernce Annual

 * India a Reference Annual published by Government, Ministry of Information is not available on net. This reference Annual give more accuarate Government Data.  vkvora 17:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you provide a link to the website please? Prasi90[[Image:Flag of India.svg|25px]] 17:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Here you go: http://www.biblioasia.com/govt-publications.asp. This site offers the hard copy at a cost. Lost 18:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * http://rrtd.nic.in/refannual.htm Research Reference And Training Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Research and Reference Section. This link is not working. vkvora 18:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * http://mib.nic.in/informationb/media/Research.htm


 * Research, Reference and Training Division (RR&TD) serves as an information bank and reference centre to provides information feeder service to the media units in their porgramming and publicity campaigning work. The Division also provides research back up on important policies, issues, events and developments in the field of mass media.


 * The Division carries out its activities through :


 * Issue of backgrounders and reference papers on matters of public importance
 * Release of biographical sketches of eminent persons
 * Supply of reference material in connection with important anniversaries etc.
 * Publication of two reference annuals "India - A Reference Annual" and " Mass Media in India"
 * Planning and structuring of Indian Information Service (IIS) officers training.
 * Maintaining a reference library.
 * vkvora 19:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * India A reference Annual


 * Compiled and Edited by Research, Reference and Training Division.
 * Publication Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India.


 * Contains information on diverse aspects of the country, its geographic and demographic features, polity, economy, society and culture. The information is gathered from Central Government, Ministries, States, Union Territories and other organizations and hence authentic.  A work of reference, the Annual is useful to scholars, authors, students, officials, journalists, academicians and to those appearing for competitive examinations and contain the following subjects.


 * Land and the People, National Symbols, The Polity, Defence, Education, Cultural Activities, Scientific and Technological Developments, Environment, Health and Family Welfare, Welfare, Mass communication, Basic Economic Data, Finance, Planning, Agriculture, Water Resources, Rural Development, Food and Civil supplies, Energy, Industries, Commerce, Transport, Communications, Labour, Housing, Justice and Law, Youth Affairs and Sports, India and the World, State and Union Territories, Diary of National Events, General Information. vkvora 16:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Caste system once again

 * There have been a lot of criticism about the absence of describing India's caste system, a part of information that has a long history. Its importance on aspects of sociological life in India is overwhelming, yet it is only linked and not even summarized in the main article about India. I hope the missing information can be added at some point. Because it has been left out so far, readers could get the impression that the article has been written with a certain type of ignorance attached to it.


 * Political Parties get their votes on caste system. Those who got education neglected for  uneducated lots as commuters get the admission in Mumbai Local Trains and disallow to enter any more. This caste system have direct relation to Mahabharat and Ramayan. Proffessors from Harward University openly say these Kathas are main cause of Indian Poverty.   vkvora 19:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This is Wikipedia. No Original Research Please. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Discussion. Debate or debating is a formal method of interactive and position representational argument. Rules governing debate allow groups and individuals to discuss and decide issues and differences. Debate is an aspect of argument which is distinct from logical argument, in that it encompasses aspects of human persuasion which appeal to emotional responses —often based on exaggerated or misrepresented statements or claims. vkvora 19:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Like Ambuj said, Wikipedia is not a discussion forum or a place to express opinions on current affairs. See here -- thunderboltza.k.a.D e epu _ Joseph 03:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi VK, The article is about India, not the caste system. Going into the merits, demerits and history of caste deviates from the core India topic. If you feel that wikipedia lacks comprehensive information on caste, please update the the caste system and Reservation in India articles. Also this is not a forum for original research, so please cite your sources while adding them to prevent them from being reverted. Thanks! =Nichalp   «Talk»=  03:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think there is a seperate article about the Caste system in India, That would perhaps be a more appropraite place for you to add information about caste-issues. Also, could someone please clarify to me how we are supposed to refer to OBCs in an NPOV manner? "Backward Castes" seems to be casteist in nature. Or should we just put the word "backward" in quotes? Prasi90[[Image:Flag of India.svg|25px]] 05:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think OBC is a neutral term. The reason being its ratification by the Indian government and no objection from the section of society for which this was used. Using it as an official term should be enough. But please remember only to use it in Indian context. People outside India might take offence if you refere them that way. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Once again I am trying to make myself clear (see the first post under this topic): It is such an important aspect of India as a country, that it should not only be described in a separate article. Same goes for the article about Germany and its darkest part of history: the Holocaust. This is of such great importance to Germany's history, that there is not just a link to the holocaust article but a few sentences that describe what happened. That said, of course there is no linkage between this cruel subject and the Indian caste system meant, it is just an example of how one subject is dominantly linked to a country (and if you say, one's identity to differentiate it from the rest of the world besides its distinct geography). Furthermore what Harvard professors have revealed or commented about the Indian caste system does not matter at all, what matters is that most of Indian statesmen are part of a caste but yet no mentioning is done in the article, in my eyes this is a strong weakness of the article and I consequently propose a removal as feature candidate. I hope my comment is understood now, thanks.


 * You would have to justify on what grounds the article does not meet the featured status. If you fail to provide how it does not meet the featured article criteria, your nomination will be booted out. The article is written in summary form, and we try and exclude material which delves into a specific subject rather than the article. The Holocaust was a part of Germany's history, lengthy lugubious reports on the caste system does belong here. Please cite your sources about Harvard reports. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  18:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

No mention of India being the original homeland of the Aryans
Amazing that in 2006, their are still people who dont want to mention India being the homeland of the Aryans....And why I try to put this in, our great friend here erases it & copies and pastes his B.S. version of India....Good job 08:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * , please discuss before making controversial and uncited edits. Thanks. --Ragib 08:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, you might want to check out No personal attack policy. Thanks. --Ragib 08:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Report of Education Commission and Labour Commission

 * Some details of Education Commission by Dolat singh Kothari and Labour Commission by P B Gajendragadakar should be kept on Wikipedia encyclopedia.  vkvora 19:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks interesting...can you give a gist of what they contain and what's so special about them? -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Education Commission 1966-68 for 10+2+3 and many more whereas Labour Commission to improve the condition of Labours and Bonded Labours.  vkvora 19:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The Education Commission under the Chairmanship of Dr.D.S. Kothari, the then Chairman, University Grants Commission, began its task on October 2,1964. It consisted of sixteen members, eleven being Indians and five foreign experts. In addition, the Commission had the benefit of discussion with a number of internationally known consultants in the educational as well as scientific field. vkvora 19:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * NATIONAL COMMISSION ON LABOUR : The first National Commission on Labour was set up in 1966 under the chairmanship of Justic P.B. Gajendragadkar and submitted its report in 1969. The important recommendations of the Commission have been implemented through amendments of various labour laws. Certain new laws have also been enacted like Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act ,1986. In the areas of wage policy and minimum wages, employment services, vocational training, labour statistics and research and workers` education also, the recommendations made by the Commission have been largely taken into account in modifying policies, procedures and programs of the Government.  In order to ensure both consistency of Labour Laws with the general changes taking place in the economic policy and also to provide for greater welfare of the working class, the Government is considering to set up a second National Labour Commission. vkvora 19:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for removal as feature candidate

 * The article does not meet criteria 2b (quote: "comprehensive" means that an article covers the topic in its entirety, and does not neglect any major facts or details;), because it misses to address one of India's most important sociologic aspects, that is the caste system. For a more detailled description, why the caste system should at least be explained in a few sentences can be read above (topic: "caste system once again"). Furthermore you can find more comments on this discussion page if you investigate further on to the top. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.156.235.45 (talk • contribs)


 * While your intentions to improve the article is definitely noble, a Featured Article has to be selective. Seeing the article you will find that almost all the sections have a main article which covers the subject much more comprehensively. As a Featured Article has to follow summary style, everything can't be included. The subject coverage of caste system in this article has been debated a lot of times in the past and the current version reflects the consensus of the editors. However, if you feel it can be improved in any way without compromising the summary style and the actual quality of the article (in terms of neutrality), please discuss here what you plan to add. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 11:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * We should add Welfare section on the main article which will cover the caste, scheduled caste, etc.  vkvora 16:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe those who want to add details about caste system don't have any experience of writing Featured Articles. Let me explain it in short (its much more tougher than you think). The article on India currently has 9 detailed sections (notes/external links don't count as detailed sections). They are History, Government, Politics, States and union territories, Geography, Economy, Demographics, Culture, and Holidays. Is Caste system such a broad topic as they are? The answer is no. So let's find out which section it belongs to. Logically it should belong to demographics. Now demographic section does not have clear-cut sub-sections, but its paragraphs are devoted to certain topics. Let us see what they are. They are Population distribution and literacy, Religions, Race and Society, and liguistics. Again, caste system comes under a sub-topic of Race and Society. Here, you find discussions about Race perceptions of the society, evolutionary discussions blending with invasions and leading to caste system and their scientific discussion. Now think about it in larger context. 50% of the paragraph already discusses caste system (beginning from invasions). Do you think that if every such branch of sub-section starts demanding more weightage, would this article have any chance of remaining featured? Now you are asking inclusion of caste system, tomorrow someone will ask to include the biggest ever stock market crash that took place a few days ago. In order to summarize the article, there has to be a trade-off. And for articles about countries, it has been decided that only the broader issues be discussed and the in-depth issues be made visible. Caste system already has very high visibility. It is discussed in 4 lines and see-also link has also been provided. Look down at the main "see also" section. You will see a long list of topics highly relevant to India but not even been mentioned in the text. If we include details of all these, this article would easily go beyond 200kb. The article does NOT say that it is all what India is. The links have been provided with a reason and separate article exists to cover the topics in sufficient detail. I hope I have been successful in telling you what it means to be an FA and why are we unwilling to add more. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice explanation Lost 17:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Welfare State

 * Is India in welfare state?


 * An ideal model in which the state assumes primary responsibility for the welfare of its citizens. This responsibility is comprehensive, because all aspects of welfare are considered; a "safety net" is not enough, nor are minimum standards. It is universal, because it covers every person as a matter of right.


 * vkvora 03:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Not even close if you compare it to say, the UK. --Grammatical error 16:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)