Talk:India/Archive 36

Final image selection for Nayhaan Rahmaan (8 images)
Here are the results:
 * 1) K2 (Female, North-West India) 5 votes
 * 2) K3 (Male, North-Central India) 5 votes
 * 3) K12 (Male, North India) 7 votes
 * 4) K22 (Female, North India) 5 votes
 * 5) K27 (Male, East Central India) 5 votes
 * 6) K32 (Female, East India) 5 votes
 * 7) K42 (Males, Uncertain Geographical Region; Domain Name Expired for Image; Could be Tibetan monks; Don't know if they qualify for "India's demographics" page. Nikkul apparently didn't do his homework.) 5 votes.
 * 8) K43 (Female South India) 5 votes
 * 9) K44 (Male-Female North India, Generic Wedding in Delhi, Not clear if the couple are ethnically from the Delhi Area) 5 votes.

Clearly the selection is overwhelmingly biased towards North India. K2 (Bundi), K3 (Varanasi), K12 (Amritsar), K22(Kargil, K42 (Tibetan?), K44 (Delhi) 6 out of 9.  There is nothing from central India and nothing from South Central India.  I will post here in a few minutes and suggest a solution.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * As per the photographer of image K42 (buddhist monks), the location of the image is: 	Gyalrong Khangtsen, Sera Mey Monastery, P.O.Bylakuppe, Distt. Mysore, K.S. India, 571104 SOUTH INDIA. 03:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * They are kids going to school (Buddhist) in Karnataka? How are they a demographic representative of Karnataka?  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The images are already geographically balanced: North and Western India 60% of population: 5 images out of 9 (55%), South India 25% of population: 2 images out of 9 (24%), East India: 1 images (11%), North East India: 1 image (11%). Nikkul (talk) 03:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is my final selection and the reasoning behind it. I have left out K12, as it is as much about the Golden Temple and Sikhism. That picture will appear in the culture section in a rotation on religion etc.
 * K42 and K44 are both problematic.
 * K42 doesn't tell us where the picture is from. On Flickr it is listed in Karnataka(?)  The link there gyalrong.com expired as a domain name on 29 January 2011.  A Google Search for "Gyalrong" brings up a place or monastery in Tibet.
 * K44 is a generic picture of a wedding in Delhi. It could be a candidate for the culture section, but I fail to see how it is a picture suitable for "demographics." Had it been a long-standing community of the Delhi area: Ahirs, Jats, Kayasths, ..., it would have made sense, but we have no idea who these people are.  There is no evidence they represent Delhi.

Since there is no pictures from Central India or South Central India, I am including K7 and K13 K14. The selection, then, is:

I believe, I have worked out a fair equitable solution, with no obvious geographic or gender bias. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  03:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * User:Fowler&amp;fowler is being very misleading. The photographer of image K42 says "Group of young ones at Sera Mey Gyalrong Khangtsen." The photographer has even tagged the image as India! A simple google search of Sera Mey Gyalrong Khangtsen shows that it is located here: Gyalrong Khangtsen, Sera Mey Monastery, P.O.Bylakuppe, Distt. MYSORE, Karnataka INDIA, 571104. They even have a facebook page. I believe it is important to have Buddhism represented in demographics. This image was one of the most popular images in the vote. Nikkul (talk) 04:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Really, it is important to have Buddhism? And you produce a picture of children of Tibet exiles going to school in Karnataka as a representative.  Where are the representatives of the larger Buddhist populations of Ladhakh or Dalits? For that matter, where are the Christians, who at 2.4% of India's population are rather bigger than the Buddhists (0.8%) or Jains (0.4%) or Sikhs (1.?%).  There will be a rotation in the culture section on India's religions.  You can enter your picture there as a candidate.  Best regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * How are these kids Tibetans?? When exactly were these kids "exiled" from Tibet? Can't Indian Buddhists send their children to a Buddhist monastery in Mysore??
 * You yourself have put an image of Jains (.4% of pop) that was not one of the most popular imgs in the vote but you say that having an image of Buddhists (.8% of pop) is unrepresentative? This image was the 2nd most popular image in the vote! Nikkul (talk) 04:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

You should have done your homework before you submitted that image. It's not my job, it was yours. Saravask had also said in the initial announcement that all picture candidates should be at least 1Kx1K, which also you conveniently forgot about, submitting a number of very low res pictures. That Facebook site by the way is not even captioned in Tibetan. Strangely enough it has Chinese. I'm very confused. Children of Tibetan exiles in Karnataka who write in Chinese (the official language of an Atheist State). I don't think the demographics of India is that complicated. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  04:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Nikkul, it's a dubious image. Karnataka doesn't have Indian Buddhist population, at least not of ethnic Tibeto-Burman descent, but it has significant Tibetan exile population as compare to other South Indian states. So, I suggest you to drop the stick and move on. It would be great if you suggest some other images of Indian Buddhist, Christians, etc. undefined — Bill william compton Talk  05:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Recent events here--the conflicting attempts to finalize this photo issue--are hard to follow, but I think I get the gist of it. For what it is worth, I approve the proposal that Fowler&fowler "tally the votes and then apply a corrective for geographical or gender bias", as he put it. And although several of the photos are not much to my personal liking, I approve of his method and result. His reverts of Nikkul (diff'ed above) I see as an attempt to avoid chaotic discussion threading, not to censor Nikkul. I also can see how the proposal that F&f do the tally may be challenged, as Nikkul is doing, even if the proposal was seconded and not challenged until now (it would have been nice to challenge it when it was proposed, but hey, this is a busy talk page, I can barely keep up myself). With these things in mind I am posting my opinion on the matter: While I don't think Nikkul is being particularly disruptive, I nonetheless support the proposal that F&f tally and finalize the process. Pfly (talk) 08:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I second F&f being asked to tally & finalise the list. However Nikkul's wish to play a greater role in image selection should not be considered disruptive. Let F&f make his selection. If anyone has improvement points, let them express them for consideration. After that, we can vote on accepting F&f's final selection/amended selection (as applicable). AshLin (talk)


 * Thank you AshLin, Pfly and (earlier) Saravask and RegentsPark.  Nikkul is most welcome to contribute.  My apologies for my impatience last night.  I have made one more change: I have switched K13 (File:Shravanbelgola Gomateshvara feet prayer1.jpg) picture of Jain family worshipping) with K14 (File:Man in Old Cochin - Kochi - India.JPG, man in Old Cochin, Kochi).  The reason for this is two fold.
 * (a) There will soon be a selection for a religion rotation in the culture section. The Jain image (K13) will be more appropriate there.
 * (b) The faces in K13 images are not clearly visible. I believe it is important in demographics images for readers to be able to view the faces of people.
 * There were two replacement choices: K14 and K19 (File:Handicrafts seller.JPG). I chose K14 because it is high-res and because it doesn't have significant whiteout as K19 does.  If, however, there is support for K19, I am happy to swap K14 for K19.  I have taken out all mention of religion in the demographics set.
 * I should add that, we've all made compromises in arriving at this resolution including obviously me. (I would have preferred K23 (File:Meghalaya Khasi Woman.jpg) to K32 (File:Cropped Tripuri.jpg) as representative of the Northeast, and K11 (File:Young muslim woman in the Thar desert near Jaisalmer, India.jpg) to K2 (File:Lady in Bundi, Rajasthan.JPG as a representative of western India, but that is not what the people wanted.) I believe this is a good resolution.  It is now nearly three weeks since the discussion began with Saravask's original post of October 11.  In this time, we've collected a good set of images that will come in handy in rotations in other sections (Economy, Culture).  I believe it is time to move on to other sections (that doesn't mean that we don't voice our opinions on this set, of course).  Regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * To prevent the problems we encountered during this vote (8 images with no South India, then 24 images with no West India, then 44 images), we need to follow the following rules: 1- decide on how the vote will work and 2- Give ALL users 1 week to find other images (find pics on flickr, wait for photographer to change license, import to Wiki). Images should not be selected by just 1 user. We all need to have a chance to find suitable images from all over India. Nikkul (talk) 16:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This was our first time, so the organization was less than perfect. Apologies.  For the religion section rotation everyone will be given 1 week to submit images.  This was really true in this rotation as well, but perhaps was not clear to everyone.  Thanks for your input.  Regards,   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Fowler, can we place your final eight in a separate section to comment on. I tend to get confused at times :). AshLin (talk) 16:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

AshLin, Here are the final eight images:

Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  16:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Instead of talking replacements and rotation of images in culture/Economy section - which was not discussed or I missed it in these long discussions, 1. please just present the unaltered results. 2. Then let's agree which ones to replace or if replacement is needed. 3. Then find replacements. IMO, jumping to step 3 and suggesting permutations doesn't help build a consensus. The responsibility of tallying for 1 person is OK, but correcting the "bias" should be a community consensus. Let us go step by step. I am also open to Nikkul's proposal of scrap, structure and restart too. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are being a little disingenuous Redtigerxyz. It was based on your original objection that I added 24 new images, on which you conveniently forgot to vote, despite repeated reminders. We have spent three weeks on these images. I have done most of the work, sorting over 10,000 images in the process. Let us agree to disagree, but no going back to first principles now. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  17:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the personal attack. Check who is being disingenuous. Someone can't even scroll up and check if I voted or not, before making an accusation. I am # 5 in Voting #2 (With 47 images) with red coloured signature amongst Black and blue text. Please stop with your Is. I always thought it was always a "we". I am surprised you can ignore all others who participated in this process. Was the authority to "tally" the votes to given to an user or "select" his version of images? If the latter, what was the fuss about the vote, if there is no democracy? When was the images being candidates for rotation of culture/Economy section discussed? Since I am "disingenuous", please enlighten me about this. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 18:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Really, where is that vaunted vote of 18th October? You voted a week later on 24 October.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said earlier I did not feel that images were not inclusive at that time. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 19:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is the proposal by Saravask, which was seconded by RegentsPark, which talks about closing.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Voting on the "new" set:
 * K14 is a photo of a curtain more than of a man. Not the best of images for people.
 * Why K7 (2 votes) and not K9 (3 votes)? The WP:FP K9 is of Central India as well as represents Tribals. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 19:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies for my outburst above. (It's been a long haul.)  Thanks for your patience.  Yeah, I sort of agree about K14. K19 is certainly has more of the man.  We could go with K19 (also South India).  If there's another picture you have in mind, please suggest.  We could also change K7 to K9.  I just looked at K9 again, it has some beautiful jewellery.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * ... And the foregoing is why we need one image director. Like Raul654 or his deputies, only this one guy should be allowed to mess with images here. Only this one guy should make the final call regarding proposals for what goes in, what is thrown out. Simple. Indisputable. Fair.


 * Redtigerxyz, who the hell are "we"? "We" did not write this article. Mostly it was Fowler, with auxilliary help from others. The judgement of most everybody else here is untrustworthy, simply because they cannot engage with the sources to the extent that Fowler can. Or they are too obsessed with dumping their own stuff onto the page. Or they could not be bothered to become top-class contributors like Fowler, rather than just showing up to vote-in their friend's pet images in the utterly mistaken belief that this is a straight vote, that this is a democracy. It is not. Weight of opinion goes by reputation for quality edits. In this regard, Fowler's opinion on images, the lead, and everything else here matters *far more* than that of anybody else. And thank God for that.


 * What a mess WP:FA would be if anybody could show up at WP:FAC, recruit a few meatpuppets—like Nikhil likely just did via email and selective canvassing—then vote-stack their biased, poorly written crap into FA-hood. Then one of them could just tack the page's name onto WP:FA because "we voted so" and "this is a democracy". No. Wrong. "We" do discuss at FAC, but "we" don't make the final pass-or-fail call—the one gruff, uber-experienced guy does. And nobody has a right to interfere with or challenge that call. Thus less strife-ridden second-guessing all around.


 * This ongoing debacle, where one low-value vote-stacking piddler gets to drop in and filibuster or line-item veto—for the better part of a month—all solo or joint attempts by trusted regulars (the ones who largely helped Fowler build this page) to incrementally bring this article's visuals into compliance with core WP policies (balance, due weight, etc.) is ... [fill in the blank]. Now he's at it again, desperately attempting to tack on yet *another* week of time-wasting, thereby bringing discussions revolving around just one extra image in "Demographics" to a round month. It is astounding to see him as he continues to refuse calls to just back off, get out of the way of greater visual balance/representativity, and propose any extra images later.


 * While trawling WP:ANI for example topic-ban threads just now, I found that someone else had taken the words right out of my mouth:


 * This is from an FAC regular who, with more than 131,000 edits, has content-, policy-, and experience-wise been around the wiki-block. If she says this, it means something.


 * Fowler has done most of the work in this image discussion, just as he has done most of the work in bringing this article into its current balanced, neutral, and properly sourced state. Hence let's keep it that way, save everybody this Paradox of Choice life- and time-wasting, and give Fowler, like Raul654 with FAs, the last word in any changes, additions, or removals of images from now on. And let's close this zoo of a discussion. Saravask 22:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "we" are "all (others) who participated in this process", not 1 or 2 editors, but no one owns (WP:OWNERSHIP}) any article. It is "we" do discuss and also the final call is taken by "us". The

Consensus is "the primary way in which editorial decisions are made on Wikipedia". I do not want to indulge any hero-worship or demonization by weighting the virtues or vices of someone. This is not an admin election. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 04:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I see. So if twenty Moldova-based IP editors turned up tomorrow and voted-in an obscene penis image to replace the BSE, you'd accept that, right? Because twenty voters who have never done anything for this page must know better than Fowler, you, or even Nikkul.


 * Please *read* my comments: I never spoke against consensus-seeking discussion. I *am* citing WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. "Consensus" != naked, un-curated vote-tallying. "Consensus" != direct democracy. Our goal is truth and beauty here, *not* vulgarian "elites are scum" populism. Otherwise we're setting ourselves up for the massive failures of process (where voting vanquishes good taste and experience) that led to the Pakistan clusterfuck. That is why opinions on WP are heavily weighted by tenure and quality of reputation. I otherwise don't have a problem with good-faith, non-egoised discussion that is progressing and seeking excellence in exposition.


 * All that is being asked here is that, in cases of deadlock, cases where discussion is dragging on and on due to possibly deliberate stalling, or cases when Fowler himself just has a bad feeling—whether stemming from historicity, aesthetics, balance, representativity, etc.—about a proposed image change that is supported by most other editors, that everybody yield to Fowler's superior experience and judgement and accept his considered and disinterested veto.


 * This is *completely* in line with the notion of "consensus" as routinely practiced at FAC, FAR, and other effective WP processes. Just like how Raul654 or one of his manciples would never pass an obviously crappy and POV article at FAC—even if the nom had twenty or even two hundred easy and glad-handing meat-puppet supports lined up. He would veto their stupidity. And that's consensus. End of discussion.


 * Raul654 has often said he gives far more weight to FAC reviewers who regularly offer detailed, high-quality critique (like or ) than to perfunctory votes by inchoate noobs or to meatpuppet or wikiproject buddies. Final decisions that close consensual discussions tend to be performed by the senior-most and most-capable editors who have done the most to make the page. This is *not* a prescription for this page; it is description of how the most truth-efficient WP processes work. Saravask 07:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Final version 2 (after Redtigerxyz's critique)
Redtigerxyz made some good points above. Based on his input, here is a Final version 2. Please offer your comments and critiques below. Regards, Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments and critiques

 * The more I think about it, the more I feel that Nikkul's K43 might be the best demographics image of the lot. True its a crowd and not a face, but it is hi-res and offers a broad demographic cross-section of faces providing information that no single face can.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * PS Of course single images can be seen up close and they offer a different scale of information.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I haven't been following this long discussion to the last detail so I apologize if my comments do not fit in the image selection roadmap. Of the 1.2 billion people in India, about 900 million subscribe to cell phones. The growth rate of new subscribers is 11.41 million per month and the larger component of this has been coming from rural India since 2008 and the trend is expected to continue. Pictures like the ones in the following media reports are likely to be current than some of the ones above.
 * Wall Street Journal - entire slide show of 10 pictures, mostly farmers and people of rural India
 * The Hindu - Farmer in field using cell phone, women working in background
 * BBC - video
 * Of the above, Nikkul's choice, K43, is the best. K19 and K27 are also good choices since they show people engaging in daily activities. The others have an appearance (given the history of this discussion) of being selected for their castes, community or color of skin and I will never endorse such selection/behavior. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We have a lot of pictures of people doing things. (See here) But it was decided somewhere along the way, and I've myself forgotten when, to use those in the economy and culture section rotations, to be decided on next.  Similarly, pictures of people using cell phones would be good for that rotation.  The pictures in your links are too low-res, but your point is well taken.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I just uploaded a hi-res picture File:Apatani Woman Using Cell Phone.jpg, which I found on Flickr. Those of you who were around during the old Apatani image (File:Apatani tribal women.jpg) years, will appreciate the remarkable change.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)'

Support version 2 -- Redtigerxyz Talk 04:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I think these are all great pictures. Being an ignorant outsider, I can't tell whether a given picture reflects a particular caste--they all look very "Indian" to my eyes. I'm amazed by the time and effort required here to reach consensus on pictures for a single section of the page. I'm not saying it is too much time or effort, just that this level of collaborative work is not something I have often encountered on Wikipedia--I mainly stick to rather arcane topics, or pages of mere local interest. The way this page works is quite different from most. It is, like I said, amazing to watch. Pfly (talk) 09:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The Bonda are clearly a tribe (of 5000) selected for a reason unknown to me. Most of the other FAs on other countries don't do this and the United States GA does not go about with pictures of African Americans, Asians, American Indians, Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, Pacific Islanders, etc. It simply presents a table on demographics and a map. I wonder why there's special treatment for "exotic" India. Zuggernaut (talk) 13:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * An important belief in Indian democracy is the tenet "Unity in diversity", btw citation needed ;). India is a land of many minorities, literally thousands of them, if not tens of thousands. Disclaimer, I myself belong to one, my community is about 20,000 in size. So, my view is that an image (or a few images) of minority communities represents a vital aspect and a truth about India's demographics. Remember USA prides itself as a melting pot but in India we celebrate diversity, we do not expect people to conform to a common mould. AshLin (talk) 04:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Support the latest version. Let the Apatani cell phone image embellish "telecommunication" rather than "demographics". I concur with Pfly's views. Its really good that we could ALL overcome our prejudices, shortcomings, mistakes etc and come to a good consensus. I must say I much prefer this kind of process, painful and lengthy though it may be, to having a super image admin-type person, as suggested by Saravask in good faith a few paras above. My congratulations to all concerned. I hope we wrap up the consensus for this amicably so that we can get on to the next set of imagery. AshLin (talk) 10:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Just as with posed pics, I yield the point, considering that IMO no one has demonstrated an adequate understanding of the nuances I've attempted to convey in my evolving opinion regarding the need for a "great leader". And obviously no one agrees with it. As does chaotically democratic India, we'll just have to bumble along without one. Nevertheless, it may not always be like this, where everyone taking part in this image discussion is more or less reasonable and willing to compromise: Redtigerxyz, AshLin, Pfly, and everyone else. As Fowler or rgpk said, Zuggernaut and Nikkul have been repeatedly helpful here by providing good critique and images.
 * No one has recently done anything that is beyond the pale. Yet if the cooler heads here bow out and are replaced by truly incompetent voters, people may come to think twice about foreswearing a Lee Kuan Yew-style moderator who would impose visual order and forestall rubbish. As AshLin said, let's just hope this unbelievably tedious style of consensus-building continues, and that this page doesn't devolve to the level of pictoral and POV malfeasance evident in our tragically benighted eastern neighbour. Saravask 23:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Support: Looks good to me. Re Nikkul and the redtigerxyz above, the consensus was that f&f would pick the images, these would then be installed in the article, and then anyone could discuss changes on an image by image basis ("Proposal to replace image xyz by abc" sort of thing). I suggest we stick to that process otherwise the discussion will bog down continually. Fowler, there is nothing wrong with Nikkul tabulating results, anyone can do that. Anyway, let's install these images and then deal with changes while we move on to the other sections. --regentspark (comment) 21:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose The change has by User:Saravask but here's my "formal vote", for the record, for the reasons stated at the top of the sub-section and in my reply to User:Pfly. Along with the map of India, this is now a 3rd area I have an issue with. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Which sections next?
I hear the talk of changing images in Economy and Culture. Which images are considered for a change? -- Redtigerxyz Talk 04:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Farmer image
 * 2) BSE image
 * 3) Taj
 * 4) Shakuntala
 * 5) cricket


 * (Saravask should really answer this, but my understanding is that) the Cricket image (currently a rotation of 2) will become a larger rotation which will include the Parcheesi image, File:Joueursindienspushkar.jpg and a number of other sports/games related images to be submitted. Similarly the BSE or the Farmer image will become a rotation of economy-related images, which could have images such as: Dabbawalla, Woman sharpening her sickles, Potter working, A construction worker on scaffolding, A dairy farmer milking a cow, Fishmonger at her work, Bananas and plantains vendor and so forth.  Some pictures of the modern sector of the economy will be needed.  My own preference is that both the BSE and the farmer should become rotations, one depicting the modern sector, the other the traditional sector.  (It's wayh past my bedtime now.  So, good night.)   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  05:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * PS To keep things simple, why don't we start by discussing the cricket rotation? (Tomorrow)   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  05:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. I hereby propose that File:Joueursindienspushkar.jpg be one of the images that join the "Sports" rotation. Resplendently Indian. Elegantly representative. Saravask 07:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * PPS And part of a tradition that most certainly did not begin in 1874.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Request from an anon
Q8: Goa needs a number "6" beside it in the map of states and a clickable area to its Wiki article.

This was placed mistakenly in the FAQ section. Can someone examine and address it if necessary? Zuggernaut (talk) 22:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I noticed that too. The number 6 is there in the full-resolution version (which appears when you click the map), but does not appear in the smaller version.  Please examine the history.  Some editor changed it recently to have the same "clickability" as Canada.  He should be contacted.  All it will probably take is moving the "6" away from the Indian mainland.  As it stands, the mainland is probably hiding the covering the 6.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The map is a little strange. It is actually a template, Indian States Image Map, which in turn is an imagemap based on File:India-states-numbered.svg. The "6" is there, just very small. You can just see it on the India page--a little black speck offshore. Mousing over it gives you a link to Goa. There are a few other very small bits of text--like a tiny "B" linking to Chandigarh. Looks like the font was changed on 5 Oct 2011, at The Commons by Commons editor Citypeek. Maybe that caused the problem, although it looks like the tiny text might have already been there before 5 Oct. I would fix it myself, but have never really understood SVG graphics. Every time I try to edit one the result ends up weirdly Not Good. Pfly (talk) 02:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The edit summary there indicates that Citypeek only tried to change the "font from Sans to DejaVu Sans." Maybe someone with experience with images can help fix. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

 * Sounds good to me. Thanks for your initiative and for all the work!   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * PS I've just posted on WT:INDIA and some user talk pages. Since others might want to weigh in, it might be a good idea to give them more time than 24 hours.  :)  Thanks.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you please do one proposal at a time...what's the rush? doing demographics, economy, politics, etc at the same time just confuses everyone...why don't you wait on the demographics and govt proposals until after the economy propsal has been decided upon.  Nikkul (talk) 01:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Proposal 1 shows only a section of the bldg, a majority of which is a blank wall. Why not show the whole building?. I have proposed a picture, Proposal 2, (where you can actually see the majority of the bldg) which I feel is much better. Please comment. P.S.- both pics were taken by the same photographer on the same day, so quality is the same. Nikkul (talk) 01:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The current image has too many distracting elements: trees, buildings. I like the old one or the one in BSE article which shows the building more, with much distractions. Redtigerxyz Talk 06:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * BSE image
 * I agree with User; Redtigerxyz, the image labeled "Old" looks the best for the bldg. Nikkul (talk) 04:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Aren't there any interior images - a trading floor perhaps? The building itself is generic looking and all three images rather dull. What about an old stock exchange building (if there was an old one)? --regentspark (comment) 19:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Demographics Section
I am removing the comment, 'the lowest since independence', on human sex ratio of India as it is the child sex ratio which is lowest since independence not the human sex ratio which was 933 in 2001 census compared to present census reported figures of 940. Alokagrawal8 (talk) 09:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * While I appreciate the crispness and writing of the Demographics section, I am not particularly pleased with the photo. I believe that we should use either the previous photo of the ascetic, or utilise a photo highlighting a non-Hindu demographic such as the Jammu and Kashmir photo, or even a photo of Sikhs from Punjab/Monks in Sikkim. While I certainly have no dislike for the present photo, I simply feel it is out of place.  Ankit Bhatt  Talk to me!! LifEnjoy 14:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Wide-ranging discussions regarding images in most or all sections—moderated by —have already started or soon will start. The "Demographics" image rotation has already been settled for now. See above. Saravask 15:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Ankit, there are 8 rotated images (see Talk:India), not just 1 photo. However, 1 photo appears at a time. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 16:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You mean to say that forever the images are going to rotate? Or only for a fixed period of time?  Ankit Bhatt  Talk to me!! LifEnjoy 16:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

As Redtigerxyz has said, eight images rotate in "Demographics" at present. Every time the page is purged or edited, a "parser function" is evaluated: one that calculates the current second modulo the number of rotated images—here, eight. Thus we evaluate "[second] mod 8". So if the current second (which can range from 0 through 59, because there are 59 + 1 = 60 seconds in a minute) when the purge/edit is done was, say, 13, then you take the remainder after dividing 13 into 8 (13 / 8)—which is five. So then the sixth (5 + 1 = 6) image (the eight images are numbered from 0 to 7) in the, the one numbered "5", is selected. And so it goes forever—so long as the rotation code and image count/lineup remain unchanged—every time a purge or edit happens. Saravask 17:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow. That's ... well, suffice it to say that I haven't ever seen such a different use of a parser function. Come to think of it, I haven't seen many parser functions at all. Nice work.  Ankit Bhatt  Talk to me!! LifEnjoy 06:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposal
I've been watching the discussion upstairs and can't help feeling that an average reader has no idea that the rotation is in fact a rotation. All they see is a picture. If they come back, they may easily do so after such time as to have little memory of the previous visit. The diversity we've worked so hard to display is likely wasted on them.

I was wondering if we could put the final 8 images selected for the rotation on a subpage, lock it down, and provide a link for it in the caption of the rotation image. See accompanying picture. This way the reader will have instant access to all images, will instantly clue into the fact of rotation, not to mention India's diversity, and perhaps even return soon to view its random offerings. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  15:00, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm. That is a good point. How does rotation work? Does it pull a random image every time the page is loaded or will everyone accessing the page at a particular point in time see the same picture? Also, throwing some alternatives out there, does it make sense to have a strip of six or so thumb or smaller images at the bottom of the section? For a small section like demographics, the text and images would then fit on the same window and all images would be accessible at the same time. (Yet another alternative is to make a 3X3 image collage, if such a thing is possible.) --regentspark (comment) 19:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for addressing. I was lost in all the jibber-jabber done here & hence had stopped reading these essays. Separate page would be very good. That way other things related to India page can have place for discussion. Or else this is simply a way to loose non-picture related discussions. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I quickly skimmed through the Britannica India page. It is longer, much longer, than this page.  It used to have  grids of thumbs, but the images now accompany the text.  The length of the article allows it to easily intersperse the text with images without having to resort to rotations, slide shows or the like.  They have a total of almost 300 images and maps.  Their "Land" section (our Geography) has 20 images. Flora and fauna has 6.  Religions has 7 or 9 including two videos.  You can view the page at Encyclopaedia Britannica - India.  I'm sure we can have grids of thumbs, but then there won't be regular pictures in those sections and some people might not be up for that.      Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:35, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Animesh, Sorry, it took me a while to understand your point. I take it you are saying that sections of the talk page with both images and discussions should be simplified by moving the images to a subpage, where readers can contemplate them calmly, away from the noise. This too could be done, though there might be problem with archiving these pages.  Some admin more versed in these matters will have a better answer.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi RegentsPark, I implemented your idea of having a strip at the bottom and here are the two versions: 1. 7-image-wide strip at bottom along with regular rotation image and 2. 8-image-wide strip at bottom with rotation image removed. What do you think?  I feel the section looks cluttered with images.  Moreover, if the page width is narrowed, one or more images in the strip spill over into a second row.  A 3x3 grid of thumbnails remains a possibility, but I don't know how to implement it.  Obviously the captions shouldn't be there in the grid, but should appear upon clicking it.  Do you think we could have the "See more demographics image" link, proposed above, on a trial basis for a week to see how people react to it?  If so, could you lock down the subpage?   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I prefer the image with link in lieu of the galleries. Else we select one image permanently and have a proper gallery in place. But galleries need to be more encyclopaedic and I think we are a tad short of that. user:AshLin 12:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Would it be possible to get rid of the text in the gallery (is that what you mean about the no captions)? That way the frame containing the images will look like a set of slides of yore and may look quite nice. Right now, the size of each image box (the image, the text, and the gray space below the text) is too large. Not sure about the window size issue. I guess it will mostly affect mobile devices. --regentspark (comment) 12:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, this, perhaps, could work. Captions might not be needed (but they will need to be improved in the Commons version of these images). Here is one implementation with no captions. In general, though, I agree more with AshLin's view. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  13:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I asked my better half and she said, "The single image captures the senses and intrigues the mind, you're more likely to click on the link and see the others. The gallery pics are too small to intrigue.  You might only click on a few." She also said, "The strip looks like a stylish thing, something you'd see in Cosmo, and everyone knows Wikipedia is not about style."  :)  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with your better half. You really can't see the details of most horizontal imgs in the strip format. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, why is it that our spouses can see through things in a shot whereas I had to scratch my head a lot to make up my mind? Some kind of Murphy's law, I guess ;)! AshLin (talk) 17:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, discretion is the better part of valor - so rotation with clickable link it is :) --regentspark (comment) 19:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Corruption
A minor section on corruption should be added, as it is a major issue in politics and business. Sarcelles (talk) 17:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think corruption deserves a whole section. Every country has corruption. Nikkul (talk) 22:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It is more important in India than it is in other countries. Sarcelles (talk) 18:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Nikkul. There is no need for minor or major addition of section of corruption in main article of India. Every country has corruption 'one way or the other'. However by the way, there are specific articles which address "Sarcelles" question. Articles like Corruption in India, 2011 Indian anti-corruption movement, Whistleblower protection in India, List of politicians in India charged with corruption, Indian black money and List of scandals in India. Readers and researchers who need to need to refer or read more about corruption in Indian can read any of the articles that is already existing independently in Wikipedia, for example the one's I have hyper-liked here.
 * Anyways, in the introduction of the article of India (3rd para from beginning) it is clearly written "Following market-based economic reforms in 1991, India became one of the fastest-growing major economies; it is considered a newly industrialized country. However, it continues to face the challenges of poverty, illiteracy, corruption, and inadequate public health."


 * I think from the above I have proved that there is no need to mention corruption for the reason of already existing independent articles of the same and mention in brief in the article itself.

---Thanks, Joel---
 * Mention of corruption in 2-3 lines that is now present is good enough for readers to browse throught other topics. Thats sufficient. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 18:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

India: questionable images; questionable prose
For gosh sake, before it was the obsessively subpar images; now, great God almighty, it is the defiantly subpar prose. Both keep rising up again and again—like the heads of the Lernaean Hydra. Except now I no longer have time for the usual interminable call-and-response routine of casuistry and perseveration that prevails here.

So let me put it this way: if anyone else has the misfortune of falling through the trapdoor and onto this page by foolishly attempting some "undiscussed" non-stupid and non-piddling verbal or visual therapy here, then [fill in random horror-movie plot device here] them. If you revert because you "prefer to discuss it first", fine ...

A few days of talk for one image or one lede paragraph is bearable. But then what is with the weeks-long nit-picking and round-table jabber that then ensues, most of it useless? Glad-handing bloat or stalling or trolling, much of it? Doctrinairism. Functional fixedness. Non-pragmatism. Non-incrementalism. All often causing the page to end up even worse than it was before—which is now likely to happen with the images. All while the same "consensus" crap in question stays pasted up on main for all to laugh at? Again, for weeks? , the true wonder of this time-sink of a talk page. Saravask 18:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, the article has gone through an FA review process and has retained its status. In light of that, your contention of crappy prose is a little hard to accept. AshLin (talk) 18:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree (with AshLin). A recent FA review process indicates that many eyes have viewed the prose with critical eyes and a great deal of work (mostly by fowler) has gone into its quality. The contention that the prose is crappy seems very hard to accept. About the image issue. It is useful to note that image selection has an aesthetic component to it that is not present in text selection. Because of this, a consensus model for adopting images is important if we're to avoid ending up in a situation where everyone keeps replacing images based solely on their personal aesthetic sense. It seems to me that the time and effort that is going into this process (again, largely on the part of fowler but also on the part of nikkul, redtigerxyz and ashlin) is useful and well worth it. I don't really see any cause for complaint or for seeing this as some sort of harbinger of the death of wikipedia. --regentspark (comment) 18:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (To Saravask) Unfortunately everyone has to play by the rules. You can't make large-scale edits, all at once, of which roughly a quarter to a third are OK and the remainder are not, and then expect others to pick up after you.  Changes that can be addressed in an edit summary are fine, but longer ones do need to be taken up on the talk page.  I'm delighted by your appearance on the page, and I've enjoyed reading your posts, both here and on my talk page, but the rules that apply to a Nikkul also apply to you.    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with AshLin and RegentsPark. It is actually Saravask's prose on the talk pages that a 12th grader will find difficult to understand. Zuggernaut (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If we all acted like User:Saravask, this page would be a bunch of people adding and changing whatever they pleased with no consensus or discussion whatsoever. I think the reason this article is featured is only because users have taken the time to discuss, agree, and come to consensus about prose, images, etc. Nikkul (talk) 05:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * And if we all acted like Nikkul—or that world-renowned connoisseur of visual excellence, "MangoWong"—the WMF would soon be contracting the design of WP illustrations out to Marvel Comics.
 * "[B]ut longer ones do need to be taken up on the talk page"—do not make me dig through the revision history and post diffs of your unilateral and un-summarised good-faith mistakes. I did it to Nikkul. I don't want to have to do it to you as well. The point here is that your admonishment is violated by your own recent "Haiku"-like and somewhat hypocritical edit summaries: "tweak", "minor", and the inimitably fabulous "d". "[T]he rules that apply to a Nikkul" also apply to you, Fowler. You cannot in good conscience demand fastidiously and tediously comprehensive edit summaries from others while repeatedly taking free passes for yourself. More substantive discussion and less grandstanding, please. Saravask 12:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * ...or that world-renown connoisseur of visual excellence, "MangoWong" Well, thanks for the sarcastic / acidic comment. Can't really expect anything else from you. Please continue. The award was well deserved and long overdue. Nikkul's images are high quality, and have made WP richer in that regard. Fret as much as you like.M W ℳ 10:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * No. It won't continue—life is too short. My point was that not all of Nikkul's images were interesting. But some were. Just as much of Fowler's prose was fine—but not all. Nobody here was perfect (or "of world renown"). Cheers. Saravask

Areas for improvement
AGF Saravask there must surely be something in the prose that you feel is below par and feel so strongly about. Let us leave aside the discussion of mode of improving articles, can we get some kind of indication from you as to which are the parts needing improvement so that we can get on with it? AshLin (talk) 21:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have now reverted the article, so that we can all see the version last edited by Tony1 that stood before Saravask made his first edit, and the version that we have now after Saravask's edits. Part of the problem is that when people make BOLD (or whatever the Wiki jargon of the moment is for these) edits in featured articles, especially en mass ones, it is hard to keep track.  Some changes had already been made even before Saravask made his first edit.

Example 1
To give an example, a sentence in the ancient India section, as I remember it, originally was: "The caste system, which created a hierarchy of priests, warriors and free peasants, but excluded indigenous peoples by labeling their occupations impure, arose during this period." The cites supported this sentence. The sentence was changed somewhere along the way to: "The caste system, creating a social hierarchy, appeared during this period." This had now been changed by Saravask to: "The caste system, which spawned a social hierarchy, appeared during this period." The problem with the final version is that it seems to imply that the caste system (an abstraction) spawned (gave birth to) the hierarchy. The caste system was the hierarchy. The meaning has changed entirely (and I say this as someone who normally likes the word "spawn."). When such edits are discussed ahead of time, the problems can be pointed out; however, when they appear as parts of edits with minimal or perfunctory edit summaries, it is very hard to keep going after each error. I certainly don't have the time, nor the energy. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  23:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Example 2
Here is another sentence, which in the original FAR'd version read: "In north India, during the same time, Hinduism asserted patriarchal control within the family, leading to the increased subordination of women." This too was changed by someone to: "In north India during the same time, Hinduism asserted patriarchal control within the family.", with "patriarchal" linked to "patriarchy," which now has been pruned further by Saravask to "In North Indian families, Hinduism asserted patriarchal control." Though Saravask, clearly, is not to be blamed for the intermediate edit, it now sounds like Hinduism asserted patriarchal control in all north Indian families, not just the Hindu households. Clearly, during this time, large swathes of India, both North and South, lay beyond the pale of Hinduism. If you are looking for terse writing, then, in this instance, a sentence like: "In North India, Hinduism asserted patriarchal control," is closer to the original meaning than "In North Indian families, Hinduism asserted patriarchal control."

One of the things about style in Wikipedia is that we can't turn to prose into a series of Haikus. The average reader likes to have some extra words to hang his hat one, to get his bearings right. So, a sentence like "patriarchal control within the family" is not verbally excessive even though patriarchy is largely (but not entirely) about the family. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  00:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Example 3
Here is an example where I have more sympathy with Saravask's edit or at least the intent behind the edit. The original edit, one of my pet Victorian constructions, was:"Depending upon the historian, India's modern age begins variously in 1848, when with the appointment of Lord Dalhousie as Governor General of the Company rule in India, changes essential to a modern state, including the consolidation and demarcation of sovereignty, the surveillance of the population, and the education of citizens, were put in place, and technological changes, among them, railways, canals, and telegraph were introduced not long after being introduced in Europe; 1857, when disaffection with the Company's rule, set off by diverse resentments, which included British social reforms, harshness of land taxes, and the humiliation of landed and princely aristocracy, led to the Indian rebellion of 1857 in many parts of northern India; 1858, when after the suppression of the rebellion, the British government took over the direct administration of India, and proclaimed a unitary state, which on the one hand envisaged a limited and gradual British-style parliamentary system, but on the other hand protected India's princes and large landlords as a feudal safeguard; and 1885, when the founding of the Indian National Congress marked the beginning of a period in which public life emerged at an all-India level." :) In my way of thinking (at least as of May 2011 when I was writing it) there is no reason why today's readers can't suck it up like the Victorians and withhold gratification (or delay catharsis) until they get to the end of the sentence. But I can see that it will strain the readers resources and will likely elicit a rereading for full comprehension.  This has been changed by Saravask to: "Depending upon the historian, India's modern age may have begun in 1848, when the appointment of Lord Dalhousie as Governor General of the Company rule in India inaugurated changes essential to the development of a modern state: the demarcation and consolidation of sovereignty; the surveillance of the population; the education of citizens; and the construction of railways, canals, and telegraph lines, which were introduced not long after they had taken root in Europe. The age may have begun in 1857, when British-style social reforms, harsh land taxes, and humiliations borne by landed and princely aristocracy led to the Indian Rebellion of 1857 that challenged Company rule and ravaged many parts of northern India. It may also have begun in 1858 when, after the rebels were suppressed, the British government opted for direct administration of India and proclaimed a unitary state, which on the one hand envisaged a slow transition to a British-style parliamentary system, but on the other hand favoured Indian princes and landlords as a feudal safeguard against popular unrest. Lastly, its modern era may have commenced with the founding of the Indian National Congress in 1885, thus marking the start of an all-India public life."

The problem with such a large change is that it's hard to know where to begin.
 * 1) "It may have begun ..." makes a sentence which was taut and clear (if overly long) to one that is wishy-washy.
 * 2) If the length of the sentence is the problem, then I would have much rather preferred (the more accurate) break up: Some historians date the onset of India's modern age to 1848 when .... Others date it to 1857 when ....  Still others date it to 1858 when ...., and others yet to 1885, when ....
 * 3) Now to my sentence, "1848, when with the appointment of Lord Dalhousie as Governor General of the Company rule in India, changes essential to a modern state, including the consolidation and demarcation of sovereignty, the surveillance of the population, and the education of citizens, were put in place, and technological changes, among them, railways, canals, and telegraph were introduced not long after being introduced in Europe."
 * 4) My sentence does have some issues:
 * 5) there should be a comma after the first "when,"
 * 6) "were put in place" --> "began to be put in place"
 * 7) "were introduced" --> "began to be introduced."
 * 8) Saravask's version of this sentence is: 1848, when the appointment of Lord Dalhousie as Governor General of the Company rule in India inaugurated changes essential to the development of a modern state: the demarcation and consolidation of sovereignty; the surveillance of the population; the education of citizens; and the construction of railways, canals, and telegraph lines, which were introduced not long after they had taken root in Europe.
 * 9) This sentence, however, has other problems:
 * 10) "Inaugurated" here is a vague word. It suggests that "the appointment" somehow inaugurated the changes, rather than Dalhousie himself who put them in place.
 * 11) "not long after they had taken root in Europe." I've never seen that construction.  Not saying it doesn't exist, but it sounds off to me, when applied to railways, canals, and telegraph lines.
 * 12) My sentence: "1857, when disaffection with the Company's rule, set off by diverse resentments, which included British social reforms, harshness of land taxes, and the humiliation of landed and princely aristocracy, led to the Indian rebellion of 1857 in many parts of northern India;"
 * 13) There is an issue with this sentence as well: beyond mentioning the rebellion, it doesn't way what was distinctively "modern" about it. It needs to be fixed.  It, however, has been changed to:
 * 14) Saravask's version: " The age may have begun in 1857, when British-style social reforms, harsh land taxes, and humiliations borne by landed and princely aristocracy led to the Indian Rebellion of 1857 that challenged Company rule and ravaged many parts of northern India."
 * 15) The problems here are many:
 * 16) The "British-style land reforms," "harsh land taxes," etc were the resentments, not necessarily the facts on the ground and the sentence now suggests the latter interpretation, though not exclusively.
 * 17) "challenged Company rule" is a step in the right direction, but it needs to be given an interpretation involving "modernity," (say, related to "nationalism" etc)
 * 18) "ravaged many parts of northern India" is clearly an addition.  Some parts, to be sure, were ravaged, but large parts of North India didn't join in.

So there you have it. I could go on, but you realize that long BOLD edits like these cannot be casually reworked without a lot of explanation. I really don't have that kind of time. I've tried to say things very carefully in the history section, after reading a lot of sources. I'm not saying that nothing is wrong with my edits, only that they can't be changed casually without discussion, for they end of wasting more time later. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  01:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Fowler. That is an awkwardly constructed paragraph (either version). The wikipedia reader need not be encumbered with details that differentiate between 1848, 1857 and 1858, and 1885, it's not as if a ribbon was cut at the exact moment :). And about the 'on the one hand but on the other hand' the less said the better! Perhaps something simpler that doesn't try to be academically even handed may be better. Along the lines of: "India is said to have entered the modern age sometime in the mid-1800s. In 1848, Lord Dalhousie implemented a series of reforms considered essential to the modern state: blah blah. In 1858, following the Indian rebellion of 1857, the British government proclaimed a unitary state and began to directly administer India. Finally, in 1885, the INC, the first political party that spoke for all of India was born." Or, if you want more academic accuracy, "India is thought to have entered the modern age somewhere between 1848 and 1885. In 1848, .... In 1858, ..., In 1885, ....". We don't really need to caveat everything (imo). --regentspark (comment) 14:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I forgot to mention, please also see the version now in place, an implementation of what I say somewhere above.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup, your version is better. See it implemented in the current version.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for a detailed explanation on the immediate edit reversals and their rationale, Fowler&fowler. That was constructive to others to get an idea of how much effort goes into FA India.
 * I really sympathise with Saravask wanting to cut to the chase but that path imho leads only to acrimony, confrontation and little resolution besides increasing the "blood pressure and bile" of the participants. Not just from his many earlier contributions, but also from his efforts in this article, it is obvious to all that he is an editor who is dedicated to the improvement of Indian articles. It would be good to hear his general and specific grouses against the text. AshLin (talk) 04:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, he does have some good points. I do put commas in strange places.  This especially happens when I'm thinking ahead.  It is as if my typing fingers receive the signal, "Insert comma here," a few seconds later or a few seconds earlier, but not at the right time.  When I look at the text a few days later, I'm left befuddled.  The one good thing that emerged from this is that I actually read through the entire history section, something I hadn't done since May or June or July, whenever the FAR finished.  I've now incorporated some of Saravask's edits into the original version.  Like I said, between a fourth and a third (or between a fifth and a fourth) have been integrated into the text.  But it is way too much work for me.  It is better in the future to discuss the edit on the talk page first.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I notice too that many of the footnotes, which in the past had been inserted at the end of a clause, or even a phrase, have now been moved to the end of the sentence, where they sit clustered together. Don't know what the MOS says (and frankly don't care), but the citations (originally for claims in a phrase or clause, their delimited purpose clearly understood) are now harder to figure out.  On the other hand, many sentences do have citations after commas and semi-colons.  So, perhaps I should be more carefully comparing the original version with the current ....  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I haven't read the claptrap above. Let me be brief.  If your goal is to yomp un-penitentially in perennial Look-Ma-No-Hands register, please go add some more bells and whistles to Rabindranath Tagore.  Then put it in FAR and let me come after you.  I have enough experience at FAC, including with all the people that you are endlessly quoting above, to not be impressed either by you or by them.   "Taken root" is not applied to railways, canals, or the telegraph. Period.  Authors don't have "castings."   Like I said, I was delighted when you returned, I enjoyed your early posts, I cringed a little at your later posts but continued to give you the benefit of doubt.  But you're crossing the line now.  If you're are unraveling or having a crisis, please take a break and come back when you're less churlish.  Finally, please don't attempt to teach me about the English Language.   All the best,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * PS I got as far as: "Was Mongols' putative use of "courser horses" actually *in* the relevant sources? Or was their use of coursers just made up out of thin air ..." You seriously think I would make that up?    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * PPS Here it is in David Ludden's inimitable prose: "Central Asian warriors became supreme during South Asia's medieval transition by deploying swift-horse cavalry skilled in shooting arrows at full gallop, volley after volley; by raising vast armies dedicated to siege and open field combat, undeterred by local alliance building; and by organizing cavalry that ran rapidly over long distances, staying on the move to subsist on the fruits of conquest, well-supplied with saddles, stirrups, and the latest weapons." He's cited for that sentence.  Notice the "by"s are repeated.  You and your cohorts would like to do without them.  Well.  Tough luck.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * No, Fowler, I don't in fact seriously think you'd make anything up. They were made out of deep disgust at the slowness in implementing the proposed programme of prose/image improvements here. My "claptrap", though "churlish", has focussed on your mainspace edits and your arguments here, many of which have utterly disgusted me. And in return, you attempt to comment on my mental state (I'm now supposedly "unraveling" or in "crisis"). And then you comment on a lit FA that, as I've said above and given Bishonen's work, is perhaps allowed a more relaxed register. Want to create more distractions and take it to FAR? Or dial-down the excessively verbose prose? Go ahead: I don't mind. I acknowledge that I've lacked "strategic distance" there (because, again, it's mostly my prose), and have no pretensions whatever to expositional/literary greatness or stylistic infallibility. And I have six other FAs that are written in a less Geogre-like experimental register. But again, all of that is irrelevant to collaboratively improving this page.
 * And yes, sentences are indeed "recast", words are "cast", given a "new cast", etc. Hence "cast[ing]s". Not that it matters. Again, these are more side issues that are irrelevant to the matter of improving this article's prose. I don't care who teaches you what—as long as you stop rejecting black-and-white MOS-mandated corrections to main that are first aired on talk. As I've been told umpteen times, this is our article, not yours. As for the "English Language", the "L" is *not* capitalised. Stop your attempts at impugning my mental state ("you're are [sic] unraveling or having a crisis") and command of encyclopedic register, and I'll refrain from deliberately "crossing the line" or being "churlish" again. As I've said, I'm now mostly satisfied with the page's prose, give or take a comma or period. Saravask 14:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Glad to have the old Saravask back. We are all being driven to distraction here.  I certainly am.  I don't have problems with revising, but it's best done one paragraph at a time.  The Culture section definitely needs reworking (and I mean the content).  We haven't recently paid attention to Economy, Demographics, and whatever else there is besides history, geography and f&f; they too likely need work.  But let's try to wade through this picture mess.  I'm reminded of Gray's "wade through slaughter to a throne."  That's what it feels like sometimes, though throne is here hollow.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Nominations of images for sports section rotation
Nominations are invited for images in a rotation in the Sports section of the India page. Here are some ground rules (open to be discussed and changed by consensus):


 * 1) Nominations must be submitted below (in the form of a Wikipedia image file) by 00:00 Friday, 11 November 2011.
 * 2) The images should be high resolution and in focus. (I'm removing the mega pixel requirement, because I have realized that there are some 3Kx3K pictures which are out of focus at their full resolution.)
 * 3) Exceptions may be made for historical images.
 * 4) Representations of sports or recreation in all forms notably or historically associated with India is acceptable.
 * 5) I am not up on all the sports played in India, but I'm guessing any list must include the following (please add more relevant ones):
 * 6) (Sports, International) Cricket, Field Hockey, Football (Soccer), Tennis, Polo, Badminton, Chess, ...
 * 7) (Sports, Traditional) : Category:Traditional sports of India
 * 8) Traditional India Games: Category:Indian games
 * 9) All levels of play (from international competition to pick-up games on the street) are acceptable.
 * 10) You are welcome to analyze the nominations, but no voting now. Voting will begin after 11 November 2011 for a total of eight images.

Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  21:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Nominations (now closed)
Nominations are now closed. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  00:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion on process
Let's wait for all the images to come in before voting. We should also remember WP:Relevance- the fact that Cricket is the life and blood of India compared to other sports. Honestly, I do not think we need a rotation. One good image of cricket will suffice. Having a picture of any other sport would be undue. Nikkul (talk) 01:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This discussion section is only about nominations. Voting will not begin until 00:00 Tuesday 8 November 2011.    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * A deadline for submissions is a good thing but a week is too short, please extend it to a month or so. That will allow semi-regular visitors to participate. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that is an issue. The purpose of the current process is to select a reasonable set of images in a reasonable amount of time and a month per section is going to be way too long. Changes to the image set is always going to be a possibility and semi-regular visitors can easily initiate the change process. --regentspark (comment) 03:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe a month is too long but perhaps 2 or 3 weeks? Initiating a change process is cumbersome for semi-regulars. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Overall there's an improvement in the process but can someone please simplify the technical requirements stated above? Perhaps we can say things like "pictures clicked on a cameras 1 megapixel and less will not qualify" (not sure if that fits in to the current requirements correctly). Zuggernaut (talk) 05:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We also need to make it clear that Wikipedia policies such as WP:WEIGHT, WP:OR and other trump all other criteria. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1 megapixel is 1 millions pixels, a great deal more than 350,000 pixels, the current lower limit. The nomination period has now been increased to 10 days.  Please remove "support" and "oppose."  This period is for discussion only.  You can analyze a picture  all you want.  But no voting.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * IMO, a rotation of 2 images is sufficient: 1 depicting cricket and the other one - the national sport hockey. Other sports images will UNDUE IMO. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 11:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand your point of view, but another view is that the text of the sports section mentions many sports and pastimes, both traditional and modern, and the image(s) are meant to be illustrations of the text.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's be real, the only sport that is popular in India is cricket. It pretty much consumes 98% of all sport in India. Having an image of any other sport besides cricket would be completely undue. Images are supposed to be relevant to the topic. The only relevant image of sports in India would be an image of cricket. Nikkul (talk) 00:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

You can keep spouting garbage or you can find images. Don't blame me for not giving enough notice this time. Do you have a reliable source for 98% of all sport and recreation in India is cricket? (50% of the population is women.)   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Striking out 7 as it does meet WP:FAIRUSE: Contextual significance criterion "its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" -- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have restored it for now. Let the community make that decision.  Speaking of images, what is the point of submitting File:Day 3 FIH Mens' Junior World Cup 2009.jpg.  An image that low res is simply wasting valuable space.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion on images

 * Image 1 (Street_Cricket_Batter_India.jpg)
 * Oppose per WP:WEIGHT - pictures of street games pale in comparison with stadium games under flood lights and other modern amenities when it comes to coverage in WP:Reliable secondary sources. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Image 2 (Tribal_Street_Cricket_Orissa_India_1.jpg)
 * Oppose per WP:WEIGHT and for reasons similar to Image 1. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Image 3 (Joueursindienspushkar.jpg)
 * Oppose per WP:WEIGHT, obscure. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Image 4 (Indian-Hockey-Team-Berlin-1936.jpg)
 * Support - gold medalists at the Olympics, much fabled in Indian sports history, has received wide media coverage. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

It shows FIH Women's Field Hockey World Cup, Rosario, Argentina with "Hockey Press Argentina" in white at the bottom. This may be a copyvio, owned by "Hockey Press Argentina". Some flickr users collect on the net and then release it by any license. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Image 34

Shortage of images and Image size
I have just been casually checking Commons and Flickr and I find free images on Indian sport other than cricket are very hard to come by. For example, there is not a single response on CC-Attrib & cc-SA in Flickr on kabaddi or kho kho two traditional Indian games played in schools (I have played both as a child) and also at higher levels. We will need to ask photographers to photograph matches in the coming year for inclusion. In this context, strict image size may be a problem for traditional Indian sports. Take jallikattu for instance, File:Madurai-alanganallur-jallikattu.jpg seems to be a very exciting and to my untrained eye, good image but fails the size test. I think we may lower the image size bar and put in an image size pass/reject vote later on where images are smaller. This need not hold for conventional sports, like cricket or hockey where adequate images are available. AshLin (talk) 03:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a beautiful picture! Happy to lower the size bar.  See upstairs.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Video Question
Can videos be made part of the rotation? More precisely, can still images and video clips both feature in the same rotation? If so, I (personally) wouldn't mind seeing video clips, as they illustrate a sport (especially the lesser known traditional sports, but for that matter even cricket or hockey for unacquainted readers) as nothing else does. For more information on submitting video clips, see How to Post a Video on Wikipedia]. Responses and feedback are welcome. (Please also see this news article about videos on Wikipedia). Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  12:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure. In any section. Homogeneous or mixed-media rotations, tables, or panoramas of:
 * Images—a solo or rotated landscape/Himalayan panorama could go under "Geography"; see South West Wilderness.
 * Videos of sporting triumphs, pivotal speeches, classical musical and dance performances, early art films (Ray), or ghanapaathins.
 * Audio tracks of key mantras, ragas, or qauls—see.
 * Many possibilities. Saravask 01:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

How many images for rotation?

 * This is not a vote. All voting begins after 11 November:  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  08:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

There does not seem to be a consensus about number of images. IMO, the ground rule: "Voting will begin after 11 November 2011 for a total of eight images" needs to be changed and the number finalized beforehand. Please present your views in the following format: Thanks. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * user:your user name
 * Your choice between "Fixed" and "Rotation." In the latter case: Number of pictures you would like in the rotation (Example: Rotation; 7 pictures)
 * Rationale/Comments: which sports to depict? --~


 * user:Redtigerxyz
 * Rotation: 2
 * Rationale: 1 image for cricket - the most popular; 1 image for hockey - the national game. All others are UNDUE, IMO. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid, you don't understand. We can't keep having this discussion (and now, more confusingly, a "vote") interminably. It will turn off the most well-meaning and dedicated editors. Several people, including Saravask (who is traveling), Spaceman Spiff (also traveling), AshLin, RegentsPark, Pfly, and Big william compton, have already supported rotation and diversity. If you have misgivings, you can express them at the time of the actual vote (beginning 11 November 2011) If you think I am acting an undemocratic fashion, please pursue this further in the Wikipedia forum of your choice. There is already a rotation in place in the sports section, featuring none of the depictions of sport which you exalt, and in which you exult. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  08:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * PS As for rationale, images are supposed to illustrate the text in a section. The first paragraph in the Sport section begins with, "In India, several traditional indigenous sports remain fairly popular, among them kabaddi, kho kho, pehlwani, and gilli-danda. Some of the earliest forms of Asian martial arts, such as kalarippayattu, musti yuddha, silambam, and marma adi, originated in India."  It moves on to Chess ("commonly held to have originated in India as chaturaṅga"), Pachisi, tennis, shooting, badminton, boxing, wrestling, and football (soccer).  The second paragraph has two sentences on Field Hockey and three on Cricket.  Illustrations are meant to help a Wikipedia (international) reader who is attempting to read the section and to visualize the various sports mentioned there.  The images are not there to conform to our notion of what is popular in India today.   While certainly not perfect, 8 is a good number as it at least begins to do justice to the great diversity found everywhere in India, including in its sports and pastimes.  A slide show giving a reader instant access would have been ideal, but since we can't arrange that yet, a rotation is a good alternative.  Prospects of seeing different images will invite a new reader back and increase textual familiarity as well.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Several people have supported the rotation and diversity, is true, but the number of images for every section is not discussed and can be different. The number has to be finalized before the voting, as if I say 2, I vote for only 2 images (not 6 others that a 8-supporter votes for). I will like to hear what other people think. Nikkul and Zuggernaut seem to share my point of view. I am open to having 8 images, if that's what the consensus is. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 10:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No you're not—you clearly want two: the razzle-dazzle Super Kings and all-pro Commonwealth Games shots. And how will the final number be decided? By averaging? Just to WP:POINT out the noobish foolishness of this "vote", I'm tempted to specify "Rotation: 102 or 1003". Do not test Fowler's patience. Saravask 12:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * User:Nikkul
 * Rotation: 2 or 3
 * Rationale: 2 images of cricket, 1 image of hockey or football. All others are Undue. Sports in India is heavily concentrated on cricket. Nikkul (talk) 01:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * User:Zuggernaut
 * Rotation: 2 images are good.
 * Rationale: One image for cricket and another image for hockey. Everything else is an overkill and does not pass the WP:WEIGHT test. If we start having images for everything we say in the text, we would have to select images from the hunter-gatherer days to the Anna Hazare protests in 2011 and everything in between. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * User:AshLin
 * Rotation 8 and the complete diversity of Indian sport to be included.
 * Rationale: Cricket is not be-all and end-all of sport in India. Other sports and indigenous aspects of sport need to be shown. WP:UNDUE is not applicable where the aim is to show a range of activities. AshLin (talk) 08:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, AshLin, I didn't see your post. I wasn't addressing you in the last post.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  08:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * User:Saravask
 * Rotation: Same as Fowler. Have taken into account Fowler's reminder that this is *NOT* a vote.
 * Rationale: Same as Fowler. Henceforth, in *any* poll held on this talk page or anywhere else on WP, I authorise Fowler to use my signature and proxy "!vote" in my stead in the following manner: "Same as Fowler. [Saravask's signature] [UTC date of proxy vote]". This is to be taken as an image-by-image and word-for-word agreement with Fowler's opinions and choices. If Fowler refrains from participating in a given poll, I authorise him to use my signature to double the weight of Pfly's opinion. If both Fowler and Pfly refrain, then RegentsPark. If not Fowler, Pfly, or RegentsPark, then AshLin. And I couldn't care less if such auto-proxy !voting is discouraged or heretofore unknown on WP. I reserve the exclusive right to alter these "Same as [X]" votes at any time before the respective polls close. Saravask 12:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Since RegentsPark and Pfly haven't replied and I haven't voted, AshLin's vote counts for 5.  Ayes are 5, nays 3.  The Ayes have it.  Rotation of 8 it is.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And 5+3=8. Spooky.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Spooky? Saravask 16:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Just can't get the logic. How can we assume someone else's opinion on the issue? 3-3 = 0. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 15:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think one user should be able to vote on behalf of other users. That defeats the whole point of a consensus. The recent disagreements between User:Fowler&Fowler and User:Saravask is proof that each person should vote for themselves. Nikkul (talk) 22:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If you have an opinion, you need to vote for it yourself. No more assuming votes b.s.! Nikkul (talk) 22:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * User:RegentsPark
 * I prefer more images -8, 7 whatever. That will let us include traditional indian sports and also games such as soccer which is a craze in some parts of India. --regentspark (comment) 19:02, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

To: Regtigerxyz, Nikkul. Let me repeat one more time, we have already made a India-page community decision to have rotations in Culture, Economy, Sport, in addition the ones we already have in Demographics and Biodiversity. Many people have taken part in the discussion, expressed articulate and long opinions. The process for selection will go on regardless of what goes on here. When we vote on 11 November 2011, the voting announcement will say, "Please vote for up to 8 images indicating by your vote both the number and choice of images you would like to see in the rotation" If you don't want rotation, you can vote for a single image. The images will then be selected and added to the rotation. At that point if you edit war, I will take you to ANI or whatever else it takes, and let them have a look at the archives. This is the end of this discussion. Let me warn you very politely Redtigerxyz and Nikkul, please don't be passively disruptive. The average person, even one with a surfeit of good faith, is not so stupid as to not figure out what is transpiring here. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  11:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "Please vote for up to 8 images indicating by your vote both the number and choice of images you would like to see in the rotation" is good enough for me. It should be implemented for all further rotation discussions. If this solution was advised at the start of the discussion, there was no need of discussion, however there was an undiscussed decree that said 8 (no less, no more). Also, in no point in the discussion of rotation, is there any talk of specific number of images for each section. This is what promoted the discussion. Let's keep in mind to respect the views of others who disagree with you and assume good faith, and the dictum "No one owns an article or any page at Wikipedia". You are free to approach ANI at any moment. -- Redtigerxyz  Talk 17:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

South Tibet?
Seems some people editing here would be interested in the "South Tibet" article. It refers to an area that makes up most of Arunachal Pradesh, and is claimed by China. I feel the term, and the article to be NNPOV, with a China bias, but don't have the time/interest to do much about it myself. Maybe some of the editors here would like to balance out the bias. --Keithonearth (talk) 04:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I moved the article to Arunachal Pradesh dispute which, I think, is more accurate. --regentspark (comment) 15:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Infrastructure Section
I have seen many countries pages and they have this section, but Indian don't have it! United States Germany I don't remember more, but it would be better to include this sections with subsections like: Transportation Science and Tech Education Health Energy etc. $\mathfrak{Chitransh Gaurav}$ ($Talk$) June 29, 2024 Here I have a little Coding, Please someone add more information to it and Place it in the article or Advise me if I am wrong.


 * Wording like "most exciting emerging markets in the world" doesn't give me confidence in this. Even if these were NPOVed, I doubt others would support new sections. And using June 29, 2024 instead of a normal fixed sig date is quite a cute trick: next time I see this done, I'll manually archive the host thread(s) myself. Regards. Saravask 10:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Infrastructure
India's infrastructure is carefully planned and developed mainly by Planning Commission (India).Today, India is one of the most exciting emerging markets in the world. Skilled managerial and technical manpower that match the best available in the world and a middle class whose size exceeds the population of the USA or the European Union, provide India with a distinct cutting edge in global competition. The road transport sector has been declared a priority and will have access to loans at favorable conditions. The Monopoly and Restrictive Trade Practices Act (MRTP Act) was passed in order to encourage large industry to enter the road sector. The National Highways Act has been modified to help the reduction of tolls on national motorways, bridges and tunnels. Calcutta's Howrah Bridge is the world's busiest with a daily flow of 57,000 vehicles and innumerable pedestrians. Private participation in the energy sector has been encouraged with the reduction of import duties, a five-year tax exemption for new energy projects and a 16% return on equity. The government is also following a new telecommunications policy that aims for the improvement of quality to a worldwide standard and, as a result, India could emerge as a major producer and exporter of telecommunication systems. Advantageous policies in this sector are encouraging private and foreign participation.


 * I oppose this addition. Decent prose, but see above. Saravask 10:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Science and Technology
Over the years, ISRO has conducted a variety of operations for both Indian and foreign clients. ISRO's satellite launch capability is mostly provided by indigenous launch vehicles and launch sites. In 2008, ISRO successfully launched its first lunar probe, Chandrayaan-1, while future plans include indigenous development of GSLV, manned space missions, further lunar exploration, and interplanetary probes. ISRO has several field installations as assets, and cooperates with the international community as a part of several bilateral and multilateral agreements.


 * I oppose this addition. See above. Saravask 10:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Ground rules
Note: The images have been labelled in the style "Alphabet-Numeral" (e.g. C-7). The upper case letters, A, B, C, ..., very approximately, denote the different classes of sports mentioned in the text of India section. The numerals, 1, 2, 3, ... represent the location of the images in the sequence above.


 * 1) You may vote for up to a total of 8 images. Your vote will indicate both the total number and the choices of images you would like to see in the rotation.  If you do not want rotation, you may vote for a single image.)   However,
 * 2) You many not vote for more than 4 images in each subsection ("Traditional sports and games," and "Modern sports.")
 * 3) You may not vote for more than one image in any alphabet grouping. (E.g. you may not  vote for A-1 and A-2, but you may for A-1 and B-4.  Rationale: if you do vote more than once, you will need to spread your vote among different sports.
 * 4) Your vote should be expressed in two lines in the following form:
 * 5) Total number of images (voting for).
 * 6) Choice of images.
 * 7) You will have one week in which to vote. Voting will close at 00:00 18 November 2011.
 * 8) Voting is now open.

Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  00:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Voting

 * Remark We deliberately did not set a minimum image resolution limit for the nominated images because we feared that good hi-res images of traditional sports might be hard to find. Featured articles, in general, are supposed to have high standard images.  Please bear this in mind when you vote.


 * Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  01:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 8 (4 traditional, 4 modern)
 * A-1, C-6, E-11, G-16, K-25, O-36, P-43, S-48.


 * AshLin (talk) 08:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 8
 * A2, D19, E13, F15, K25, M30, O36, S48


 * Joyson Noel  Holla at me!  09:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 8 (4 traditional, 4 modern)
 * A-3, D-8, C-7, F-15, N-34, O-38, P-43, S-48


 * -- Redtigerxyz Talk 11:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 2 (preferred, first 2), but the community view in Talk:India supports 8 so voting for other preferences
 * K25, O39; A1, D10, F15, G19, M30, P43


 * regentspark
 * 8
 * D10, F15, J24, K26, M30, O36, Q45, N31

Note: As of 10:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC) the vote tally is: A-1 (2), A-2, A-3, C-6, C-7, D-8, D-10 (2), D-19, E-11, E-13, F-15 (4), G-16, G-19, J-24, K-25 (3), K-26, M-30 (3), N-31, N-34, O-36 (3), O-38, O-39, P-43 (3), Q-45, S-48 (3)

If 8 images were selected now without any corrections for bias, they would be:

F-15 (4), K-25 (3), M-30 (3), O-36 (3), P-43 (3), S-48 (3), A-1 (2), D-10 (2) There are a number of issues with the raw count: a) no pictures of girls or women, b) 5 pictures of modern sports and only 3 of traditional, c) it seems people have voted for what they thought was a more spectacular picture, rather than what they though might be representative. The Kallaripattayu (F-15) image, though spectacular, is too low-res.  The Jallikattu image, D-10, at least for me, has the additional problem that it is a picture of a festival or series of festivals, in which troublingly, hordes of (drunken?) young men gang up on a scared and often tired bull (see more realistic accompanying picture, which I uploaded on Commons on 4 November, but forgot to nominate. The Supreme Court of India recently ruled on this issue, and the organizers now have many more constraints (such as having vetinarians and animal welfare activists monitoring the events), but we don't have pictures of those events.))


 * Proposal: I propose that we remove two pictures: a) the chess grandmaster (to reduce modern sports to 4) and b) the Jallikattu and replace them with C-6 or C-7 (girls playing traditional hopskotch) and E-11 or E-13 (kabaddi or kho-kho). That way we'll have a balance between traditional and modern.  Look forward to replies.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * PS The final list would then be: A-1, C-6 or C-7, E-11 or E-13, F-15, K-25, O-36, P-43, S-48. If you are agreeable, then we could vote for C-6/C-7 and E-11/E-13.  If you are agreeable to this plan of actions, please also provide your preferences between: C-6 and C-7; E-11 and E-13.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Discusson
Oppose removal of Jallikattu image: The POV that all instances of Jallikattu are (druken) men surrounding a tired bull, is nothing but OR based on 1 image. Outlook says it is a popular sport with "iconic status" and a "representative of bravery of men". It is an "ancient, traditional rural sport", dating back to the Sangam era (3rd century BC to 3rd century AD) and comparable to bull sports of France and Crete. Though animal activists may like it or not, it remains a popular sport in Tamil Nadu. Agree to change of chess image to C-7 or C-6. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I would not make a statement based on one image. (Btw, I had never heard of this sport, but as I began to look for images, I realized that it was a hot bed of controversy and it may even, as of July 2011, stand banned, and its practice illegal.) Here are some references (ordered latest to oldest):


 * Times of India, July 29, 2011. Story: Ban may take bulls out of Jallikattu
 * The Hindu, 15 April, 2011. Story: Supreme Court admits petition challenging jallikattu law
 * The Times of India, 7 April 2011. Story: Ban Tamil Nadu's jallikattu: Hema Malini
 * The Hindu, March 8, 2011. Story: Supreme Court imposes fresh guidelines on jallikattu
 * The Hindu, 26 November 2010. Story: Supreme Court permits ‘jallikattu' for five months
 * The Hindu, 12 January, 2008. Story: Supreme Court prohibits jallikattu Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * On their website, Peta India, October 15, 2011, has certainly interpreted the latest law to sound the death knell for Jallikattu.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no arguing that animal activists have always interpreted the sport as cruelty, but still Jallikattu remains a popular rural sport in Tamil Nadu, however this ancient (but "cruel") sport may die soon. Now the Jallikattu season is over, we have to wait till next Pongal (Jan) when the season kick starts. The case is still on in the apex court. Let's hear what the others have to say. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 06:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Endorse Fowler's proposal—except for S-48 and the jallikattu remark regarding D-10: Prefer C-6 and E-13 E-11. Otherwise, hats off to both of you for these noms—it really is a representative and fun-looking fascinatingly diverse set of images. Saravask 10:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC) [redacted by Saravask at 19:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC) and 19:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)]
 * With the mention of PETA, animal rights, legal controversy, "drunken" men, ad nauseum, we're once again tacking into the roiling waters of "casuistry". It's not worth the time. As Redtigerxyz suggests, "popular" is what counts here. Our job is to show a reasonable balance of what Indians in aggregate tend to play or pay most attention to, popular or professional—regardless of legality, ethics, taste, level of refinement, antiquity, opinion, etc. If jallikattu really is as popular in TN as cockfighting is in Bali, then it is a reasonable subject for us to show. And if the sporting folks of TN or India concocted a top sport that entailed brawny naked men going at each other en masse, Gypsy-style, with machetes, flamethrowers, napalm, etc—supplanting cricket as the nation's most popular "sport"—then we'd likely have to show *that* as well, no matter how vile we think it. Facts, not facades. Laws, not men.
 * Unless deathly ashen skins are de rigueur up in Sikkim (and having stayed there for weeks, I can't exactly say that they are), fake-looking background colour removal—"the monk in the red robe"—and other obvious Photoshop-style manipulations should be disallowed here. As should the cartoon border—a crop would do for it. God knows what sort of horribly useless and misguided stylistic tabulations were going through the sadly addled mind of the uploader "Sukanto Debnath", its Flickr-based author. He needn't have bothered disporting himself in tediously framing and chromatically mutilating it by adding the bizarre psionic colour-auras around the monks—as ever, he should have just left it naturally coloured. Typical Gypsy chintz—this is *not* Condé Nast Traveler for us to flaunt such artsy-ditzy shots. If a non-doctored original version is available, I'd support it. I support Fowler's erstwhile prohibition of obviously mal-doctored shots. But I repeat: no double standards here, please.
 * S-48 is full of false colouring with red highlighted and every thing else black and white. Agree to its replacement with E-13. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 11:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support having E-13 E-11 (3,072 × 2,304) supplant S-48 and Redtigerxyz's idea of keeping D-10 in the rotation. Never explicitly stated above, but hey: it works. Saravask 19:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC) [redacted by Saravask on 19:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)]
 * :) I was merely proposing that uploaders to Wikipedia not themselves digitally alter the images. I had not considered earlier altering.  To be sure, I was a little perturbed by the Sikkim volleyball picture, but just assumed that the venue was located above the tree line!  Sure, let's bag it.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * PS I'm still troubled by the depiction in D-10 as it might now be illegal. (There's a good chance that it is, given the July 2011, Federal Indian Government ban: Times of India, July 29, 2011. Story: Ban may take bulls out of Jallikattu.  Wikipedia has to be proactive in such situations).  Besides, it only had 2 votes.  It is mightily photoshopped and low-res.  Sorry, but I can't go along with it.  Have an RfC on the picture if you want.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * PPS I support replacing the chess player dude and the animal cruelty offender with C-6 and E-11, which, among other things, show some women and girls as well.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It is not illegal yet. See the may in the title, and not will. Till the apex court rules, it is still legal. Wikipedia is not WP:CENSORED, animal cruelty or not, popularity counts. The colours of the photo are just brightened (see other version), no false colouring. F&F, the image has 3 votes now, Saravask was away before. Use C-6, E-11/13 to replace chess and S-48. -- Redtigerxyz  Talk 03:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Redtigerxyz, but that is a government law. It has nothing to do with the separate matter before the Supreme Court of India, a matter on which the Supreme court has been flip-flopping for three or four years now. As for digital altering, if that picture is not altered I don't know what picture is. When you upload a regular picture on Wikipedia, as I did one of my own in File:Humayun's Tomb, New Delhi Corner View.jpg, you get excruciating detail about the camera etc. etc. in the Metadata. What does the metadata of the bogus Jallikattu picture have? Answer: The name of a digital imaging software. You have to mangle a picture pretty good with software before the camera data will disappear. How do we know that it wasn't scanned by the uploader from somewhere? It certainly has the graininess of scanned pictures. Like I said, if you want to put a bogus picture of an illegal sport in a Featured Article, conduct an RfC. Otherwise, no dice. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  05:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "You have to mangle a picture pretty good with software before the camera data will disappear.": If you worked with Picassa, you will even crop or slightly brighten the image. The metadata shows Picassa, that does not mean that the image was not clicked by the uploader. It also does not have the graininess of a scanned photo. Compare with Mohini_on_a_swing.jpg. Please AGF of the uploader.-- Redtigerxyz Talk 06:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I am proposing the following 8 pictures. I am too tired (it is late at night) to explain why, but if you mull if over a little bit, you'll see why.

Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  05:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose N-33. Two images of cricket. We have not shown any other recognized sportsman. In fact, we have removed Vishwanathan Anand. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 06:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You can swap N-33 for Anand.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In fact, that way, there'll be pleasing symmetry between the traditional and modern: each will have one board game, and three get-off-the-ass kind of sports.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Support Fowler's selection with Redtiger's Anand switch. Saravask 12:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, the Manipur soccer picture, File:Soccer football informal in Manipur India.jpg, will need to be cropped. Could one of you please do that?  Saravask, perhaps.  Take off the hand and an equivalent strip on the left.  Thanks.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've posted a request at WP:GL/PHOTO. If anyone else wants to scoop them, then that's fine too. But I myself am rusty with GIMP, etc. Saravask 13:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The crop is done, but I don't know how to remove the shadow. That's what Graphic_Lab can deal with. -- Redtigerxyz  Talk 13:58, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Request reverted. I doubt they're going to be able to remove that shadow easily; someone can go post another request there to do that though, just to see. Saravask 14:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Modified list and check the temporary crop: if it's ok?

Redtigerxyz Talk 13:58, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The cropping is fine, but why did you lower the resolution? Could you crop it in its original resolution (that is minus the cropped bits)?  Thanks.  Otherwise, it looks great.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support this set with any reasonable variant of P-41. Agree that Redtiger's crop is fine. Saravask 14:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * While exporting, exported a lower res by mistake. Done. Let's move on to Culture. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 14:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to change image in "Early modern India" to Taj
Since there are 2 images pertaining to the Mughals, I suggest replacing the current image with the Taj Mahal (non-rotation).

-- Redtigerxyz Talk 05:49, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * We'd need to move Taj-specific text into "History" to sit alongside the image. You don't support holding a poll to select rotations for "History"? We may at least have to replace Yann's Gandhi-Nehru with one soon enough.
 * Also see mw:User:Magnus Manske/wikipic for a slideshow that may soon become a "My preferences" gadget. In order to make it fit better with the rotations here, folks can leave some input/advice/requests on the wikipic talk page. Saravask 10:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "Early modern India" has text which talks about Mughal architecture, where Taj fits in.-- Redtigerxyz Talk 11:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Nah, I'm against changing the Mughal miniature. Everyone and their sister have taken a picture of the Taj.  Putting it in the history section will turn a hack image into a cartoon, and in the process the section as well.  In the architecture section, balanced with other examples of Indian architecture, the Taj image is fine.  Ultimately the India-page community might decide to have rotations in the history section and include people there, but that's another discussion for another time.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (Sorry I had to be away after I changed the caption of the Taj.) On second thoughts, I would be agreeable to adding it and here's a proposal for it:  Let us quote the UNESCO World Heritage List brief descriptions for the captions.  This would give the picture a historical context.  For the Taj it would read: "Built in Agra between 1631 and 1648 by orders of Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan in memory of his wife, the Taj Mahal is the jewel of Muslim art in India and one of the universally admired masterpieces of the world's heritage."
 * Ajanta: "The first Buddhist cave monuments at Ajanta date from the 2nd and 1st centuries B.C. During the Gupta period (5th and 6th centuries A.D.), many more richly decorated caves were added to the original group. The paintings and sculptures of Ajanta, considered masterpieces of Buddhist religious art, have had a considerable artistic influence."
 * Chola: UNESCO WHL description: "The Great Living Chola Temples were built by kings of the Chola Empire, which stretched over all of south India and the neighbouring islands. The site includes three great 11th- and 12th-century Temples: the Brihadisvara Temple at Thanjavur, the Brihadisvara Temple at Gangaikondacholisvaram and the Airavatesvara Temple at Darasuram. The Temple of Gangaikondacholisvaram, built by Rajendra I, was completed in 1035. Its 53-m vimana (sanctum tower) has recessed corners and a graceful upward curving movement, contrasting with the straight and severe tower at Thanjavur. The Airavatesvara temple complex, built by Rajaraja II, at Darasuram features a 24-m vimana and a stone image of Shiva. The temples testify to the brilliant achievements of the Chola in architecture, sculpture, painting and bronze casting." (This will need to be shortened to make it relevant to the Brihadisvara temple (in the image.)  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:06, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * My point is just that we should not have 2 images in the article about the same dynasty. Be it Mughals or Cholas. Whatever is the result of "Art, architecture, and literature", we may have to change images in History or "Art, architecture, and literature", so that there are no 2 images of the same dynasty. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 03:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't agree with that. The Mughals have a lot more art and architecture to show, staggeringly more. Among their UNESCO World Heritage sites are: Agra Fort, Fatehpur Sikri, Humayun's Tomb, Taj Mahal, and Red Fort, not to mention Lahore Fort, and Thatta in Pakistan: all in all a total of seven independent World Heritage sites. The Cholas have only one. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  05:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Why should we only focus more on one dynasty (WP:UNDUE)? 1 image per dynasty gives us a chance different styles of art. There are several other dynasties besides Mughals: Guptas, Mauryas, Cholas, Pallavas, Rashtrakutas, Chalukyas, Gangas. Most of them ended by the 12th century. These dynasties are much older than the newer Mughals (who rose in the 16th century). All of their monuments and art has not survived through the test of time, but that does not may them inferior to Mughals. Just because Mughals are newer, more of their art survives. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 14:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand this dispute but here are my thoughts. I agree that we're leaving a lot out - amongst the well known examples that are left out are Gandhara and Amravati sculptures, not to mention architecture from Vijayanagar, the stupas, etc. But, this is a main article, not everything can go here. The Taj is probably the best known example of Indian architecture, and seems a natural bet here, but I'm ok with replacing the Taj image with something from any well known historical architectural or art style, or even with something more modern (M. F. Husain, perhaps). --regentspark (comment) 21:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have any issues with having others. In fact I'm the one who added the superb (and superbly framed) Vihayanagara image (for which I hope you will vote early and often), but equally I don't see any logic in limiting the Mughals to just one.  What Redtiger is suggesting is that if we move the Taj to the history section, then we we can't have any Mughal related nominations in the culture section on the principle: one for all.  This, I feel, doesn't seem to have much logic.
 * Eventually the history section would be better served by having a rotation of pictures or media related to rulers or empires in it; rather than art and architecture, which could be moved to culture. There are many portraits, beautiful ones in fact, available of the Mughal rulers, but no one, for example, knows what the Mauryas looked like or the Guptas.  We could use pictures of coins some of which have portraits after a fashion, or other political symbols (such as edicts) for those.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation fowler. No, I don't agree with redtigerxyz that we should have a one Mughal image quota. BTW, I see the article says that "Twentieth-century Indian literature was influenced by the works of Bengali poet and novelist Rabindranath Tagore," is that accurate? Seems like a very broad statement to me. --regentspark (comment) 22:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the culture section was ad libbed (a sentence here, a sentence there) between major culture wars on the India page in 2007. It needs to be completely rewritten sometime.  I didn't really change it much beyond obvious errors during the FAR.
 * Just to be clear, I agree with Fowler and RegentsPark, though Redtiger's suggestion has the right spirit in terms of attempting to broaden representation—though at the risk of violating WP:UNDUE and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As for the RT sentence, oy, again I admit to being the one who last touched it—sometime back in September, I think. I agree that it (and its predecessor) is quite imprecise and awful and requires honing—all I'd done back then was remove some vacuously peacocky phrasing likely left over from the hand-wavy pre-Fowler days. I'm not one who, from first principles, can help fix/overhaul it or the "Culture" section in general (as Fowler has repeatedly reminded us needs to be done), though, as I'm not an expert or even knowledgeable about Indian literature/culture. I could probably help do justice to a "Coding" section, though. ;) Saravask 10:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Sources aren't reliable
Almost all the sources of this article are damned websites. You have to understand that it's an article about a Country. A website, and that too so lame, cannot be considered a reliable resource. (Mr.ankit97 (talk) 13:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC))


 * What the hell are you talking about? The "India" article as it stands today in wiki has been written with great accuracy adhering to great detail from records of history and the best articles as sources from the Internet. All sources are accurate and have been taken from all over - that includes published books, newspapers and major research materials. Please think before you speak again! Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.178.189.0 (talk) 02:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Mr.ankit97, generic rants are useless. Take the trouble to point out here on the talk page which sources you are specifically referring to. We can then examine your claim. AshLin (talk) 18:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

medieval history section seems patronizing?
the medieval history section employs usages such as : "By repeatedly repulsing the Mongol raiders in the thirteenth century, the Sultanate saved India from the devastation visited on West and Central Asia"

when the etymology of the word mughal itself is from Mongol, i fail to see any truth in such assertions, and nobody protected India from any such devastation , the Muslim invaders WERE the devastators.

also

"The Sultanate's raiding and weakening of the regional kingdoms of South India paved the way for the indigenous Vijayanagara Empire."

Another attempt at assigning positives to a largely negative interaction.

I wonder if such tones should be entertained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chimesmonster (talk • contribs) 18:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, you need to:

AshLin (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * read the section carefully & remember your history - the Delhi Sultanate predated the Mughals and was not of Mongol stock.
 * understand the timeline involved - thirteenth vs sixteenth century
 * sign off with four tildes (strange since you are editting since 2007).

Appropos above pt 1, And what were they is not ,INVADING HORDES? How can there be a claim that since once particular horde did the looting and pillaging ,one ought to be thankful to THEM that another horde did Not do the same!

pt2 13th to 16th century, the invaders did nothing more than consolidate their partisan agendas, Islamisize parts of india and ultimately lead to Bangladesh.Where was the influence for paving the way for southern kingdoms?

Pt3 Duly acknowledged and will be adhered to.

RAA Ra Ra your Boat (talk) 07:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, you sound more like a POV newbie vandal than a long-term editor. Will not bother to answer your query more than this. AshLin (talk) 08:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, name Calling does not negate My observation that the POV pushed through, is not neutral , The neutrality of that section is in danger,for all your long term editorial chutzpah, your failure to note this fact is astounding.What is the point of making a charge about positives of islamic invasion?and why is that particular POV put here? Also WHERE is this POV substantiated by independent ,verifiable links? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chimesmonster (talk • contribs) 10:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, when Fowler comes back, we shall examine it in all seriousness. AshLin (talk) 11:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Awards by Government of India
Bharat Ratna Award Bharat Ratna is the highest civilian honour, given for exceptional service towards advancement of Art, Literature and Science, and in recognition of Public Service of the highest order. India has produced a legacy of brave hearts since times immemorial. Probably there is not enough space to measure their sacrifices. However, we cannot close our eyes to those people who have made our country proud by excelling in their own fields and bringing us international recognition.

Param Vir Chakra (PVC) Param Vir Chakra (PVC) is the highest gallantry award for officers and other enlisted personnel of all military branches of India for the highest degree of valour in the presence of the enemy. Introduced on 26th January 1950, this award may be given posthumously.

Padma Awards Padma Vibhushan, Padma Bhushan and Padma Shri Padma Awards, namely, Padma Vibhushan, Padma Bhushan and Padma Shri are given for exceptional and distinguished service in any field including service rendered by Government servants. The recommendations for Padma Awards are received from the State Governments/Union Territory Administrations, Central Ministries/Departments, Institutions of Excellence, etc. which are considered by an Awards Committee. On the basis of the recommendations of the Awards Committee, and after approval of the Home Minister, Prime Minister and President, the Padma Awards are announced on the eve of the Republic Day.

Gallantry Awards Independent India saw the introduction of awards such as Param Vir Chakra, Maha Vir Chakra, Ashoka Chakra, Shaurya Chakra etc. Ashok Chakra The Ashok Chakra series of awards are open to civilians also. Recommendations received in respect of civilians from the State Governments/Union territory Administra-tions and Ministries/Departments of the Central Government are processed by the Ministry of Defence for the consideration of the Central Honours and Awards Committee chaired by the Defence Minister. These awards are biannual and are given on the Republic Day and Independence Day.

Shaurya Chakra This is awarded for gallantry other than in the face of the enemy. This award may be granted to civilians or to military personnel and may be awarded posthumously.

Bravery Awards The national awards for bravery was started in 1957 by the Indian Council for Child Welfare (ICCW) (External website that opens in a new window) to recognise and honour children who have performed outstanding deeds of bravery and selfless sacrifice. Every year the ICCW confers these awards to children below 16years of age.

Jeevan Raksha Padak Series of Awards The Jeevan Raksha Padak Series of awards are given for courage and promptitude under circumstances of great danger to the life or bodily injury of the rescuer, displayed in an act or a series of acts of humane nature, in saving life from drowning, fire, rescue operations in mines, etc. Recommendations for Jeevan Raksha Padak series of awards are received from the State Government/Union Territory, Administrations and Ministries /Departments of the Government of India.

--Sachin 07:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachinpandhare (talk • contribs)

Awards by Government of India
Bharat Ratna Award Bharat Ratna is the highest civilian honour, given for exceptional service towards advancement of Art, Literature and Science, and in recognition of Public Service of the highest order. India has produced a legacy of brave hearts since times immemorial. Probably there is not enough space to measure their sacrifices. However, we cannot close our eyes to those people who have made our country proud by excelling in their own fields and bringing us international recognition.

Param Vir Chakra (PVC) Param Vir Chakra (PVC) is the highest gallantry award for officers and other enlisted personnel of all military branches of India for the highest degree of valour in the presence of the enemy. Introduced on 26th January 1950, this award may be given posthumously.

Padma Awards Padma Vibhushan, Padma Bhushan and Padma Shri Padma Awards, namely, Padma Vibhushan, Padma Bhushan and Padma Shri are given for exceptional and distinguished service in any field including service rendered by Government servants. The recommendations for Padma Awards are received from the State Governments/Union Territory Administrations, Central Ministries/Departments, Institutions of Excellence, etc. which are considered by an Awards Committee. On the basis of the recommendations of the Awards Committee, and after approval of the Home Minister, Prime Minister and President, the Padma Awards are announced on the eve of the Republic Day.

Gallantry Awards Independent India saw the introduction of awards such as Param Vir Chakra, Maha Vir Chakra, Ashoka Chakra, Shaurya Chakra etc. Ashok Chakra The Ashok Chakra series of awards are open to civilians also. Recommendations received in respect of civilians from the State Governments/Union territory Administra-tions and Ministries/Departments of the Central Government are processed by the Ministry of Defence for the consideration of the Central Honours and Awards Committee chaired by the Defence Minister. These awards are biannual and are given on the Republic Day and Independence Day.

Shaurya Chakra This is awarded for gallantry other than in the face of the enemy. This award may be granted to civilians or to military personnel and may be awarded posthumously.

Bravery Awards The national awards for bravery was started in 1957 by the Indian Council for Child Welfare (ICCW) (External website that opens in a new window) to recognise and honour children who have performed outstanding deeds of bravery and selfless sacrifice. Every year the ICCW confers these awards to children below 16years of age.

Jeevan Raksha Padak Series of Awards The Jeevan Raksha Padak Series of awards are given for courage and promptitude under circumstances of great danger to the life or bodily injury of the rescuer, displayed in an act or a series of acts of humane nature, in saving life from drowning, fire, rescue operations in mines, etc. Recommendations for Jeevan Raksha Padak series of awards are received from the State Government/Union Territory, Administrations and Ministries /Departments of the Government of India.

--Sachin 07:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachinpandhare (talk • contribs)

Bharat Ratna Award Bharat Ratna is the highest civilian honour, given for exceptional service towards advancement of Art, Literature and Science, and in recognition of Public Service of the highest order. India has produced a legacy of brave hearts since times immemorial. Probably there is not enough space to measure their sacrifices. However, we cannot close our eyes to those people who have made our country proud by excelling in their own fields and bringing us international recognition.

Param Vir Chakra (PVC) Param Vir Chakra (PVC) is the highest gallantry award for officers and other enlisted personnel of all military branches of India for the highest degree of valour in the presence of the enemy. Introduced on 26th January 1950, this award may be given posthumously.

Padma Awards Padma Vibhushan, Padma Bhushan and Padma Shri Padma Awards, namely, Padma Vibhushan, Padma Bhushan and Padma Shri are given for exceptional and distinguished service in any field including service rendered by Government servants. The recommendations for Padma Awards are received from the State Governments/Union Territory Administrations, Central Ministries/Departments, Institutions of Excellence, etc. which are considered by an Awards Committee. On the basis of the recommendations of the Awards Committee, and after approval of the Home Minister, Prime Minister and President, the Padma Awards are announced on the eve of the Republic Day.

Gallantry Awards Independent India saw the introduction of awards such as Param Vir Chakra, Maha Vir Chakra, Ashoka Chakra, Shaurya Chakra etc. Ashok Chakra The Ashok Chakra series of awards are open to civilians also. Recommendations received in respect of civilians from the State Governments/Union territory Administra-tions and Ministries/Departments of the Central Government are processed by the Ministry of Defence for the consideration of the Central Honours and Awards Committee chaired by the Defence Minister. These awards are biannual and are given on the Republic Day and Independence Day.

Shaurya Chakra This is awarded for gallantry other than in the face of the enemy. This award may be granted to civilians or to military personnel and may be awarded posthumously.

Bravery Awards The national awards for bravery was started in 1957 by the Indian Council for Child Welfare (ICCW) (External website that opens in a new window) to recognise and honour children who have performed outstanding deeds of bravery and selfless sacrifice. Every year the ICCW confers these awards to children below 16years of age.

Jeevan Raksha Padak Series of Awards The Jeevan Raksha Padak Series of awards are given for courage and promptitude under circumstances of great danger to the life or bodily injury of the rescuer, displayed in an act or a series of acts of humane nature, in saving life from drowning, fire, rescue operations in mines, etc. Recommendations for Jeevan Raksha Padak series of awards are received from the State Government/Union Territory, Administrations and Ministries /Departments of the Government of India.

--Sachin 09:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachinpandhare (talk • contribs)

Independance section of the infobox
I find that in the infobox, where it lists India's independace from the UK, it should also stated the date of the independance of Diu, Damao, and Goa from Portugal. It is significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.186.55.223 (talk) 10:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes. This is true. Major part of India was under British Empire so when it was liberated, India got it's freedom from the United Kingdom. However, the state of Goa and Union Territory of Daman and Diu (both were never part of the British Empire or the UK, fact and as per historical records) were liberated and got it's freedom from Portugal. Daman and Diu and Goa are now part of Republic of India. Hence in the section of info-box of main article 'India' Independence: India got its freedom from the United Kingdom and Portugal (should also be mentioned - which has been not mentioned).

Arts image section rotation
Should we parallelly start the nomination phase for Arts image section rotation to save time ? -- Redtigerxyz Talk 11:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a very good idea, and I second it. Should we say nominations can come in until 20 November, 2011?  That way, we will have two days to discuss the results of the voting (which will close on 18 November).   After that, we can do the rest in parallel (voting for one and nominations of the next).  By the "arts" section, I am assuming you mean the Shakuntala image.  Am I right?  I am opening a nominations section below on the premise that we'll soon have consensus for this speed up.  If you think I'm jumping the gun, please revert.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I just took a quick look at the culture section. Literature and Architecture are grouped together (separated, oddly, by tandoori cooking) and drama, dance, movies have their own subsection.  Should we be changing "Arts" to "Performing Arts?" and giving the others their own subsection, "Art, Architecture, and Literature?" Cuisine can then go into the society page.  The society section could have images of religious observances.   There is such a richness of images for these subsections and such an interest in them, that rotations could be easily managed.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The reorganization looks good. I am moving the Shakuntala image to rotation in "Art, architecture, and literature" as it belongs there. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 14:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Removing "Please do not nominate photoshopped images. (Cropping is fine, but not much else, especially not color changes.)". It is an absurd condition. Even Featured picture criteria does not prevent digital manipulation altogether. "Typical acceptable manipulation includes cropping, perspective correction, sharpening/blurring, and colour/exposure correction". -- Redtigerxyz Talk 18:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "Color exposure correction" is a tricky one. It is fine in the hand of experts in the WP:FC image correction group, but not in the hands of amateurs.  I am against color enhancement.  It is unencyclopedic.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Nowadays, most images which are used publicly and distributed widely are improved through photoshop or some other image editor. Why should we want poor quality images for India only? To be able to show India in a poor light?

And nobody needs prove one's expertise by showing some diploma/degree etc. If the images look better, they are better. I see no sense in criticizing images because they have been improved. The criticism would be more palatable/understandable/logical if it was because of the reason that they were not improved. Thanks.M W ℳ 02:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC) It would be easier on everyone if you could admit that your views are Indophobic-M W  ℳ 02:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * !? Indophile, surely? Fowler&fowler contributes extensively to India-related topics and generally does so in a positive manner (that is, positive in the Wikipedia sense). I generally avoid image-related stuff because I am a philistine in that regard. However, "improvement" is a subjective notion, surely? There is much to be said for "warts and all", and indeed that has been a major issue in India-related article text. We are not here to glorify, nor to denigrate, but how that works with image manipulation is beyond me. Would it be worth getting one of the technical bods involved in this discussion, such as from the FC group to whom F&f referred? - Sitush (talk) 19:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Sitush, I had to be away from Wikipedia most of yesterday, so I didn't get a chance to reply. Your suggestion is a good one. I'm swamped today as well, but will try to post on the WT:FP page or one of its related pages.  Meanwhile, since you guys are here (you and MangoWong), why don't you consider voting in the sports voting.  We don't have enough votes to make any sensible decisions.  Thanks.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  09:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Why? Because I am a philistine wrt images. I try to avoid areas where I know myself to be lacking in competence. There are probably other areas where I do not self-recognise, or at least not yet. Heading off the obvious, with that last sentence. I'll take a look, but don't hold your breath as it is not often that I get a "wow" about a photo, and my technical knowledge is minimal. - Sitush (talk) 18:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)



Those people(s) who are most humble/halting and least assertive in their opinions tend to have the best taste—in images, prose, or whatever else. Just think of Japanese or Bhutanese architecture, culture, aesthetics compared with those of McWorld. "People get what they deserve, not what they expect". Saravask 10:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Mini proposal
In light of Redtigerxyz's (very understandable conundrum and) partial revert, here is a:
 * Mini proposal:
 * We create one new section, "Art, architecture, and literature," comprising the last two paragraphs of the Culture section preamble.
 * Change "Arts" to "Performing arts" (see here)
 * We create rotations for a) Performing arts, b) Art, architecture, and literature, and c) Society. This is the aspect of India (the Culture) of which people very much like to see pictures.  I believe our extra effort will be richly rewarded.
 * We do the nominations of the three sections simultaneously, but give ourselves a little more time, say, until 00:00 22 November 2011. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * PS The Taj too then will be replaced by a rotation containing other aspects of Indian architecture (and art and literature). Currently, we don't have any text about Indian art (painting): nothing about Buddhist art, Mughal miniatures, Bengali renaissance, Madhubani and other tribal art, Kangra school, ... Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Second proposal. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 14:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Just 1 observation move the "Indian cuisine" part in "Art, architecture, and literature" to Society. See. Also I propose to add something about Indian art. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 14:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Nominations
Nominations are now open for the India section rotation. Please read the text of that section, then submit high quality images relevant to the text. Nominations will close at 00:00 22 November 2011. I am adding rows of gallery blanks in all three subsections below. Please make more copies, if you are nearing the last row.


 * Ground rules:
 * The images should have relatively high resolution. A Wikipedia Featured Article, such as India, is best supported by high quality images.
 * The captions should be informative, precise, supportable by evidence (in the image or in its Commons caption), and NPOV.
 * Please do not nominate photoshopped images (Cropping is fine, but not color changes) .  Scratched by user:Redtigerxyz, who disputed it.  Left in here for others to view and decide appropriately. (updated 23:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC))
 * Nominations for all three sections will close at 00:00 22 November 2011.

Nominations for Society section rotation
Let us temporarily have a rotation of images that passed in Talk:India/Archive_35 and Talk:India/Archive 36 (Demographics voting), but were not included, citing that there will soon be a selection for a religion rotation in the culture section and images be reserved for that. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 14:49, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The gallery is fine, but it shouldn't be restricted to results of previous consensuses. Just to clarify, I didn't mean that they will get a automatic pass.  The Golden Temple, I can still understand, but not the Pahar Ganj Delhi wedding.  There were other wedding images considered even earlier, such as the Meenakshi temple wedding, that too were not considered.  The wedding image should not have been submitted for demographics in the first place (we were still trying to work out the kinks in the system).  For example, there are two sports images currently in rotation that have already been voted on; they too are now competing again and only one will will get selected, if that.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Excellent noms, Redtigerxyz! (Takes some of the pressure off me.  :) )   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Redtigerxyz: The Parsi wedding doesn't look Parsi to me. (The women have dots on their forehead, men have caste markings.  The men's headgear is not Parsi style.)  Unless you can provide watertight documentation, it will need to be removed.  The army regiment doesn't belong to a society page, but rather to the military page, when it has it's rotation.  Could you also please provide more details in your captions.  The Holi picture is not just one of women playing Holi, but a 17th (?) century painting depicting ...  This will help out a not-so-well-informed reader.  Thanks.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  09:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Festivals including Republic Day are discussed, so I felt a Republic day parade img would be nice. Actually I am searching for another img of the parade. Just collecting images now, will write captions afterwards. Changing Parsi image. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 06:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Question: I'm not very happy with my image 29. It took a lot of work.  I had to sift through some 2,000 Flickr images to find three (of the more traditional Indian cooking); however, in the thumbnail at least, the picture looks confusing.  Should I be drawing black lines to divide the picture?  I didn't because I thought someone upstairs was suggesting that they were excessive, but, perhaps, they were talking about the borders around the images.  Please advise.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Redtigerxyz, is it that hard to pay a attention when you select your pictures? The tandoori dinner picture is from a restaurant in Kobe Japan! The Rajasthani thali has been uploaded on Flickr by delirious college kid who discovered the last extant Rajasthani dinner in a tourist trap on a busy highway, a dinner which was, moreover, served in special Rajasthani tin foil dishes.  Seriously, do you want this kind of garbage to go on the India page?  Why do you keep nominating it then?  How many Indians are eating the 12 different varieties of South Indian thalis (that you have in your collage of thumbnails)?  And the Indian spices?  What are they?  Spices native to India?  Clearly not, since powered red pepper and cinnamon bark and anise are among them.  Are they spices most commonly used in Indian food?  In which case, what are they, please identify a few and which kind of food.  I am working hard on nominating good images; you are being cavalier and sloppy to the point of being disruptive.  Please remove your garbage.    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Fowler raises some good points here: Fowler's excellent points regarding quality have dovetailed with the ones I've tried to make over the past several weeks—and I think I've pretty much railed against of otherwise alienated everyone here regarding image or prose quality. I hope Redtiger and others don't our criticisms personally. Fowler just wants to keep this article clean: free of shabbiness and POV. Saravask 12:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As is the case with most everyone here, I'm sure that Redtigerxyz's cuisine/dance noms were made in good faith. Nikkul said some weeks ago something: "we've all made mistakes here". But "less is more" and "the higher, the fewer" is good advice for all of us regarding image noms.
 * I prefer not to have borders and segment frames in images—just look at the best city infobox collages on WP. I prefer not to have headshots like the Tagore one. And I prefer that the rotations don't degenerate to the state they were in when Nikkul managed the now-deleted rotation template.
 * All components of the "tandoori dinner" constitute Indian food, irrespective the location of restaurant. The tandoor and naan are discussed in the article. "powered red pepper and cinnamon bark and anise" are all part of spices typically used in Indian cuisine. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 18:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess, I am suggesting that you seem to be sometimes pushing grandiose, vanilla or unrealistic images of India and, by persistently so doing, are being disruptive. One doesn't have to be verbally rude to be disruptive.  One can do the Wikipedia equivalent of flushing all the toilets at once.  There's nothing illegal about it, but if everyone does it, it paralyses a city, and becomes disruptive.  Many of your images are great, especially in Performing Arts, and I've complimented you for those, but sometimes you seem to only flushing toilets.  Sorry, but please think about it.  I am only engaging in constructive criticism.  My aim is not to gratuitously confront you or drive you away.  You are a valuable participant here.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * All this is more or less moot since I have to take a month off Wikipedia. I will see this nomination through, i.e. prepare it for voting and cast my vote (soon after midnight tonight), but that's about it.  Could others: Saravask, RegentsPark, Regtigerxyz, AshLin and others please manage the rest of the process?  Thanks.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, sorry to hear that, Fowler. I hope Regtigerxyz, RegentsPark, or someone else can step forward to do what Fowler has asked—my opinions regarding image selection are far too strong to enable impartial vote-brokering. If no one steps forward, I suppose we could just implement off of a straight vote, though it's probably better if we just wait until Fowler returns, then let him close it as usual. If we do the latter, we could just extend the voting phase to a month. At any rate, I wish Fowler and his pet the best during his break. Saravask 11:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Ground rules

 * 1) As before for each of the subsections below, you are being asked to cast 8 votes
 * 2) As before the images are labeled in the form: Alphabet-Numeral (e.g. A-3).
 * 3) As before the alphabet part of the label represents some subgroup of the culture grouping. Thus "A" is sculpture, "B" is Art (painting), "C" is architecture, and so forth.
 * 4) In general, in any letter-group, you should not vote for more than $$\frac{number \ of \ letter\  group \  images}{Total \ number \ images \ in \ subsection}\times 8 $$.  Thus in group "A" you shouldn't vote more than 6x8/35, which is approximately 1.5.  That means you could vote twice, but will need to draw back elsewhere.  Similarly in group "B" you shouldn't be voting more than 7*8/35 = 1.6.  You could round up the decimal and vote twice, but then somewhere else you will have to appropriately round down.
 * 5) Those are the rules.
 * 6) Others who will be around can decide when to close. Regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Voting for Art, architecture, literature

 * Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  19:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * A-5, B-13, B-15, C-17, D-25, D-28, D-32, D-35.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * User:RegentsPark
 * A-4, A-5, B-11, B-14, C-18, D-23, D28, D-30, D-33 --regentspark (comment) 21:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * User:AshLin
 * A-2, A-5, B-9, B-12, C-17, D23, D24, D32, D33. AshLin (talk) 08:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * User:Redtigerxyz
 * A-2, A-5, B-9, B-11, C-16, D19, D-23, D28, D33. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * User:Saravask
 * A2, A5, B9, B11, B15, D23, D32, D33 — Saravask 09:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * User:pdheeru
 * A2,A5,B7,B16,C16,C17,D24,D28.Pdheeru (talk) 02:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Voting for Performing arts

 * Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  19:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * E-1, E-9, F-12, F-15, G-17 (video), G-22 (video), G-25, G-26.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * User:Redtigerxyz
 * E1, E5, E6, F12, F14, F15, G20, H27-- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * User:Saravask
 * E5, E9, F12, F14, G17, G20, G22, G25 — Saravask 09:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * User:pdheeru
 * E2, E8,E11,F14 Pdheeru (talk) 02:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Voting for Society

 * Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  19:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I-2, I-3, I-6, J-14, J-15, K-22, L-29, L-30.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * User:Redtigerxyz
 * I1, I4, I7, J13, J15, K23, L28, L30, L32. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * User:Saravask
 * I1, I2, I3, I7, J15, K22, L29, L30 — Saravask 09:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * User:pdheeru
 * I1,I5,I11,J13,K18,L28,L34,L35 Pdheeru (talk) 02:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * User:DebashisM
 * I3, I9, J13, J14, K18, L26, L28, L33 undefinedDebashisM Talk 04:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussion
I see that no decisions have been made in my absence. Unfortunately, I'm flat out of time, and can't help much. Looking at it cursorily, all I can say is that there are too few votes and too many images. There are too many sub-standard images, nominated without thought, without care, and often without the courtesy of intelligible captions. There might have been more votes, but many people who earlier were participating in the process are now no longer doing so. I believe they have been driven away, turned off either by the bickering or by what they might see as an attempt&mdash;by the off-handed dumping of less-than-explained images&mdash;to limit the vote to a group of insiders. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  18:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * PS I am not suggesting that this is deliberate on anyone's part, but the images captions need to be both user friendly and informative; otherwise, we are unlikely to get a useful vote. We could count the votes and make a decision, but what would be the point of it?  Please help improve the image captions.  In other words, they should read now as they would if they had been selected and were already on the India page. The voters should be voting on both the images and their captions (which make the images relevant).  Good luck.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * PPS Coming from this perspective, saying that such and such image is a featured image is unproductive (since we wouldn't be saying that on the India page). Also, the nominator info, which I tried to remove, but might have missed it here and there, will also need to go.  Perhaps, Saravask, Redtigerxyz, AshLin, Joyson Noel, Pdheeru, can help improve the captions for now.  Thanks.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Welcome back. We could pick/discuss these pictures:
 * A02, A05, B09, B11, C17, D28, D32, D33
 * E05, E09, F12, F14, G17, G20, G22, G25
 * I02, I03, I07, J13 J12, J15, K22, L29, L30
 * Or we can wait—for more votes or for Fowler to return.
 * Have some prosperous and/or peaceful holidays, guys. Saravask 20:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC) [changed 03:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC) by Saravask]


 * Sorry, I didn't see your post. Delighted that you have taken the initiative.  Those seem like fairly representative high-quality images and have my support.  Only, I would prefer J12 to J13 which seems all too anonymous.  Other than the spectacular outfits and smiles, we have we have nothing to go by, e.g. religious or regional characteristics.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, no problem. I also suggest we give folks another week to vote or suggest changes/proposals. Saravask 03:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 December 2011
Delhi is now largest country in india according to 2011 census

Gebenjam (talk) 11:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * How old are you? Joyson Prabhu  <FONT FACE="Haettenschweiler" COLOR="#ff0000"> Holla at me!</FONT>   11:39, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You mean the largest city, I guess. According to the 2011 census data, Greater Mumbai has a population of 12,478,447, while the area under the Delhi Municipal Corporation has a population of 11,007,835. Note that Delhi city proper (within municipal corporation limits) is not same as the National Capital Territory of Delhi, which includes separate census towns and villages such as the Kirari Suleman Nagar and the Karawal Nagar. utcursch | talk 07:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 December 2011
The state Orissa has been changed to Odisha. Can you please make the change in India wiki page?

Saubhagya Nayak 19:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done. I didn't change the "dance of" ones since they were created when it was Orissa, but if those need to be changed too, you can reopen the request by changing answered to "no" in the edit semi-protected template at the top of this section. — Bility (talk) 20:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) The references for this are :
 * I second the suggestion that we change the name. The name occurs thrice in the article, once as the name of the administrative district and twice more in the context of dance, i.e. sambalpuri of Orissa & odissi of Orissa. AshLin (talk) 20:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I second the suggestion that we change the name. The name occurs thrice in the article, once as the name of the administrative district and twice more in the context of dance, i.e. sambalpuri of Orissa & odissi of Orissa. AshLin (talk) 20:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I second the suggestion that we change the name. The name occurs thrice in the article, once as the name of the administrative district and twice more in the context of dance, i.e. sambalpuri of Orissa & odissi of Orissa. AshLin (talk) 20:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I second the suggestion that we change the name. The name occurs thrice in the article, once as the name of the administrative district and twice more in the context of dance, i.e. sambalpuri of Orissa & odissi of Orissa. AshLin (talk) 20:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Medieval history sources
As for the posts in a previous talk page thread, Medieval history section seems patronizing?], opened while I was on Wikibreak, the sentence is well-documented. Please read the references in the footnotes. Not only were there no large-scale forced conversions of Hindus to Islam during the rule of the Delhi Sultanate (whose Turkish slave armies were vastly superior to those of the indigenous rulers of the subcontinent), but by encountering and defeating the Mongols at the northwestern borders, the Delhi sultans saved North India from the wanton destruction seen in West Asia and Southern Eurasia. For the former, there are many sources, among which the better known ones (with links to relevant pages) are:
 * Quote: "Nor can the liberation that the Muslim conquerors offered to those who sought to escape from the caste system be taken for granted. The evidence for widespread conversion to Islam at the turn of the twelfth century simply does not exist. That such deliverance was in fact on offer seems improbable in view of our knowledge of the early centuries of Muslim rule in Sind, ..." (page 15)


 * Quote: "Nor does the theory fit the religious geography of South Asia. If Islamization had ever been a function of military or political force, one would expect that those areas exposed most intensively and over the longest period to rule by Muslim dynasties—that is, those that were most fully exposed to the "sword"—would today contain the greatest number of Muslims. Yet the opposite is the case, as those regions where the most dramatic Islamization occurred, such as eastern Bengal or western Punjab, lay on the fringes of Indo-Muslim rule, where the "sword" was weakest, and where brute force could have exerted the least influence. In such regions the first accurate census reports put the Muslim population at between 70 and 90 percent of the total, whereas in the heartland of Muslim rule in the upper Gangetic Plain—the domain of the Delhi Fort and the Taj Mahal, where Muslim regimes had ruled the most intensively and for the longest period of time—the Muslim population ranged from only 10 to 15 percent. In other words, in the subcontinent as a whole there is an inverse relationship between the degree of Muslim political penetration and the degree of Islamization. Even within Bengal this principle holds true." (page 115)

For the military and technological superiority of the Turkish armies contrasted with the indigenous Indian rulers, see:
 * Quote: "Instead of being devastated by the Mongols during one or several major invasions, the agricultural plains of North India were brought under Turko-Islamic rule in a gradual manner. This conquest, which continued throughout the eleventh to thirteenth centuries, was effected by professional armies, built around a core of Turkish slave soldiers, which were relatively small in size and were not accompanied by any large-scale invasions of nomadic elements (complete with flocks and herds), as happened in the Middle East. Unlike the Mongols, too, these Turkish groups had already converted to Islam before they came to India. The military differential between the Turkish invaders on the one hand and the opposing Indian armies on the other was both technical and social in its origin, revolving as it did around the coordinated deployment of mounted archers. In India. of course, the horse and horsemanship had a long history. But it seems that archery was largely left to infantry and a relatively small number of elephant-riders. Like in the case of the Byzantines, it was the failure of the Indians to develop mounted archery that was exposed by the Turks from the steppes of Central Asia. And it was, paradoxically, this military, differential that made possible the fusion of nomadic and agricultural society in the eleventh to thirteenth centuries. ... as soon as the conquest of al-Hind was under way, a migration corridor was opened up between the eastern Islamic world, including Central Asia, and the subcontinent. The gradual establishment of a new Muslim ruling elite in India was further enhanced by the immigration of fugitives from the lands which had been overrun by the pagan Mongols." (pages 3–4)

For the effective protection provided by the Sultanate against the Mongols, there are many sources as well, in addition to the ones cited. Among these are:
 * . Quote: "Apart from the immediate political consequences of introducing a new ruling stratum with a vigorous and alien religion into northern India, the new political elite (i.e. the Delhi sultans) was militarily superior to indigenous warrior-rulers. Among the few peoples and societies spared the devastations of the Mongol hordes were those Muslim steppe communities whose fighters determinedly matched Mongol skills on horses and general ferocity.  These Turkic warriors may have saved India from the horrors that other Eurasians suffered at the hands of the Mongols. ... The Muslim resistance prevented deeper incursions, and in course of time a standing army under the rule and command of the Delhi sultanate stood watch against the Mongol terror."
 * . Quote: "Although Ala-ud-din had the indisputable merit of having saved India front being overrun by the Mongols, the Hindus naturally disliked hint because he oppressed them intentionally. Hindu historians have, therefore, criticised him just as they criticised Aurangzeb. But they tend to forget that Ala-uddin was rather impartial in his oppression, his measures being aimed at Muslim courtiers just as much as against Hindu notables and middlemen."   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I will be away until January 10, 2012.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thx Fowler, happy new year! AshLin (talk) 21:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you and the same to you. I have added some quotes from the sources.  Regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And what of the line "The Sultanate's raiding and weakening of the regional kingdoms of South India paved the way for the indigenous Vijayanagara Empire." ??

Which holy book from the west gives this interpretation ? RAA Ra Ra your Boat (talk) 08:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What, also do you have to say about this ,professor?

" An army of 12,000 under Targhi's leadership moved to Delhi in a swift attack; many governors could not send their troops to Delhi in time. Alauddin Khilji was forced to retreat to Siri for about two months. The Mongols attacked and pillaged not only the surrounding areas, but Delhi itself." Rene Grousset - Empire of steppes, Chagatai Khanate; Rutgers Univ Pr,New Jersey, U.S.A, 1988 ISBN 0-8135-1304-9 RAA Ra Ra your Boat (talk) 09:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You are not correctly quoting the reference which can be see on Google books here. It appears that you have paraphrased what has been written in Grousset and added quotes, which is wrong. Also you are cherry-picking so while it is true that the Mongols besieged Delhi and raided India a few times, often they were defeated or held at bay. They could not achieve the kind of success they achieved in other parts of Central Asia due to Khilji''s army and tactics and as such the Mongols could never rule over India. AshLin (talk) 23:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * References

You are not correctly quoting the reference which can be see on Google books here.[1] Which Part is INCORRECT ? that delhi was pillaged ? That the Sultanate ,which you and your friend here term as a bulwark ,failed to act as an effective resistance as is being painted in the main article ? If any of the above two facts are true,then terming any effective protection from the mongols by the delhi sultanate is prima facie Incorrect. RAA Ra Ra your Boat (talk) 06:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Targhi mongol and the sacking of Delhi and FAilure of the "great" delhi sultanate leaders for your kind consideration.

RAA Ra Ra your Boat (talk) 07:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Also you are cherry-picking so while it is true that the Mongols besieged Delhi and raided India a few times, often they were defeated or held at bay. that is true of many rulers in many parts of the world, yet nowhere is such a claim made that one bunch of invaders resulted in protection from another bunch of thugs, i mean to say, where is the differece and why this need to paint positives ? Tamarlane was a mongol, the babur and Mughals were Mongols , and neither khilji nor the marmalukes nor the lodhi's were any less "barbarian"!

RAA Ra Ra your Boat (talk) 06:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC) They could not achieve the kind of success they achieved in other parts of Central Asia due to Khiljis army and tactics and as such the Mongols could never rule over India.

"But they DID, and you forget that one century does not define the boundaries of success OR failure, I cannot for exampe say ,that the marathas succeded in keeping the westerners at bay ,because in the end , in hindsight , they Did not."

RAA Ra Ra your Boat (talk) 06:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Your tone is grossly offensive. Your questions are phrased more like irate rants. If you want to discourse here, be civil, plainly outline your position. Clearly enunciate lucid questions argued logically.
 * I care not what your Sensitivity is, my point was valid for the statements made.I have argued with references , RAA Ra Ra your Boat (talk) 09:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding your quote. No matter what your position in the argument, you misrepresented the source and cherry-picked yourself.
 * the source is Correct, it mentions the attack , it mentions the cavalry, it mentions the parts where attack was done, you are vainly attempting to present this as a matter of INCORRECT quotes for misrepresentation, which it is not. I capitalize to emphasize.

RAA Ra Ra your Boat (talk) 09:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC) Whatever the source said, it did not verbatim say what you implied and there were points which you left out conveniently.that is PLAIN WRONG!
 * I paraphrase for brevity, the contents are not incorrect.RAA Ra Ra your Boat (talk) 09:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * As far as the text is concerned, your questions are wrong and emotionally phrased.
 * Any one can see what yo are attempting to do here.

RAA Ra Ra your Boat (talk) 09:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was besieged but not pillaged in the invasion of Turghai of 1303.
 * Only the FORTIFIED parts, Delhi is Much bigger and the countryside was definitely ravaged.you can blithely ignore that Delhi consists of this civilian population as well, but that is your prerogative.

RAA Ra Ra your Boat (talk) 09:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC) Delhi did fall almost a hundred years later, in 1398 to Tamerlane, who defeated the Genghisid Mongols of the Chagatai Khanate, and that too after the Delhi sultanates declined. So the Delhi Sultans stopped the Mongols from ravaging the Indian heartlands.
 * Now Timur lane is not a Mongol!? your patent misdirections are of no consequence, refer wiki article on the same, "He sought to restore the Mongol Empire( Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Third Series, Vol. 8, No. 1 (Apr., 1998), 25)" RAA Ra Ra your Boat (talk) 09:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Exactly MY POINT, so why assign falsehood and undeserved praise to this bunch of invaders? RAA Ra Ra your Boat (talk) 09:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC) So if you imply that the Khilji's could not prevent the Mongols from coming, you need to learn more about Mongol tactics and generalship.
 * Nothing could deter a Mongol raid. They could be defeated and killed by superior soldiering but presence of superior force never stopped a Mongol raid.
 * my point of contention is the Delhi sultanate and its fanboys, Mongols are too well known to be marauders RAA Ra Ra your Boat (talk) 09:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Dude, this shows a very racist attitude towards history.
 * it is also the truth that tamarlane is a Mongol, my racism or lack thereof is non-sequitr.

RAA Ra Ra your Boat (talk) 09:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC) Tamerlane was from a Turkic-Mongol origins, yet he fought and defeated the Chagatai Khanate and started his own dynasty. He began his own line which later became the Mughal dynasty in India. They were of Mongol origin but were not Mongols.
 * Splitting hair now, once again refer the wiki article, Don't say , you cannot refer another wiki article , cause that is not authentic , for it also provides the requisite indications of rigourous authorship that you claim your fowler friend seems to adhere to.

RAA Ra Ra your Boat (talk) 09:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Some historians, notably Will durant , disagree , "the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without and multiplying from within.” RAA Ra Ra your Boat (talk) 09:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "But they DID ... So sorry but under no stretch of imagination did the Mongol ordus ravage, conquer and rule India as they did complete North Asia, Central Asia, West Asia and large parts of Europe.
 * In any case, the Delhi Sultanates kept the Mongols at bay, it was Tamerlane who vanquished the Mongols in late 14th century who later subdued the Delhi sultanate.
 * and He was a MONGOL.RAA Ra Ra your Boat (talk) 09:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

AshLin (talk) 10:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

U can even check on the google images, THE RAM SETU built by LORD RAMA, the hero of one of the holy books of hindus, THE RAMAYANAM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by S.R.Aniruddha (talk • contribs) 17:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

"Culture" section
Hello! This is my first time doing this, so I apologize if I make a mistake or post this incorrectly, etc.

This may seem like a small detail, but as it stands, this is the sentence in the current Wikipedia article about India that I have issue with:

"The predominant religion, Hinduism, has been shaped by various historical schools of thought, including those of the Upanishads,[231] the Yoga Sutras, the Bhakti movement,[230] and by Buddhist philosophy.[232]

I understand that this is an article on India, not Hinduism, and to go into the fact of how "Hinduism" is not even a "religion" will prove to be superfluous in this particular case; however, stating that Hinduism has been "shaped by Buddhist philosophy"? Buddhism began in approx. 6th century BCE - how could it, then, "shape" Hinduism, which has been around for thousands of years before Buddhism even existed? Buddha himself was born into a royal Hindu family. The clear fact is that to state that Hinduism was "shaped" by Buddhism is an anachronism - if anything, Buddhism was shaped by Hinduism, not the other way around. My simple request is that the Buddhist mention be removed in that sentence, for it is not only misleading, but wildly incorrect.

The other mentions (Upanishads, Yoga, and Bhakti) are at least part of the 'astik' schools of Hindu philosophy (Buddhism is 'nastik' in Hindu philosophy and came after the other mentioned schools of thought). The sentence is talking about "historical schools of thought," and Buddhism "historically" came way after Hinduism. If the sentence is trying to state that NOWADAYS, Buddhist philosophy is gaining popularity within certain Hindu sects, then that is what it should say, for the sentence as it stands is very misleading. But even that would be an arguable notion - Buddhism came out of Hinduism and many of the principles (not all, of course) are similar. So saying Buddhism is "influencing" Hinduism makes no sense, because it came out of Hinduism itself. Even some concepts mostly associated with Buddhism (like "ahimsa", for example) can originally be found in certain Hindu philosophies. Like I said, it's a whole different thing to say that Buddhism is gaining popularity or that its ideals are being practiced by more Hindus. But you cannot state that it "shaped" the religion that not only came before it, but is inadvertently responsible for its creation. Simply put, it is factually and literally impossible for Buddhism to have "shaped" Hinduism.

Sorry my post is so long - I'm not trying to offend anyone, I just want to be clear. Millions of people read Wikipedia and little details like that make a world of difference in the misinterpretations that go on in society.

Thank you for reading!

Jeanniejeanniejeannie (talk) 07:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 January 2012
In the first sentence, there is an unmatched right parenthesis. Please change "see also the official names of India)," to "see also the official names of India,"

Jdtwood (talk) 08:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed by User:Anbu121 by adding (. Dru of Id (talk) 09:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 January 2012
Hi India now has the 9th Largest Nominal GDP not the 10th, its just a simple detail that i noticed Thanks

222.155.241.80 (talk) 08:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ❌. Please fetch a source for the same. Thanks. <font face="Comic Sans MS"> X.One   SOS  08:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 January 2012
The economy seems incorrect

219.89.221.106 (talk) 03:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

medieval history seems patronizing?
i desire to continue the discussion regarding the below two lines in the medieval history section.

"By repeatedly repulsing the Mongol raiders in the 13th century, the Sultanate saved India from the devastation visited on West and Central Asia, " &

"The Sultanate's raiding and weakening of the regional kingdoms of South India paved the way for the indigenous Vijayanagara Empire."

I continue this from archived part (archive 36),wherein somebody has cruelly culled the ongoing discussion between another interested party and myself.

I am not averse to renewing the old section, but lack the know-how to do this. RAA Ra Ra your Boat (talk) 08:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 January 2012
The Indian economy is the 9th largest and here is the source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

219.89.221.106 (talk) 03:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This IP is right. The wikipedia article above might not able to be used as a source bu this the article it cites (which basically shows the same information as the first column of the wikipedia article above but without the ability to sort it): . The figures for 2011 are exactly as already in the article. Apparently those figures got changed without the ranking mentioned in the intro getting changed or else perhaps it was due to 3 different sources being used for the economy lists. Munci (talk) 16:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Please provide a URL to a reliable source that states "9th" in terms of 2011 IMF numbers. You cannot use a Wikipedia list or any other tertiary source. At any rate, that Wikipedia list mentioned above ranks non-country entities like the European Union, Hong Kong, etc—the ranks are thus messed up. It also uses 2010 data, which does not apply to the 2011 data used in this article. Saravask 04:01, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 January 2012
the religion census is not yet updated though the census has been announced muslim population should be 14.9% according to census 2010 thought it is written 13.4% which is according to the last census 2001

so, therefore there is big difference of 10 years and according to indian censuses muslims are increasing atleast 1.9% every ten years so that's why there should be updating on this article though govt. is not disclosing the correct figure of muslims.

pls take my request and aply it as soon as possible and i would appreciate you thank you

182.71.118.178 (talk) 22:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In fact, Islam is in decline in India. Muslims are leaving their faith to Dharmic roots. The more and more terror happening is making Indian Muslims to dump Islam to move towards other faiths of their choice. Moksae (talk) 02:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's the same worldwide. The Africa statistics need to be revised. http://pjmedia.com/blog/muslims-leaving-islam-in-droves/Moksae (talk) 02:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

"Science and technology" and "Transport" sections
Rvd4life has added two new sections: "Science and Technology" (with the "T" miscapitalised) and "Transport". If we arrive at a consensus to keep even one of these, it'd be best to emulate the TOC at Canada, which is a well-maintained FA. They have S&T under "Economy". Also, they don't have a "Transport" section. Maybe Rvd4life is looking at the structure of United Kingdom, but that article is oversized and not featured. Also, there are the WP:COUNTRY and WP:MOS guidelines. Saravask 05:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As written, I suggest that the science and technology section be removed. With all the caveats ("however"), the section doesn't really say anything meaningful about S&T in India and will only confuse the reader. Ditto for transport. That section says nothing about the transport infrastructure except in vague and general terms. --regentspark (comment) 14:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Removed them. Saravask 07:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The Science and Technology sections were the lead paragraph(s) from the respective page of the article. I thought that India's vast ancient scientific legacy along with its' modern projects deserved some sort of mention..  Perhaps we could make a paragraph that is more useful?  --Rvd4life (talk) 22:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Map Alignment
In the Politics Heading, under the "5.2 subdivisions", there is a lot of white space surrounding the map. Can we move the map to the right and have the states and UTs to the left rather than having the map below the states and UTs. -- Anbu121 ( talk me ) 11:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * There's a lot of white space surrounding the ToC as well ... not every space need be filled. The current setup was instituted by and mirrors that at Canada. If you are thinking of switching it to the style at Australia, then I wouldn't oppose. Not sure if others mind or not. Saravask 04:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Though I don't have an opinion either way right now, but here is another suggestion from China. — Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  05:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Indo-Aryan Migration?
Why is "Most historians also consider this period to have encompassed several waves of Indo-Aryan migration into the subcontinent from the north-west" written under the history section of this page? This has never been proven and many MODERN historians have actually de-bunked this outdated theory. For this reason, I'm not sure why this is written under the "history" section -- it's unproven, and the "indo-aryan migration" theory already has its own wiki page for those who want to inquire about these colonial beliefs. I just don't understand what it's doing under the history section of this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zondrah89 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 February 2012
The political map shows the wrong information about the disputed territories. It says these territories are pakistan & chinese territories but in actual these are Indian territories claimed by Pakistan & China.

121.244.160.219 (talk) 04:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: Please be specific about which information is incorrect and provide a reliable source for the change. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 06:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

medieval history seems patronizing?
i desire to continue the discussion regarding the below two lines in the medieval history section.

"By repeatedly repulsing the Mongol raiders in the 13th century, the Sultanate saved India from the devastation visited on West and Central Asia, "

-

"The Sultanate's raiding and weakening of the regional kingdoms of South India paved the way for the indigenous Vijayanagara Empire."

I continue this from archived part (archive 36),wherein somebody has cruelly culled the ongoing discussion between another interested party and myself.

I am not averse to renewing the old section, but lack the know-how to do this. RAA Ra Ra your Boat (talk) 08:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

RAA Ra Ra your Boat 09:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chimesmonster (talk • contribs)

Can I add this material into the ancient India section?
"The Brahmanical tradition was paralleled by the non-Vedic Shramana movement. The Buddha was a member of this movement. Shramana also gave rise to Jainism, yoga , the concept of the cycle of birth and death, the concept of samsara,  and the concept of liberation. The Shramana movement also influenced the Aranyakas and Upanishads in the Brahmanical tradition. "SaibAbaVenkatesh (talk) 03:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I recommend that you get input and agreement from, , , and/or before adding it. You could ask here or ping them on their talk pages. Saravask 03:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I would also like to replace some currently existing sentences, since they don't seem to be supported by the respective sources. SaibAbaVenkatesh (talk) 03:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Again, you need to discuss such non-trivial history-related changes with at least one of the four India regulars I mentioned above. It was they (mainly Fowler) who built the "History" section and have the knowledge to assess your proposals. This page has had a lot of problems related to tendentious editing, with problem editors being blocked and/or topic-banned--please search through and read the archives here. Saravask 04:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes I already notified. SaibAbaVenkatesh (talk) 04:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be WP:UNDUE to add so much about Shramana??? -- Redtigerxyz Talk 04:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem I have is with the existing Hindu fundamentalist sounding sentence in the article "The emerging urbanisation as well as the orthodoxies of the late Vedic age created the religious reform movements of Buddhism and Jainism." This cannot be correct. I have never read anything like this in any history book, Western or Eastern. Buddhism is not a reform movement of Hinduism, but of the extreme aesthetiscism of the Shramana. SaibAbaVenkatesh (talk) 14:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

So whats the verdict?SaibAbaVenkatesh (talk) 00:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It is said nowhere that Buddhism and Jainism were reform movements within Hinduism, but if this is being inferred by some, it is easy to fix. I have rewritten the sentence as: "The emerging urbanisation as well as the orthodoxies of the late Vedic age created the religious reform movements of Buddhism and Jainism,[25] both becoming independent religions.[26]"  The first statement is cited to Kulke and Rothermund's History of India, the second to Romila Thapar's seminal Early India from the origins to 1300 AD.  As for "Shramanism," it is a new fangled usage, beloved of some, but conspicuously absent in the vast majority of historical writings.  Mentioning the word anywhere in this article would be grossly UNDUE.  Here is some quick evidence from Google books.  1) Books mentioning "Buddhism," "Jainism," but not "Shramana" OR "Sramana," : total 1 million 40 thousand titles.  Books mentioning "Buddhism," "Jainism," and "Shramana," OR "Sramana" total 8,250 titles.  Please wait for at least ten years and see if "Shramana" gains a little more currency.  Right now it is rare enough to the point of being obscure.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  06:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You are still claiming a Vedic origin for Buddhism and Jainism. This is a minority opinion for sure. SaibAbaVenkatesh (talk) 08:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this is all the time I have for a garbage spouting WP:SPA. I am not claiming any such thing.  The vast majority of the population of mid 1st millennium BCE India was outside the pale of Vedic Hinduism.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  08:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like Fowler's text has fixed any problems with the text. I agree with him that this whoe Shrama thing is outside the pale (so to speak). --regentspark (comment) 15:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't even care about Sramana. The article is still saying Vedism created Buddhism and Jainism....something which even Fowler says he disagrees with. SaibAbaVenkatesh (talk) 17:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It says that Buddhism and Jainism emerged during the Vedic age (because of urbanization and orthodoxies). Vedic age is a well defined period in Indian history and the reference is to that period, not to the vedas. I've replaced Vedic age with Vedic period and wikilinked it for clarity. --regentspark (comment) 19:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure I can understand that. Just tell me what these "orthodoxies" are exactly.  The "orthodoxies" that "created" Buddhism and Jainism. SaibAbaVenkatesh (talk) 22:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

(od) I'm going to have to look at the reference for that. Meanwhile, I've simplified the text further until we can clarify "orthodoxies". --regentspark (comment) 22:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding the current text....what exactly did Jainism 'reform'? I've read the original source. SaibAbaVenkatesh (talk) 23:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Dear Mr. Saib, You seem to have only one point of view, that of the supposed importance given to the Vedas (and by implication to the Historical Vedic religion) in Indian historiography. So, when most people are easily able to interpret a sentence such as, "The emerging urbanisation as well as the orthodoxies of the late Vedic age created the religious reform movements of Buddhism and Jainism," to mean that the movements arose in reaction to the orthodoxies, you, Mr. Saib, interpret the sentence to mean that the Vedic orthodoxy itself engendered the reform (implying further that Buddhism and Jainism are but two branches of Hinduism).  No one is saying this.  Moreover, our job here, Mr. Saib, is not to answer your questions about Jainism and Vedic orthodoxy, for these could go on ad nauseam, but to offer proof that secondary sources corroborate the Wikipedia text.  Here are more references:
 * Rejection of Vedic Orthodoxy:
 * "Both Buddhism and Jainism had emerged in the sixth century BCE as heterodox, puritanical sects that stood opposed to Brahman orthodoxy. Both stood against the animal sacrifices of the Vedas and in favour of a monastic life whereby the few achieve perfection on the basis of the support of the wider community."
 * "Buddhism and Jainism questioned caste, especially Brahmanical social orthodoxy, and shunned elaborate Vedic rituals."
 * "Buddhism and Jainism were born as heterodox rejections of Brahmanic orthodoxy with its Vedic ritual fire sacrifices of lambs and goats as well as Soma and ghi."
 * "Alike in their rejection of Brahmanical pretensions and Vedic orthodoxy, Jainism and Buddhism had quite different destinies. Jainism survives to the present day in India, but never spread beyond its borders. Buddhism became a major religious and political force in India and was exported to other Asian countries."
 * "In the wider Indian context, neither was it a matter of a simple choice between orthodox Brahmanical renunciation and life as a ritually bound householder. Other routes, other modes of life were also available to those seeking personal liberation, chief among them the heterodox systems of Jainism and Buddhism, with their rival views of what constituted Dharma (correct behaviour in the light of the way things really are). Indeed, it was in these heterodox systems that the doctrine of karma first became fully ethicized as a moral law that was universally applicable, regardless of birth, social status, or occupation. And whether to conform to it or not was a matter for the individual alone to decide. A cornerstone of this renunciatory morality was that deliberate injury done to other living beings was wrong and had bad karmic consequences for the person doing the injury. This is an ethical stance which provides a direct challenge to Brahminical values for, as we have seen, Brahminieal society is divided into four classes or estates, and members of each estate have their own inherent dharma or duty Persons born into a particular estate conform to the inherent duty of that estate. By doing so they help to maintain the natural order of existence and automatically accrue good results; should they deviate from their inherent duty, however, the results will he bad for them personally and for society as a whole. One of the four estates is that of the warrior or ruler, and it is a warrior's duty to fight. This is clearly antithetical to the renunciatory ideal of nonviolence."


 * Urbanisation:
 * The gana-sanghas were an alternative polity to the kingdoms and my represent the continuation of an earlier system. The connection between the gana-sanghas and the growth of various ideologies and belief systems, particularly Buddhist and Jaina, was due to many of these being rooted in the gana-sanghas.  Buddhist sources therefore mention the working of this system.  ... Brahmanical sources disapproved of the gana-sanghas because they did not perform the required rituals or observe the rules of varna, therefore they tend to be ignored in the Vedic corpus.  Disapproval is extended to towns in general, whereas the Buddhist Canon has more empathy with urban centres, and emphasizes the centrality of the town."
 * Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  08:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Fowler, I rewrote it based on your research. Thanks for that. Would it be more accurate to say "Brahminical orthodoxies"? --regentspark (comment) 15:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be a good rephrase.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh really Fowler? The article currently says "the orthodoxies of this age also CREATED the religious reform movements of Buddhism and Jainism." What do you interpret the word "created" means?  Stop feeding me this bullshit. SaibAbaVenkatesh (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The same BS, Mr. Saib, that Gladstone fed you a century earlier when he said, "The enormous corruptions engendered by the overgrown power and grandeur of the Papacy created the Reformation." (Palmer and Gladstone) or that R.W. Dixon fed you when he said, "... the Church of Rome with that long series of Popes whose avarice and wickedness created the Reformation." (R. W. Dixon) "Created" here means "created the conditions for" or "created in reaction" or "paved the way for" or "led to the."  No one, bar one perhaps, will interpret Gladstone to mean that Martin Luther was the Pope.    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL So you DO you believe Buddhism and Jainism were reforms of Vedism, just as protestantism was a reform of Catholicism? This is something which you denied earlier. SaibAbaVenkatesh (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Whatever, Mr. Saib. The ball game here is over.  Other pages await your traveling circus of vanities and prickliness.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

All parties interested see Dispute Resolution Noticeboard at "India". Thank you! SaibAbaVenkatesh (talk) 05:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 February 2012
Hi,

This is Shiny Kumar Das from Mumbai, India. I would want to change the Indian National Anthem loaded on this portal, which does not have words in it. The Anthem consist of music and words. The words define India in its own beauty and culture. Please load the Anthem given on the Indian Government site http://india.gov.in/knowindia/national_symbols.php?id=6

Thanks & Regards,

Shiny Das.Shinydas (talk) 00:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: That website is very clear that the anthem can be played or sung. It may be better for the typical reader to leave off the words. Either way, you would need to upload the file using the tool to the left. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 01:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Afghanistan
The lead currently has a footnote next to Pakistan when mentioning bordering countries, in which Afghanistan is claimed as a bordering country according to the Government of India's claims. My question is, is this really appropriate per WP:NPOV and WP:DUE? Looking at the ground realities, it's unrealistic to say that India shares an imaginary border with Afghanistan because the Gilgit-Baltistan region is as much a part of Pakistan as Jammu and Kashmir is claimed to be a part of India. And also, what are the viewpoints of other nations on this? Pakistan considers the entire of Kashmir as its own territory, including the state of Jammu and Kashmir. China, the other party in the Kashmir dispute, has its own issues with the Indian claim too. And most importantly, what is the Government of Afghanistan's stance on Gilgit-Baltistan? Or the international community, such as the United Nations, which as per status quo regards Indian-administered territory to cease no further than the Line of Control? Where then, does India bordering Afghanistan come into the equation? And how come the Pakistan article lead does not have a similiar footnote claiming its borders to stretch beyond the Line of Control, to include the disputed territory of Jammu and Kashmir? Mar4d (talk) 08:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

According to me, the foot note has been written from a very neutral point of view. It does not say "India shares border with Afghanistan", it only says "Government of India considers Afghanistan to be a bordering country", which is a fact. -- Anbu121 ( talk me ) 09:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see my comment above. There is a difference between a claim and a fact. The statement that India considers Afghanistan as a bordering country is a claim, not a fact. Officially, there is no physical boundary between the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and the Republic of India and presenting that claim in a footnote does not add any more credibility to the reality. The Afghan government does not call India a bordering country, neither does the international community or the United States (US doesn't see India sharing Afghan border) The problem with the footnote under discussion is that it is heavily portraying one side of the coin while ignoring the larger and broader context, which is the Kashmir conflict. India's dispute on territories administered by Pakistan holds no more legitimate weight than Pakistan's claims over Indian-administered Kashmir. I see only two solutions to this issue: Either remove the whole footnote since it is not compliant with WP:WEIGHT. Or for balance and to present a full picture of the Kashmir issue, in the same footnote, add the Government of Pakistan's dispute on Jammu and Kashmir and Pakistan's own version of its borders. Mar4d (talk) 09:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The view of the Government of India as to its own borders is relevant for an article about India. Placing it in a foot-note is about right vide WP:WEIGHT keeping in view the the complex border issues involved. It is also neutrally written. It may not be suitable to include in an article on Afghanistan or Pakistan but in an article on India, Indian Government views are notable enough to mention. Your contention is not agreed for the reasons stated. AshLin (talk) 11:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * All the points that User:Mar4d has brought about have nothing to challenge the neutrality of the statement. Pakistan government's viewpoints and claims on its borders should be included in Pakistan article. Not here. The primary purpose of the foot note is to convey government of India's claims. WP:WEIGHT is about giving weights to different viewpoints. The footnote here is not a viewpoint at all. It is written in the form of a fact explaining India's claims. My opinion is that the word "considers" can be changed to "claims". I am inviting other editors' opinion on this. -- Anbu121 ( talk me ) 12:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Wikipedia is not an advocate of any particular government, each and every piece of material deserves to be presented neutrally, factually and with due weight. This is not so the case here. The footnote mentions India's claims of sharing a border with Afghanistan yet does not mention the other half, namely that the entire region which it lays dispute to (including Jammu and Kashmir) in the first place is fully claimed by another country. For a reader who is not well versed with the Kashmir conflict and reads it, this footnote is highly misleading, one-sided and ambiguous. Mar4d (talk) 13:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * However, you have conflict of interest when arguing. As neutral editor here I would have this información not in footnote but in the lead in form text.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.98.197.34 (talk) 13:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We could definitely reword it to be more concise, with perhaps a better wikilink, but I don't see how a footnote would add to the Pakistan article at all. It doesn't really change Pakistan's borders. CMD (talk) 14:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This foot note was around for a long time(Talk:India/Archive_5). Seems that user wants to waste time arguing over non-issue¿  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.98.197.34 (talk) 14:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Let me be more clear. I am not advocating that Indian government's viewpoints to be included in India article and Pakistan government's viewpoints to be included in Pakistan article. The foot note has been written in the context of list of bordering countries of India and not in the context of Kashmir dispute. It could be reworded to be more precise, but explaining the Kashmir conflict in this foot note looks a bit out of context. -- Anbu121 ( talk me ) 14:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The Kashmir conflict has every bit to do with this. According to the footnote itself, the government of India claims a border with Afghanistan on the basis of its dispute over a part of Kashmir which borders the country. If this footnote is to stay at all, both viewpoints would need to be presented i.e. Indian government's claim on a border with Afghanistan (on the basis of the Kashmir conflict) and Pakistan's dispute over that. The international community also has not acknowledged any physical boundary between Afghanistan and India, thus the footnote needs to clearly make note of the fact that this claim is officially disputed. Mar4d (talk) 15:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * On a side note, can we get some more reliable sources going into depth about the Indian government's claims of a border with Afghanistan (i.e. statements by government officials, official documents, speeches, diplomatic conferences) for verifiability? I'm having a hard time finding many. If there is inadequate coverage of this topic, this would raise further issues of whether this is even notable enough and WP:DUE to deserve a mention in the lead, as well as the larger problem of WP:SYNTHESIS. Mar4d (talk) 16:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If Indian government has made a claim over the entire Jammu and Kashmir, it is obvious that the government considers Afghanistan to be a neighbouring country. I am not able to see why reliable sources, verifiability and WP:SYNTHESIS are brought in to the picture. -- Anbu121 ( talk me ) 17:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Trying to state the obvious or coming up with a working assumption without verifiability is indeed synthesis with a capital S, and I'm afraid if that is the basis on what the footnote has been inserted, then this certainly has synthesis written all over it. Notwithstanding India's claim over Jammu and Kashmir, the question is to what extent has the Indian government gone a step further on the supposed Afghan border claim? How notable is it? How much importance does it attach to this issue? Are there any official or diplomatic quotes/mentions/written evidence on the topic? If not, then the more specific question is, is having a footnote in the lead of this article unnecessarily overdoing and exaggerating the claim? Mar4d (talk) 17:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well you can see here in the lead "contrary to India's position". Just search google for more.  Stop wasting everyone's time.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.98.197.34 (talk) 18:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's the link I already gave above. Read my second comment again. Any other reliable sources and coverage talking exclusively about India's position apart from that only report that you could find on Google? This is starting to echo what I said earlier, this barely has much coverage. Mar4d (talk) 03:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Added an official GOI declaration ref. AshLin (talk) 05:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I won't admit that this topic has any wide coverage, but the official citation used clears up part of the verifiability issue nevertheless. Now a tweak or two should also be done. First, I think the phrase "The Government of India regards Afghanistan as a bordering country" should be changed to "The Government of India claims Afghanistan as a bordering country." In the second sentence, the phrase "which included territory that bordered Afghanistan, to belong exclusively to India" can be modified into something more neutral. Perhaps something like: "This is because of its territorial dispute on the erstwhile princely state of Kashmir and Jammu, which included territory that bordered Afghanistan" with the word "territorial dispute wikilinked to the Kashmir conflict article. Finally, the last sentence can be modified to: "As a consequence, the region bordering Afghanistan constitutes Pakistan-administered Kashmir" (the word 'constitutes' replacing "is in"). I'm currently busy right now, so will come up with further suggestions (especially on attributing the dispute on this claim), but these are some basic tweaks that should be done to start with. Mar4d (talk) 06:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "The Government of India regards Afghanistan as a bordering country, as it considers all of Kashmir to be part of India. However, this is disputed, and the region bordering Afghanistan is controlled by Pakistan."
 * How's that? short, wikilink to dispute and to Kashmir, and hopefully concise. I didn't change regards to claims as the expressed meaning is the same, and I think regards reflects the strong position the Indian government takes (it is already obviously their opinion). CMD (talk) 14:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think "Administered" would be a better word than "controlled". Further, Kashmir can be reworded as princely state of Kashmir. -- Anbu121 ( talk me ) 15:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Administered seems fine to me. Why do we need to describe what Kashmir formerly was? That seems to be the excess detail that's not needed. CMD (talk) 16:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately seems as so our friend Mar4d removed this same statement from Afghanistan page. Perhaps an editor could investigate this?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.98.197.34 (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Okay, the new version is much better. And regarding the addition of this footnote into the Afghanistan article, I think pigs will have to fly before that happens. The Government of Afghanistan has not recognized a physical boundary with the Republic of India, so it would be better if this claim is treated as India's, which is already done by mentioning it on this article. Adding this into the Afghanistan article is irrelevant POV and WP:UNDUE. Mar4d (talk) 04:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Errm... where is your evidence that Afghanistan has refuted the idea of a border with India. It is not POV, it is part of foreign policy. Some editors are extremely humorous here.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.98.197.34 (talk) 16:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 February 2012
In India the vehicles are driven in Right side, As per our wikipedia, its written as Left, Kindly make the changes to Right, many thanks -Paneer Selvan A,

Paneerselvan (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Vehicles are driven on the left side of the road in India and it is correctly mentioned in the infobox. &mdash;  Abhishek  Talk 16:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 February 2012
Please change "English East India Company" to "British East India Company" in section "History" --> "Early modern India" because "English" is incorrect.

SC 03:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: As far as I can tell, English is a correct descriptive, as per the East India Company's article. Can you elaborate on why it's incorrect? <font color="#FFCC66">elektrik <font color="#666666">SHOOS  (talk) 05:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request on 25 February 2012
I think that Regional Power in the lead section must be changed to nascent Great Power. That would really depict the real condition of India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srikarkashyap (talk • contribs) 13:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Please provide reliable sources in support of the suggested change. --regentspark (comment) 18:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Status of Jammu and Arunachal Pradesh
There may be dispute regarding status of Kashmir. But there is no dispute regarding status os Jammu. Jammu is Hindu dominated area and there is abolutely no separtist movement against India or in favour of Pakistan. Thus Pakistan has no claim over Jammu.Similarly, Arunachal Pradesh is full fledged state of India. There is neither any separatist movement against or any movement for merger in China. As far as claim is concern, even India has claim over Kailash Range and Mansarovar lake and even Tibet is disputed.Rajesh Kumar69 (talk) 06:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The accession of the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir in 1947 has not been recognized by the United Nations, which considers it disputed territory. Neither the Republic of India nor the British Indian Empire before it ever claimed the Kailas range or Tibet.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Fowler, please mention, or point to, reference for the above.
 * Also, please mention how Arunachal Pradesh is considered a disputed territory, by the same standards.<font color="#FF9933">इति इतिUAनेति नेति <font color="#FF9933"> Humour Thisthat2011 09:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Quote (p 358): "Kashmir was neither as large nor as old an independent realm as Hyderabad; it had been created rather offhandedly by the British after the first defeat of the Sikhs in 1846, as a reward to a former official who had sided with the British. This Himalayan kingdom was connected to India through a district of the Punjab, but its population was 77 per cent Muslim and it shared a boundary with Pakistan. Hence, it was anticipated that the maharaja would accede to Pakistan when the British paramountcy ended on 14-15 August. When he hesitated to do this, Pakistan launched a guerrilla onslaught meant to frighten its ruler into submission. Instead, the maharaja appealed to Mountbatten for assistance, and the governor-general agreed on condition that the ruler accede to India. Indian soldiers entered Kashmir and drove the Pakistan-sponsored irregulars from all but a small section of the state. The United Nations was then invited to mediate the quarrel. The UN mission insisted that the opinion of Kashmiris must be ascertained, while India insisted that no referendum could occur until all of the state had been cleared of irregulars. In the last days of 1948, a ceasefire was agreed under the United Nations pending a referendum to determine the views of the people. Because that plebiscite was never conducted, relations were soured and wars fought by the two inheritors of British authority; their foreign policies and conduct from the onset of their existence as independent stales have been shaped by the Kashmir dispute. There the deadlock has remained since 1947, a constant reminder of the difficulties that marked the births of the new states."
 * Quote (pp 159–160): "Once it became clear that power would be transferred to the governments of India and Pakistan only, Maharaja Hari Singh, the ruler of Jammu and Kashmir, was faced with the dilemma of determining the accession. Initially he signed a standstill agreement with Pakistan &mdash; indicating that the state would eventually opt for the new Muslim homeland &mdash; but as Hari Singh vacillated in confirming the formal accession in the months of September and October, the government of Pakistan organised a 'tribal rebellion' led by North West Frontier militias and irregular Pakistani troops.  These rebels threatened to capture Srinagar and make the accession a fait accompli.  At this juncture Hari Singh acceded to India, accepting the condition that the accession would have to be ratified by the people of the province.  In return Indian troops were airlifted to the Kashmir valley and eventually thwarted and pushed back the advance of the 'tribal rebellion' to the contemporary LOC (Line of Control) ...  Although Nehru, at Mountbatten's bidding, referred the dispute to the United Nations in December 1947, and accepted a Security Council resolution that a plebiscite should be held to legitimize the accession to India, subject to the withdrawal of all troops in the province, hostilities between India and Pakistan in Jammu and Kashmir continued throughout 1948.  The Cease Fire Line (CFL) marked the de facto division of the state between India and Pakistan: it was to be divided permanently, to become the "oldest unresolved conflict before the United Nations. ... After 1947, Indian governance in Jammu and Kashmir rested on two foundations: first, the special status for the province within the Indian constitution guaranteed by Article 370 that restricted the central government's power to foreign affairs, defence, currency and communications, and, second, the popular appeal of the National Conference led by (Sheikh) Abdullah.  However Abdullah's aspirations for greater autonomy and self-rule were checked in the early 1950s by a rising tide of Hindu communalism which limited Nehru's scope for manoeuvre and 'marked the parting of the ways' as Abdullah was arrested and, subsequently, interned for almost two decades, while a pliant regional assembly in 1956 formally voted for a merger with India.  Not unexpectedly, this was vigorously contested by Pakistan at the United Nations, but its efforts to get a Security Council resolution on the subject was vetoed by the Soviet Union.  By then the Kashmir dispute had become thoroughly internationalized; more ominously, it became firmly set in the deep freeze of the Cold War"
 * Quote (p 32-33 ): "The lull in Kashmir was broken in the spring of 1947, when an uprising against the maharaja broke out in Poonch, an area in northwestern Jammu sandwiched between the Kashmir Valley to the east and Rawalpindi division of northwestern Punjab to the west. Poonch had been an autonomous principality within the state of J&K, and ruled by its own raja, until World War II, when the local ruler was deposed by the Dogra kingship. The maharaja's administration then started levying punitive taxes on Poonch's Muslim peasantry. The local revolt began in protest against this taxation policy, and the regime's Sikh and Dogra troops reacted with severe reprisals against the population. .... On 15 August 1947, meanwhile, the maharaja's regime had concluded a so-called standstill agreement—normally the precursor to accession—with the government of Pakistan. Under this agreement, the Pakistani government assumed charge of J&K's post and telegraph system and undertook to supply the state with foodstuffs and other essential commodities. This strange entente between a ruler and regime with manifestly anti-Muslim policies and the new Muslim state in the subcontinent was the result of compulsions and calculations on both sides. The Pakistanis knew that geographical contiguity and religious demography favored J&K's accession to Pakistan. However, the maharaja was still the authority empowered to sign a legally binding accession, and they decided to court his cooperation. The maharaja's overriding priority was maintaining his throne and privileges, and he and his advisers thought it was worth negotiating with the Muslim League's Pakistan on this, ... The Poonch uprising upset this delicate flirtation." Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Quote (pp 159–160): "Once it became clear that power would be transferred to the governments of India and Pakistan only, Maharaja Hari Singh, the ruler of Jammu and Kashmir, was faced with the dilemma of determining the accession. Initially he signed a standstill agreement with Pakistan &mdash; indicating that the state would eventually opt for the new Muslim homeland &mdash; but as Hari Singh vacillated in confirming the formal accession in the months of September and October, the government of Pakistan organised a 'tribal rebellion' led by North West Frontier militias and irregular Pakistani troops.  These rebels threatened to capture Srinagar and make the accession a fait accompli.  At this juncture Hari Singh acceded to India, accepting the condition that the accession would have to be ratified by the people of the province.  In return Indian troops were airlifted to the Kashmir valley and eventually thwarted and pushed back the advance of the 'tribal rebellion' to the contemporary LOC (Line of Control) ...  Although Nehru, at Mountbatten's bidding, referred the dispute to the United Nations in December 1947, and accepted a Security Council resolution that a plebiscite should be held to legitimize the accession to India, subject to the withdrawal of all troops in the province, hostilities between India and Pakistan in Jammu and Kashmir continued throughout 1948.  The Cease Fire Line (CFL) marked the de facto division of the state between India and Pakistan: it was to be divided permanently, to become the "oldest unresolved conflict before the United Nations. ... After 1947, Indian governance in Jammu and Kashmir rested on two foundations: first, the special status for the province within the Indian constitution guaranteed by Article 370 that restricted the central government's power to foreign affairs, defence, currency and communications, and, second, the popular appeal of the National Conference led by (Sheikh) Abdullah.  However Abdullah's aspirations for greater autonomy and self-rule were checked in the early 1950s by a rising tide of Hindu communalism which limited Nehru's scope for manoeuvre and 'marked the parting of the ways' as Abdullah was arrested and, subsequently, interned for almost two decades, while a pliant regional assembly in 1956 formally voted for a merger with India.  Not unexpectedly, this was vigorously contested by Pakistan at the United Nations, but its efforts to get a Security Council resolution on the subject was vetoed by the Soviet Union.  By then the Kashmir dispute had become thoroughly internationalized; more ominously, it became firmly set in the deep freeze of the Cold War"
 * Quote (p 32-33 ): "The lull in Kashmir was broken in the spring of 1947, when an uprising against the maharaja broke out in Poonch, an area in northwestern Jammu sandwiched between the Kashmir Valley to the east and Rawalpindi division of northwestern Punjab to the west. Poonch had been an autonomous principality within the state of J&K, and ruled by its own raja, until World War II, when the local ruler was deposed by the Dogra kingship. The maharaja's administration then started levying punitive taxes on Poonch's Muslim peasantry. The local revolt began in protest against this taxation policy, and the regime's Sikh and Dogra troops reacted with severe reprisals against the population. .... On 15 August 1947, meanwhile, the maharaja's regime had concluded a so-called standstill agreement—normally the precursor to accession—with the government of Pakistan. Under this agreement, the Pakistani government assumed charge of J&K's post and telegraph system and undertook to supply the state with foodstuffs and other essential commodities. This strange entente between a ruler and regime with manifestly anti-Muslim policies and the new Muslim state in the subcontinent was the result of compulsions and calculations on both sides. The Pakistanis knew that geographical contiguity and religious demography favored J&K's accession to Pakistan. However, the maharaja was still the authority empowered to sign a legally binding accession, and they decided to court his cooperation. The maharaja's overriding priority was maintaining his throne and privileges, and he and his advisers thought it was worth negotiating with the Muslim League's Pakistan on this, ... The Poonch uprising upset this delicate flirtation." Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Quote (p 32-33 ): "The lull in Kashmir was broken in the spring of 1947, when an uprising against the maharaja broke out in Poonch, an area in northwestern Jammu sandwiched between the Kashmir Valley to the east and Rawalpindi division of northwestern Punjab to the west. Poonch had been an autonomous principality within the state of J&K, and ruled by its own raja, until World War II, when the local ruler was deposed by the Dogra kingship. The maharaja's administration then started levying punitive taxes on Poonch's Muslim peasantry. The local revolt began in protest against this taxation policy, and the regime's Sikh and Dogra troops reacted with severe reprisals against the population. .... On 15 August 1947, meanwhile, the maharaja's regime had concluded a so-called standstill agreement—normally the precursor to accession—with the government of Pakistan. Under this agreement, the Pakistani government assumed charge of J&K's post and telegraph system and undertook to supply the state with foodstuffs and other essential commodities. This strange entente between a ruler and regime with manifestly anti-Muslim policies and the new Muslim state in the subcontinent was the result of compulsions and calculations on both sides. The Pakistanis knew that geographical contiguity and religious demography favored J&K's accession to Pakistan. However, the maharaja was still the authority empowered to sign a legally binding accession, and they decided to court his cooperation. The maharaja's overriding priority was maintaining his throne and privileges, and he and his advisers thought it was worth negotiating with the Muslim League's Pakistan on this, ... The Poonch uprising upset this delicate flirtation." Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Adding more quotes from other sources:
 * Kashmir (2012). In Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. Retrieved March 18, 2012, from Encyclopaedia Britannica Online
 * "Although there was a clear Muslim majority in Kashmir before the 1947 partition and its economic, cultural, and geographic contiguity with the Muslim-majority area of the Punjab (in Pakistan) could be convincingly demonstrated, the political developments during and after the partition resulted in a division of the region. Pakistan was left with territory that, although basically Muslim in character, was thinly populated, relatively inaccessible, and economically underdeveloped. The largest Muslim group, situated in the Valley of Kashmir and estimated to number more than half the population of the entire region, lay in Indian-administered territory, with its former outlets via the Jhelum valley route blocked.
 * Quote (pp 224–226): Kashmir mattered not so much because it possessed rich mineral or other resources, nor because it was the original home of the Nehru family, but rather because for both sides it raised issues central to their self-definition as nations. For Pakistan, the critical fact was Kashmir's overwhelmingly Muslim population. The decision of the Kashmir maharaja to join India flew in the face of the logic by which British India had been partitioned. Pakistan's existence was premised upon its status as a Muslim homeland. Even though millions of Muslims had had, in the Pakistani view, to be left behind scattered across India. Kashmir, as a Muslim majority state, rightly belonged to Pakistan. Indeed, had Kashmir been an ordinary (British) Indian province it would almost certainly have been part of Pakistan from the start. A Hindu maharaja ought not, Pakistanis argued, have been allowed wilfully to defy thc interests of his Muslim subjects.  ... In the view of the Congress, India was not only successor to the Raj, but also a secular state, in which Muslims, with all other mi-norities, stood, in principle, on equal footing with their Hindu fellow citizens. Millions of Muslims, remaining behind after partition by choice or necessity, already lived within India. The addition of the residents of Kashmir would only further testify to the inclusive na-ture of the new state. Inasmuch as the Kashmir maharaja's accession was, by the terms of the partition agreements, perfectly legal, Nehru saw no reason to undo it. Indeed, to the contrary, he felt he had acted appropriately in responding to the maharaja's call for assistance in repelling the Pakistani raiders as they advanced on Srinagar. ... Such considerations did not, however, end the dispute. Seeking in-ternational support, Pakistan took the Kashmir issue to the fledgling United Nations. The UN brokered, in i 948, a ceasefire along the line of control, which it then policed by sending to Kashmir a contin-gent of observers. This UN observer force has remained in Kashmir to the present.  At the time of the maharaja's accession, Nehru had agreed to hold a plebiscite among its people to decide Kashmir's subsequent status.  This referendum has never taken place.  In India's view, Pakistan's refusal to withdraw its 'raiders' from the province voided the conditions under which India's agreement to a plebiscite had been secured.  ... Kashmir remains the most contentious of the issues that divide the two countries.  The Kashmiri people themselves, their leaders ambivalent – sometimes supporting India, sometimes accepting covert military aid from Pakistan – have remained caught in the middle.  It is often assumed that, if allowed free choice, the majority would prefer independence, as a Himalayan state comparable to Nepal or Bhutan, to union with either of the two South Asian powers.
 * Updated Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  08:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Updated Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  08:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, the first two quotes point to the dispute per UN resolution. The third quote is completely tangential therefore can be ignored. There is also no source for Arunachal Pradesh as a dispute. The status of Arunachal Pradesh as a dispute, per me, should be therefore removed.<font color="#FF9933">इति इतिUAनेति नेति <font color="#FF9933"> Humour Thisthat2011 12:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, Arunachal Pradesh, the new name for what was called North East Frontier Agency (NEFA) in 1962, was claimed as a feint by the Chinese to take the attention away from Aksai Chin, a remote region in eastern Kashmir, which was shown on existing maps in 1962 to be a part of India, but through which the Chinese were building a strategically important road linking Tibet to Xinjiang. In other words, it was claimed by the Chinese as tit for tat for the Indian claim on Aksai Chin.  I don't think anyone (other the Chinese) really takes the Chinese claim on Arunachal Pradesh seriously.  Where do we say it is disputed territory?  I suppose it is an international dispute because it was taken to the UN in 1962 (by India).  I'm traveling and without my books, but I'm sure sources can be easily found. (I was wrong about Arunachal Pradesh.  The dispute is about the region of Tawang which is claimed by China.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes the sources need to be mentioned for the lack of it would no support claim of dispute. Per Indian claim on Aksai Chin, it is already present as part of Kashmir dispute.<font color="#FF9933">इति इतिUAनेति नेति <font color="#FF9933"> Humour Thisthat2011 14:49, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's one:
 * Quote: "The status of Anmachal Pradesh is one of the most intractable diplomatic issues between China and India. The dispute centres on the mountainous, mist-cloaked region of Tawang, a thickly forested area bordering Bhutan and Chinese-ruled Tibet that is dominated by the ethnic Monpa people, who practise Tibetan Buddhism and speak a language very similar to Tibetan. The Chinese government says Tawang was once part of Tibet, and so belongs to China. The Indian government says a self-governing Tibet signed a treaty with British-ruled India in 1914 that ceded Tawang to India on the condition that London recognize Tibetan autonomy. The British agreed at the time to acknowledge what they called the suzerainty of Tibet. But last year [2008] the British Foreign Seeretaly, David Miliband, retracted that recognition, saying it was a holdover from a colonial era ... Last year [2008] he [(the Dalai Lama] announced for the first time that Arunachal Pradesh belonged to India. Tenzin Takhla said the Tibetan government reeognins the borders designated by the 1914 treaty, called the Simla Convention. China has been increasingly vocal this year [2009] over its claims to Tawang and possibly other parts of Arunachal Pradesh. On 13 October a foreign ministry spokes-man denounced a visit to the state in early October by Manmohan Singh, the Indian prime minister. In the spring China tried unsuccessfully to block a $2.9 billion loan that India had requested from the Asian Development Bank ... [with] $60 million of the loan slated for flood control projects in Aru-nachal Pradesh ... India's most important Tibetan Buddhist monastery is in Tawang and the Dalai Lama appoints the abbot there. (From: the International Herald Tribune)."   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Quote: "The status of Anmachal Pradesh is one of the most intractable diplomatic issues between China and India. The dispute centres on the mountainous, mist-cloaked region of Tawang, a thickly forested area bordering Bhutan and Chinese-ruled Tibet that is dominated by the ethnic Monpa people, who practise Tibetan Buddhism and speak a language very similar to Tibetan. The Chinese government says Tawang was once part of Tibet, and so belongs to China. The Indian government says a self-governing Tibet signed a treaty with British-ruled India in 1914 that ceded Tawang to India on the condition that London recognize Tibetan autonomy. The British agreed at the time to acknowledge what they called the suzerainty of Tibet. But last year [2008] the British Foreign Seeretaly, David Miliband, retracted that recognition, saying it was a holdover from a colonial era ... Last year [2008] he [(the Dalai Lama] announced for the first time that Arunachal Pradesh belonged to India. Tenzin Takhla said the Tibetan government reeognins the borders designated by the 1914 treaty, called the Simla Convention. China has been increasingly vocal this year [2009] over its claims to Tawang and possibly other parts of Arunachal Pradesh. On 13 October a foreign ministry spokes-man denounced a visit to the state in early October by Manmohan Singh, the Indian prime minister. In the spring China tried unsuccessfully to block a $2.9 billion loan that India had requested from the Asian Development Bank ... [with] $60 million of the loan slated for flood control projects in Aru-nachal Pradesh ... India's most important Tibetan Buddhist monastery is in Tawang and the Dalai Lama appoints the abbot there. (From: the International Herald Tribune)."   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

What I am trying to say is how is this a 'dispute', the standard earlier mentioned were about UN resolution. The dispute here is not about Arunachal Pradesh at all. Therefore this should be removed.<font color="#FF9933">इति इतिUAनेति नेति <font color="#FF9933"> Humour Thisthat2011 21:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * For Wikipedia purposes, if reliable sources label something to be a dispute, a dispute it becomes. The UN has nothing to do with it.  You still haven't told me where we mention this Arunachal Pradesh dispute on the India page.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The Chinese claim is surely very tenuous, but the dispute appears to be a real one, if unlikely to go anywhere. NB, suzerainty is a feudal concept. As a matter of law it has nothing to do with colonialism. No doubt David Miliband felt pressured into making his statement, but in my view nothing he said (or could have said) was able to change the legal status of Tawang or anywhere else in or around the subcontinent. Moonraker (talk) 03:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * According to me there is no dispute for status of Arunachal Pradesh. Reliable sources here also say that there is no dispute here, that Arunachal Pradesh is integral part of India, for example [link].<font color="#FF9933">इति इतिUAनेति नेति <font color="#FF9933"> Humour Thisthat2011 08:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That source says there is a dispute. It's about the dispute. CMD (talk) 13:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The source says it is 'disputed' per Chinese views. Per Indian view it is not disputed at all. So how is this a dispute?
 * When this is mentioned as a dispute on the page, it comes to the editors to provide references to it as a dispute, and not sources that says it is a dispute for one side and not a dispute for the other side.<font color="#FF9933">इति इतिUAनेति नेति <font color="#FF9933"> Humour Thisthat2011 13:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, nevermind, it is disputed as per source mentioned.Got it.<font color="#FF9933">इति इतिUAनेति नेति <font color="#FF9933"> Humour Thisthat2011 13:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

As there is claimed to be dispute, is Indian side presented adequately here? As an example, there are sources that quote status of Arunachal Pradesh as disputed, but is content where India has rejected any claims as a 'dispute' been presented also in the article? I already presented one source. If I can come up with other sources I will add here.<font color="#FF9933">इति इतिUAनेति नेति <font color="#FF9933"> Humour Thisthat2011 08:27, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Reg. date of composition of Vedas
"The Vedas, the oldest scriptures of Hinduism,[20] were composed during this period, and historians have analysed these to posit a Vedic culture in the Punjab region and the upper Indo-Gangetic Plain.[19"

Nowhere except Mr. Upender Singh's book, is there a mention of date of composition of Vedas. Vedas were part of "Shruti" (heard knowledge) and was passed from generations to generations like that; until it was finally put on papirus leaves somewhere around the time quoted by Mr. Upender's book.

What is the verificity of the content of Mr. Upender Singh's book and how is it being treated as the reliable source of information?

- Prateek Mohan (mohan.prateek@gmail.com)
 * First of all, it is Ms. Upinder Singh. She is a professor of history at the University of Delhi.  Second of all, many, and I mean thousands of books date the Rig Veda to have been composed sometime after 1500 BCE, that is after the Indo-Aryans (the speakers of the Indo-European language that later was called Sanskrit) had entered India.    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * If we are to consider sources, source from B. B. Lal a famous archeologist could be considered as well. The sources is his lecture delivered at the 19th International Conference on South Asian Archaeology at University of Bologna, Ravenna, Italy on July 2-6, 2007 titled Let not the 19th century paradigms continue to haunt us!.
 * PDF [| link] here.
 * In this lecture, he demonstrates primarily that "(a) the BMAC people were not nomads, as held by my Indian colleagues; and (b) these characteristic features of the BMAC never ever reached east of the Indus up to the upper Ganga-Yamuna doab – an area which was the homeland of the Rigvedic people, as is clear from the Nadi-stuti verses (10.75.5 and 6) of the Rigveda itself."
 * Another source from B. B. Lal is [| How deep are the roots of Indian civilization? archaeology answers], where he provides "evidence from hydrology, geology, literature, archaeology and radiocarbon dating." per [| this source].
 * About B.B.Lal ( info from [| this link].)
 * Director General of the Archaeological Survey of India during 1968 to 1972.
 * Director of the Indian Institute of Advanced Studies, Shimla.
 * published several books and over 150 research papers in scientific journals.
 * Padma Bhusana by the President of India in 2000.
 * B. B. Lal is more an authority on Vedic history and therefore on dating of Vedas, considering he is a famous Archeologist, and was a Director General of the ASI . Also, the link mentioned above can be considered as reliable, considering his experience on "several books and over 150 research papers in scientific journals."<font color="#FF9933">इति इतिUAनेति नेति <font color="#FF9933"> Humour Thisthat2011 15:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thisthat2001, please don't waste everyone's time here. Every one knows Indian archaeology has been second-rate since 1947.  In the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) staff there have been some first rate epigraphists, such as D. C. Sircar and G. S. Gai, but also many second-rate archaeologists such as S. P. Gupta and B. B. Lal, who in retirement became the darlings of the Hindu nationalist government in the late 1990s.  No internationally known historian pays any attention to the garbage these gentlemen were spouting in various lectures in the twilight of their careers.  Find me one internationally known text-book on history that dishes out this claptrap.  It is best that you not waste everyone's time here.  Your knowledge of history is simply not up to a level that allows pronouncements on every topic under the sun.  There is a limit to which we can humor you.    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what are standards of second-rate archeology, especially after hundreds of years of 'western' historians & archeologists pretending to pass off AIT as history. I would call that second-rate, but that is of no use here. As I said clearly, per me B. B. Lal is more of an authority on Vedic history than the mentioned source.
 * Instead of wasting time here and in future, I would suggest that a source of international repute, 'first rate' on Vedic history, as mentioned by you, quoted at this place.<font color="#FF9933">इति इतिUAनेति नेति <font color="#FF9933"> Humour Thisthat2011 09:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Quote (pp 68–69): "According to post-Vedic. medieval Indian tradition, the Four Vedas are called Śruti, that is "something (revealed to and) heard" by the "primordial" sages (Ṛși). By contrast, the concept of Smŗti "something learnt by heart" is restricted to the post-Upanișadic texts, such as the Sūtras or Manu's law book, all of which are believed to have been composed by human beings. However, it is known from internal evidence that the Vedic texts were orally composed in northern India, at first in the Greater Punjab and later on also in more eastern areas, including northern Bihar, between ca. 1500 BCE and ca. 500-400 BCE. The oldest text, the Ṛgveda, must have been more or less contemporary with the Mitanni texts of northern Syria/Iraq (1450-1350 BCE); these mention certain Vedic gods (Varuna, Mitra, Indra, Nasatya) and some forms of early Sanskrit that slightly predate the Ṛgveda (mazdā for Ved. medhā, vašana for Ved. vāhana, etc.). ... The Vedic texts were orally composed and transmitted, without the use of script, in an unbroken line of transmission from teacher to student that was formalized early on. This ensured an impeccable textual transmission superior to the classical texts of other cultures; it is, in fact, something like a tape-recording of ca. 1500-500 BCE. Not just the actual words, but even the long-lost musical (tonal) accent (as in old Greek or in Japanese) has been preserved up to the present."  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Fowler, could you mention this source please? This per you is the most authentic source on Vedic History per you so that is why.<font color="#FF9933">इति इतिUAनेति नेति <font color="#FF9933"> Humour Thisthat2011 13:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, just saw history of the page to know that it is already done. Thanks.<font color="#FF9933">इति इतिUAनेति नेति <font color="#FF9933"> Humour Thisthat2011 13:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, just saw history of the page to know that it is already done. Thanks.<font color="#FF9933">इति इतिUAनेति नेति <font color="#FF9933"> Humour Thisthat2011 13:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

"Zoroastrianism, Christianity, and Islam arrived in the 1st millennium CE"
Well, Christianity arrived in what is now Kerala hundreds of years before Islam even existed, in the first century AD, by strong tradition through personal arrival of the Apostle St Thomas, one of the twelve disciples of Christ. Early converts were the many centuries-long established Jews, who barely survive as a community in Kerala, the vast majority of their ancestors having converted to Christianity nearly two millenia ago. It has not been established what proportion of the dwindling community of Xians -- because of their extremely low birthrate down to 20% of the state's population -- are descended from ancient Jews, not Hindus. Apart from enough ethnically indigenous fathers -- Jews only needing to have Jewish mothers -- to have given both Jews and Christians of Kerala a look of entirely local ancestry. A curious but authentic historical fact, especially ironic in that when Kerala Jews migrate to Israel they are not enthusiastically received and generally move onwards to North America because they look Indian, as Ethiopian Jews look African and are forced to "convert" to Judaism if they wish to remain in Israel. To Israelis they do not look Jewish, not being German, Polish or Russian. An ironic answer to one of the Biblical mysteries as to what happened to the ten supposedly lost tribes of Israel, three of them in fact having arrived in Kerala, Ethiopia (odd being a mystery given that the Bible is full of references to Ethiopia) and Afghanistan, the latter having centuries ago converted to Islam as did Parsis both there and in Iran where Christians were also obliged to do so. Kerala Christians themselves are often ignorant of this historical fact. Masalai (talk) 03:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Suggesting it could be 'found shelter over millennia' or variance therein. As pointed out, the line is not accurate historically at all.<font color="#FF9933">इति इतिUAनेति नेति <font color="#FF9933"> Humour Thisthat2011 16:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Map of India incorrect
'''Please don't Play with the integrity of nation by showing wrong map of country India has been a peaceful and vary gentle country in world community and it has a history of not starting wars with it's neighbours.

Other countries have tried to take banifite of this and claiming some areas from india. Please make it sure if your Images showing the correct maps of India which is identical to Indian official maps.

''' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.115.95.44 (talk) 05:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * See Talk:India/FAQ, Q5, and . Pfly (talk) 08:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

National language of India
Which is the NATIONAL LANGUAGE OF INDIA? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunnbio87 (talk • contribs) 23:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Please read this -- Anbu121 ( talk me ) 10:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

this is so very confusing!! i always thought Hindi is termed as the national language of India. why isnt it mentioned in here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taief631 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Hindi and English are the two official languages of the Republic of India. There are also several other regional official languages. However, there is no National language per se. You might be confusing "official language" with "national language".11achitturi (talk) 22:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Update in section of "Foreign relations and military"
In the last paragraph of the section ""Foreign relations and military" (change and update facts and figures):
 * The President of India is the supreme commander of the nation's armed forces; with 1.6 million active troops, they compose the world's third-largest military.[185] It comprises the Indian Army, the Indian Navy, and the Indian Air Force; auxiliary organisations include the Strategic Forces Command and three paramilitary groups: the Assam Rifles, the Special Frontier Force, and the Indian Coast Guard.[6] The official Indian defence budget for 2011 was US$36.03 billion, or 1.83% of GDP.[186] According to a 2008 SIPRI report, India's annual military expenditure in terms of purchasing power stood at US$72.7 billion,[187] In 2011, the annual defence budget increased by 11.6%,[188] although this does not include funds that reach the military through other branches of government.[189] As of 2012, India is the world's largest arms importer; in the period from 2006 to 2010, it accounted for 9% of money spent on international arms purchases.(190) Much of the military expenditure was focused on defence against Pakistan and countering growing Chinese influence in the Indian Ocean.[188]

FIRSTLY:
 * In 2012, India has become the world's biggest importer of arms, displacing China by accounting for 10 per cent of global arms sales volumes.
 * Economic Times
 * The Hindu, National Newspaper
 * DNA India

SECONDLY:
 * The Federal Government of India announced more than 17% hike in India's defence expenditure for the financial year 2012-13. The Finance Ministry has allocated Rs 1.93 lakh crore ($41 billion) as defence spending for the current fiscal.
 * Economic Times
 * Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses
 * Yahoo Finance
 * DNA India — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.178.185.218 (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Lack of Hindi in Infobox: reason?
So I noticed that both the introduction to this article and the infobox give India's official name in English (Republic of India) and in the other Indian languages (Bhaarat Ganaraajya). The infobox also gives a provision to add the native name of the country in that country's official language - and according to Article 343(1) of the Constitution of India, |link, that language is Standard Hindi in the Devanagari script. So why is भारत गणराज्य not listed as the name of India, either in the infobox or in the introduction? India seems to be the only country article where this occurs.

In Countries, it states that "The official long-form name of the country in the local language is to go on top as the caption. If there are several official names (languages), list all (if reasonably feasible). The conventional long-form name (in English), if it differs from the local long-form name, should follow the local name(s)." Hindi in the Devanagari script and English in the Roman script are the two official languages of India, with Hindi being "the principal official language of the Union" (all the other languages of India are regional languages recognized by individual states, which I am assuming is different). Thus, the question becomes: Why is भारत गणराज्य not listed in the infobox? 11achitturi (talk) 17:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * To my understanding, Hindi and English are official languages of the Government of India, not the country. The country has no national language. -- Anbu121 ( talk me ) 21:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The Guidelines page never uses the phrase "national language", though - it simply recommends that the name of the country in the official language be printed in the infobox. "Bharat Ganarajya" is just the English pronunciation of भारत गणराज्य, which is the actual name in Standard Hindi. So what's the harm in putting भारत गणराज्य in the infobox?11achitturi (talk) 00:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest you go through this. <font face="Batik Regular"><font color="#00703C">Secret of success  <font color="#29AB87">(talk) 06:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

India article: When Islam arrived
In the second paragraph of the article, please correct sentence that indicates that Islam arrived to India in the 1st century C.E.  (obviously incorrect for a religion that began five centuries later)

98.216.133.228 (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ❌ In point of fact, the passage reads "and Islam arrived in the 1st millennium CE"&mdash;not century. This is supported by the body text which appears to be appropriately referenced. <font color="#00008B">Pol430 talk to me 22:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Independence on the infobox
I know that the majority of India was held by the British and obviously thats why independance is listed as being from them, but the Portuguese were in India longer and held it more recently than the British. Granted, the most recent Portuguese India was quite small, but it should not at all be forgotten. Its date and independance should be noted in the infobox alongside. If there are no objections or conversation over this move by a week after this post, I shall add it. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 04:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I also find it quite unsettling the fact that the Portuguese are not mentioned at all. Considering the fact that the Portuguese where there for almost 500 years, this is absolutely not acceptable. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 04:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting point, however, the Republic of India is a successor state of the British Indian Empire, not of Goa or Pondicherry (the Portuguese and French outposts). The reliable sources do not consider the "independence" of these small outposts to be of any consequence in the definition of the term "independence of India," which they understand to mean "independence from the British."  Independence Day in India is celebrated on August 15, the anniversary of the day on which power was transferred from the British to the Indians.  Perhaps, if there is consensus, the Portuguese and French outposts can be mentioned in a footnote somewhere, if they aren't already, but they certainly don't belong in the main infobox.  I have more sympathy for your second point and would propose mentioning the Portuguese in the context of the early European trading companies (along with the Dutch (VOC) and the East India Company, which, of course, is mentioned). Regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In other words, if there is consensus, we could change the sentence: "By the early 18th century, with the lines between commercial and political dominance being increasingly blurred, a number of European trading companies, including the English East India Company, had established coastal outposts." either to
 * (a) "By the early 18th century, with the lines between commercial and political dominance being increasingly blurred, a number of European trading companies, including the Dutch, Portuguese, French, and English East India Companies had established coastal outposts." or
 * (b) We could keep the present wording, but link "European trading companies" to East India Company (disambiguation). I personally would prefer (b)  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure this needs inclusion. There is, after all, the question of scale. The EEIC was the dominant player while the other trading companies are, at best, mere footnotes. It might be better to include a sentence in the later history along the lines of "After a military action in 1961, India acquired/annexed the territories of Goa, Daman and Diu from Portugal." --regentspark (comment) 05:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

do see your point on the independence issue, and perhaps you are right, footnotes would be more accurate. This being said, I still strongly stand against the fact that the longest European presence in India is only mentioned once in the entire article. Not a single sentence mentions Vasco da Gama, perhaps one of the most influential characters in both Portuguese and Indian history. I find this lack of information a tragedy and it should be corrected. I do not wish to add it myself for I am no expert on Indian history as a whole, and I have not written at all for this article and I do not wish to meddle in other people's works. I am afraid that if this problem is not solved, perhaps this article is not truely suitable for a featured article. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 05:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Vasco de Gama should be mentioned. Let me think about how to do it.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  05:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your attitude and assistance with the situation. I only want this article to be as wonderfully accurate and knowledgable as it should. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 06:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't really see why Vasco da Gama should be mentioned in a section on Indian history. I can see his importance in Portuguese history, certainly in the Age of Discovery but in Indian history? For example, we don't mention other non-Indians who visited India such as Alex, Hieun Tsang, etc. --regentspark (comment) 06:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, Hieun Tsang is important only because he was a recorder, as were Faxian, Megasthenes, and Marco Polo. But Alexander the Great and Vasco da Gama are in a different league in that their visits had momentous consequences, I suspect da Gama's more than Alexander's.  We could look up some other encapsulated histories of India, such as chapter summaries in various textbooks, to see what emphasis is given.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  06:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Good idea. But, regardless, I think that including Vasco da Gama is not something we should do. His importance comes from his trip to India around the cape, important for European traders but not on par with the 'discovery' - note the quotes :) - of the Americas by Columbus. Europe was already well aware of the existence of India. Others, such as Mohammad of Ghazni or even Ahmad Shah Abdali or, if we're talking about colonization, then Robert Clive were, perhaps, more important from an Indian perspective. I've got nothing against including this person or that but the history of India is complex and I believe that the article is better served by parsimonious inclusion. --regentspark (comment) 10:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot about this. I tend to agree with RegentsPark about not mentioning names. I checked some textbooks, and I feel that we should mention the opening of the sea route between Europe and India to provide context for the East India Company paragraph. The paragraph currently reads: "By the early 18th century, with the lines between commercial and political dominance increasingly blurred, a number of European trading companies, including the English East India Company, had established coastal outposts." We could change this (if there is consensus) to: "By the early 18th century, some two centuries after the establishment of regular sea routes between Europe and India, a number of European trading companies, including the English East India Company, had established coastal outposts." I believe this addition provides more context for the transition from the Mughal Empire to the EIC. Note "sea routes" is linked to Portuguese India Armadas. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  03:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I see no problem with what is said now in the infobox, which is simple but correct so far as it goes. Clearly, Goa was not associated with the independence of India in 1947. However, I am inclined to dispute the notion that India was one of the successor states of the British Indian Empire. The effect of the Indian Independence Act 1947 was that the Empire was dissolved, with the British releasing the princes from their treaty obligations. Rather, India is one of two successor states of British India, which is all that the British were able to partition. (We should not count Bangladesh as a successor state.) India and Pakistan both quickly expanded by accessions and conquests, but such expansion was not strictly in succession to the Indian Empire, which was no more. Moonraker (talk) 07:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If you see no problem, then desist from making long arguments about things not mentioned anywhere in the main text.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Indo-Aryan Migration - is it required?
The sentence in the history section(ancient history) "Most historians also consider this period to have encompassed several waves of Indo-Aryan migration into the subcontinent from the north-west" is not required according to me as the theory of Aryan invasion has been challenged by many historinas --sarvajna (talk) 14:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The sentence itself explains that "Most historians", meaning there are others who do not agree with this; but the prevailing thinking of the majority of the experts is reflected in this sentence. IMO you will have to provide very strong evidence, quoting scholars who are considered experts in the field, to include that point of view in this summarised article. You can probably include that point of view, aided by strong evidences, in the articles History of India and Indo-Aryan migration. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note also that the sentence uses the word 'migration' not 'invasion'. You will have to provide excellent sources that show that there were no such migrations. --regentspark (comment) 18:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure I will search for some good sources, but dont you think invasion and migration are same, its just one's point of view to call invasion a migration? --sarvajna (talk) 09:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Definitely not the same. I suggest a quick trip to a dictionary before you look for sources. --regentspark (comment) 15:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice, what I meant was that "Indo-Aryan Migration" theory and "Indo-Aryan Invasion" theory would be one and the same. --sarvajna (talk) 15:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * They're not the same things. Indo-Aryan invasion refers to Wheeler's theory of an invasion of the subcontinent by Indo-European people (resulting in the demise of the Indus Valley civilization). However, that theory has no currency now. Indo-Aryan migrations refers to nomadic migrations into the subcontinent in prehistoric times. These theories have wide currency (except amongst nationalistic elements in India). --regentspark (comment) 16:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Got it, thanks for the clarification --sarvajna (talk) 16:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Still I feel there is point in sarvajna concern. Since the line says "Most Historians", the word MOST adds to the effect of making it a popular view. Perhaps a clear addition that "however several other historians don't have a different view on this" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.200.119.9 (talk) 07:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

(od) It says 'most' because most is the correct term. Only a few nationalist elements in India have other ideas and those ideas are on the fringe. The current version is accurate. --regentspark (comment) 17:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Except that it is not a fringe view: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/indians-are-not-descendants-of-aryans-study/1/163645.html
 * Many serious, non-nationalistic scholars denounce the theory of an "Aryan" migration. And who were these "Aryans"? This is also something never discussed by proponents of this theory. "Aryan" is an indigenous Indian/Sanskrit word that was never meant to define a race. The migration theory is propaganda started by Western historians over a century ago. It is out-dated. For these reasons, this sentence about what "most historians believe" is unclear at best and should be removed. There is already a whole Wiki page dedicated to the subject of Aryan migrations, what it means, and whether it ocurred. Why put something that has never been proven in the history section of India? Zondrah89 (talk) 05:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You still need to provide reliable sources for this. The source you provide is not reliable and anyway seems to indicate that the migration view is the dominant one, even though the bhu and estonian researchers seem to think otherwise. When their view becomes dominant, the article can easily be changed. --regentspark (comment) 15:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I dont agree that the above source is not reliable also I dont think there is need to remove the part which says that migration view is dominant but wouldn't it be good if we mention what other historians think? --sarvajna (talk) 15:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As the India Today article linked above says, the Indo-Aryan migration theory (the article incorrectly refers to it as the Indo-Aryan invasion theory) is 'widely believed'. On wikipedia, we go with what is widely believed, not necessarily what editors think is true or false. If there are nuances, they should go in a sub-article. If the research mentioned in the IT article is borne out by other studies and some other theory becomes widely believed, then, of course, we'll make a change here. --regentspark (comment) 20:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * @all: Please see history, the AIT is rubbished by multiple sources I quoted, it was an invention of the colonialists will provide citation if asked - an extension of divide and rule, also seen in Rwanda-Burundi, also seen in East Timor-Indonesia and Sudan-South Sudan.will provide citation if asked, it is the long pole of the Dalitistan-Dravidianistan-Naxalistan tentwill provide citation if asked. This article is a featured article, how can it be allowed to be so blatantly non-NPOV? The AIT or its morph is at best a disputed crank theory, supported by academics to stave off redundancy.will provide citation if asked I used the statement: "According to the disputed AIT (morphed)...". It was undone by an admin, admins shouldn't use admin or roll back tools in involved articles, but the world of Wikipedia was never fair.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 22:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh and "nationalists" oppose Ait(m), what is the corollary "anti-nationals" support? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 22:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Requesting a summary of the state of the issue from Fowler&fowler please. AshLin (talk) 05:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * AshLin undrala manjar saksha can't think of an English proverb. Please translate if asked. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * My 2 cents. Some information from this website as could be considered as appropriate.
 * About author: [| Nicholas Kazanas]
 * An aspect could be (perhaps) as a scientific information using genetics, at his website per this document: [| 'Genetics and the Aryan Debate'] by Michel Danino. The document apparently is published in 'Puratattva', a bulletin of the Indian Archaeological Society.
 * Thanks.<font color="#FF9933">इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति <font color="#FF9933"> Humour Thisthat2011 21:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Another source talks with scientific evidence such as carbon dating etc. [| Lost city 'could rewrite history'] from news.bbc.co.uk; along with [| this video] perhaps from the film-maker Graham Hancock mentioned in the link. This is just as to present possible information that can be presented on the page.<font color="#FF9933">इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति <font color="#FF9933"> Humour Thisthat2011 22:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments ThisThat. As I point out above, the issue is that these "out of India" theories are fringe theories that historians generally don't subscribe to. It may very well turn out that these theories go mainstream in the future and we will definitely modify the article accordingly when that happens. Until then, a summary article such as this one cannot be expected to report and discuss the nuances of every theory out there. --regentspark (comment) 23:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As it is, one can add this idea by stating that many of the contemporary Indologists/historians/archeologists subscribe to this theory. As it is AIT is now discarded though it was in vague for hundreds of years, starting from perhaps mid 18th century. So these theories should be considered as 'contemorary', no more. As also, my comments included information from a Greek Indologist of repute as well as documentary proof of what was mentioned in a 'lost city' report. In the former it is about Genetic studies, the latter is about archeology find with carbon dating etc so both are primarily scientific in nature more than pro/anti AIM theory, or pro/anti something else.<font color="#FF9933">इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति <font color="#FF9933"> Humour Thisthat2011 14:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that although MOST prominent historians from back in the day supported the AIT, MANY prominent MODERN historians do not support even AIM. It would be great if the article could at least be modified to say, 'Most historians also consider this period to have encompassed several waves of Indo-Aryan migration into the subcontinent, although this has never been proven and many modern historians dispute this.' Zondrah89 (talk) 15:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a good reason why we value the content of widely used textbooks published by internationally known academic publishers. It is that these books have been vetted for balance by scholars. In contrast, journal articles or monographs can espouse one particular viewpoint or emphasize one particular nuance. The widely-used texts are unanimous in broadly accepting the Indo-European (Aryan) migration theory. Ms. Upinder Singh's book has already been cited for the sentence. Here are two four other widely used texts: There is no reason to change anything in the sentence. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  17:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC) Updated  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  05:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Quote: (Page 47) It is now widely accepted that the subcontinent began to be infiltrated well before the middle of the first millennium BCE by people speaking an Indo-European language, later to be called Sanskrit and closely associated with the ancient language of people of the Iranian plateau, as evidenced from the ancient Zoroastrian text Avesta. Historical linguists find this a plausible chronological basis for the later developments of languages like Marathi, which possess a strong element of ancient Dravidian linguistic features, and also for Panini's grammar (written around 400 BCE), which may have been intended to standardize Sanskrit usage against strong tendencies to incorporate other and older languages of the subcontinent.
 * Quote (page 31): IMMIGRATION AND SETTLEMENT OF THE INDO-ARYANS: The second millennium BC witnessed another major historical event in the early history of the south Asian subcontinent after the rise and fall of the Indus civilisation: a semi-nomadic people which called itself Aria in its sacred hymns came down to the northwestern plains through the mountain passes of Afghanistan.
 * Quote (pages 105–106): The theory of an Aryan invasion no longer has credence. ... The more acceptable theory is that groups of Indo-Aryan speakers gradually migrated from the Indo-Iranian borderlands and Afghanistan to northern India, where they introduced the language. The impetus to migrate was a search for better pastures, for arable land and some advantage from an exchange of goods.  The migrations were generally not disruptive of settlement and cultures.  ... There is a tendency among those who oppose the idea of Aryan speakers coming from outside India to equate invasion with migration.  Historically the two are distinctly different processes in terms of what would have been the precondition of either, such as the activities and organization involved, or the pattern of social and historical change that ensued. ... The linguistic evidence remains firm. Indo-Aryan is of the Indo-European family of languages and there is a linguistic relationship with some ancient languages of west Asia and Iran, as well as some that took shape in Europe.  Indo-Aryan is a cognate of Old Iranian, dating to the second millennium BC, with which it has a close relationship.
 * Quote (page xiii): "Central Asian peoples reached the subcontinent in the centuries around 1000 BC, bringing with them a language, the Indo-European, that also spread westwards into much of Europe. As a result the languages that grew up in North and Central India share fundamental linguistic patterns with those of many European countries."
 * Quote (pages 105–106): The theory of an Aryan invasion no longer has credence. ... The more acceptable theory is that groups of Indo-Aryan speakers gradually migrated from the Indo-Iranian borderlands and Afghanistan to northern India, where they introduced the language. The impetus to migrate was a search for better pastures, for arable land and some advantage from an exchange of goods.  The migrations were generally not disruptive of settlement and cultures.  ... There is a tendency among those who oppose the idea of Aryan speakers coming from outside India to equate invasion with migration.  Historically the two are distinctly different processes in terms of what would have been the precondition of either, such as the activities and organization involved, or the pattern of social and historical change that ensued. ... The linguistic evidence remains firm. Indo-Aryan is of the Indo-European family of languages and there is a linguistic relationship with some ancient languages of west Asia and Iran, as well as some that took shape in Europe.  Indo-Aryan is a cognate of Old Iranian, dating to the second millennium BC, with which it has a close relationship.
 * Quote (page xiii): "Central Asian peoples reached the subcontinent in the centuries around 1000 BC, bringing with them a language, the Indo-European, that also spread westwards into much of Europe. As a result the languages that grew up in North and Central India share fundamental linguistic patterns with those of many European countries."
 * Quote (page xiii): "Central Asian peoples reached the subcontinent in the centuries around 1000 BC, bringing with them a language, the Indo-European, that also spread westwards into much of Europe. As a result the languages that grew up in North and Central India share fundamental linguistic patterns with those of many European countries."
 * Quote (page xiii): "Central Asian peoples reached the subcontinent in the centuries around 1000 BC, bringing with them a language, the Indo-European, that also spread westwards into much of Europe. As a result the languages that grew up in North and Central India share fundamental linguistic patterns with those of many European countries."
 * I am sorry to start this again but I don't understand that when you consider to quote Romila Thapar then why not ppl like Koenraad Elst? I am sure you would agree that Romila Thapar is equally controversial --sarvajna (talk) 13:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, you haven't started anything. The debate has been long dead.  Nothing will change on the India page.  Romila Thapar's book is an internationally recognized, widely-used, text on early India (published by Penguin and the University of California Press).  The problem with Elst is not that he is controversial, but that he is not recognized.  When Koenraad Elst's Hindu nationalist sympathies begin to be published as textbooks by academic presses, are read in universities around the world, and become recipients of the Kluge prize from the Library of Congress as Thapar's work became, you can come back here.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

"Most historians also consider this period to have encompassed several waves of Indo-Aryan migration into the subcontinent from the north-west" - The word most should be replaced by some. As there are many historians who claim that Indo-Aryan migration theory is completely false. There is no-one to decide whether a majority (most) of the historians support this theory or a minority. So the word some historians would be more neutral and appropriate. Raghu-holkar (talk) 13:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I support the change to "some historians", which is plainly correct. It would of course be possible to survey the views in all recent peer-reviewed work, but failing that "most" seems rather too subjective. Moonraker (talk) 19:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The current wording is appropriate. As explained above, indo-aryan migration is the mainstream view. It should be clear from the discussion above that 'out of india' theories are, as yet, fringe theories held mainly by nationalist writers, who are not necessarily even historians. If these theories move into the mainstream, then our article will change accordingly. --regentspark (comment) 20:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

@ RegentsPark

Again there is no-one to decide whether those who have given 'Out of India' theory are 'proper' historians or not. And no-one can decide whether Indo-Aryan migration theory is mainstream theory or not. If it is mainstream theory, then 'Indigenous Aryans' theory is also one mainstream theory. So, some should come in place of most. Raghu-holkar (talk) 11:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It is indeed "most." That very word and other words similar in meaning are cited in widely-used internationally-recognized texts provided as examples above. It is a dead and buried issue on this talk page.  Pursuing it beyond a point, weeks after it was first broached here, could be seen as being disruptive.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The question remains same : who is to decide whether its majority or minority of historians. Most is too subjective. If not some, then many can be more appropriate. It should be Many historians, not most. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raghu-holkar (talk • contribs) 11:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You should sign your posts, Mr. Holkar. I'm afraid, "some" belongs to the ahistorical garbage produced by some Hindu nationalist historians.  Here is a comparison from Upinder Singh's widely used text-book on ancient India.  Dominant=most; a handful of cranks = some.  Is that clear?


 * Quote (page 186): "The dominant view is that the Indo-Aryans came to the subcontinent as immigrants. Another view, advocated mainly by some Indian scholars, is that they were indigenous to the subcontinent."  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Quote (page 186): "The dominant view is that the Indo-Aryans came to the subcontinent as immigrants. Another view, advocated mainly by some Indian scholars, is that they were indigenous to the subcontinent."  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Not Hindu nationalist groups, but non-Indian historians were the first to give 'Indigenous Aryans theory'.

A recent genetic-based research conducted by Harvard also claims that Aryan invasion is nothing but a myth. By the way, whats the problem with Many ? It would be more neutral. Raghu-holkar (talk) 12:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Many would imply that there are other accepted views and that's not the case here. In fact, the correct term is "Historians" without a qualification. About your other comment, re 'deciding who is a proper historian and what is fringe theory', it all depends on the academic credentials of the person being identified as a historian, the academic credentials of the person expounding a theory, and the institutions they represent. All are weak in the case of the out of India theorists. --regentspark (comment) 12:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 'Many would imply that there are other accepted views and that's not the case here'

1. There are other accepted view, I feel the debate here is how many accept the other theory 2. Making it as just "Historians" without any qualifications would mean that there are no other theories. Which would convey a very different meaning. --sarvajna (talk) 13:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Let me repeat again and for the last time: There is a good reason why we value the content of textbooks used in undergraduate and graduate courses worldwide on the history of India published by internationally known academic publishers. It is that these books have been vetted for balance by scholars. In contrast, journal articles or monographs (such as Edwin Bryant's) can espouse one particular viewpoint or emphasize one particular nuance or, in the case of Bryant, bend over backwards in solipsistic relativism to accommodate every shade of crank produced on the sacred soil of India. The widely-used Indian history texts are unanimous in broadly accepting the Indo-European (Aryan) migration theory. To date Bryant has not written a widely used textbook on Indian history.  When he has, you can come back here.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I feel that there is some kind of vandalism here. These two user <font color="#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler and regentspark are continuously trying to force their own views in the article. sarvajna had a valid point here. This is a fact that Aryan Migration is a theory just like Indigenous Aryan theory. Both of them have not been accepted as such. The use of word 'Most' gives an impression that Aryan migration theory is true and others are false.

I was going to as for Administrators' intervention regarding vandalism in this article, but I was surprised to know that regentspark is himself an admin.

@ sarvajna : Its not worth wasting time here in requesting any change in the current article as some admins themselves seem to be involved in vandalism. regentspark seem to be an advocate of that old western ideology of defaming India. I didn't want to disrespect the admins of this reputed encyclopedia. But this is too much. Any neutral person will say that Most inappropriate here. Raghu-holkar (talk) 13:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Devanagari
The original poster is correct. There is no reason to remove the Hindi script. The name of India has been in the Devanagari script for years, but it was suddenly removed recently. This is odd, since Bharat Ganarajya is still there. That is the name of the country in Hindi. The name of India is different in other languages such as Bengali and Tamil. The general consensus is if a non-English word is mentioned in an article, it is also written in parenthesis in its native script after the mention. In any case, the government of India also uses both Hindi and English officially: on passports, its website, for laws, and so on. It is true that the Indian constitution does not stipulate a national language; however, both Hindi and India were declared co-official languages in 1950. The national language controversy has been stroked by a specific, small group of people with an agenda and does not represent a reason to remove Hindi. Finally, I'd like to point out that in the last few months, it seems as though a concerted effort is being conducted on the part of a group of people, primarily Tamil nationalists, with an agenda to remove the Hindi script from a variety of India related articles- even if the people or place in question is a native Hindi speaker or in a Hindi speaking area. For example, the names of several Bollywood actors, Hindi movies, and the state of Himachal Pradesh (where Hindi is the official language) have had the Devanagari script removed from there. This is not standard procedure with how to deal with languages in articles. Likewise, just how Tamil Nadu is in the Tamil script, Hindi speaking states ought to have their names written out in their script. This super-edit has mostly effected Hindi areas (such as the city of Delhi), but also come other areas, such as the city of Mumbai, where the native name in both Marathi and Hindi have been removed.

I've done a through check in the article history and have identified one particular person who is responsible for many of these edits. I would like to request this person to stop doing this, on the basis that it is against Wikipedia policy and it as done unilaterally rather than by a consensus discussion. He should wait for a consensus to build up, or follow the current policy, and if he has an issue, we will request mediation from Wikipedia editors.

One way to deal with the issue is to look to the South Africa article. South Africa has a similar linguistic situation to India, with a variety of official languages. All of them are inserted into its box. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa

By the way, to avoid accusations of self-interest, I will state that I am not a native Hindi speaker and am not trying to promote or "impose" a language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akhipill (talk • contribs) 01:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 March 2012
I feel that you should write the capitals of the states of india mentioned.

122.167.81.221 (talk) 15:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank yoy for the suggestion, however, all that information might be too much to add in this article; instead, we have the article on States and territories of India which provides the info in detail. Thanks!  Lynch 7  15:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Few questions and suggestions on lead...
Probably these things have been discussed in history. You may very well point me to those discussions and save time.
 * Himalaya: Although Himalaya is shared by various countries and few of those are completely in Himalayas, i found it's absence in lead quite surprising. Where we mention all seas and neighbouring countries, Himalayas can be mentioned somewhere there. Is "Himalayas dont exactly define any border of India" the reason for excluding it? In that case we can simply put "India is surrounded by Himalyan range in the north and noth-east." What say? -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 10:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Independence movement: I agree that Indian independence movement was marked by non-violence movement lead by Gandhi. But when we say "marked by" what do we exactly mean? Do we mean it as compared to other independence movements of other countries this was marked by non-violence and others werent? Or do we imply non-violence movement was the main factor in india's independence? If the second is what was meant, i guess the sentence should also include something on violent movements which might not be of key importance but were surely not worth neglecting. In either cases, rephrasing wont be a bad idea. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 10:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Third-largest standing army: What does it exactly mean? Standing army would mean Professional permanent army. According to List of countries by number of troops, India is 3rd in Active-army and Paramilitary. But should the total army be mentioned, where it stands 5th. And is this just land based branch of Indian Armed Forces? Do we need to mention only army in lead? We should be mentioning all Indian Armed Forces. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 10:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * BRICS: Is it that important to mention in lead? I heard this word for first time. Mentioning about UN or even SAARC would be good. At least SAARC is something thats taught in civics in schools. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 10:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) The importance of the Himalayas is more that it geographically separates the Indian subcontinent from the rest of Asia rather than defining India itself (very little of the Himalayas are actually in India). If we want to include a mention of it, it'll have to be in some other way, perhaps through a mention of geographical diversity.
 * 2) The dominating characteristic of the independence movement is its non violent nature (your second meaning). While there were other violent aspects as well (Bhagat Singh's death anniversary is an excellent reminder of that), and there were perhaps other non-violent streams as well (swaraj is my birthright), the fact remains that there is only so much you can include in a lead. Think of it as single sentences encompassing entire generations, movements, centuries, etc.
 * 3) No comment on army. Though, my understanding is that army = armed forces.
 * 4) No comment on BRICS. I'm not a fan of including any of these things in the lead. The UN is pointless because the default assumption is that a country is a member of the UN. And SAARC, though well known in India, is not really a notable group.--regentspark (comment) 11:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with RegentsPark. The first paragraphs is about India's borders.  The Himalayas are a feature of India's geography and are described in great detail in the geography section.  The predominant view among historians is that India's nationalist movement, which began with the founding of the Indian National Congress in 1885, was non-violent, and especially so after the ascendancy of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi its preeminent leader and symbol.  Various cults of populist nationalists, such as Bhagat Singh's, which idealized martyrdom attained while confronting the British, while popular among the young, played little role in India's independence.  Ditto RP for the remaining points.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Dhananjay Keer writes that the "non-violent", nature of the freedom movement in India is a Congress propagated myth. I will give an exact quote, when I find it and if I am there. The reviewer of 22 June 1897 also considers the same. ( 22nd June 1897 erzählt eines der wichtigsten Kapitel der frühen bewaffneten Unabhängigkeitsbestrebungen Indiens... Die indische Unabhängigkeitsbewegung ist im Westen nur im Zusammenhang mit Mahatma Gandhi bekannt.) Not the best of sources, but it has been shown here to demonstrated that the "Gandhi-Congress myth" is known in Europe too. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Insurgency and freedom movements
As you all know India is facing several seperatist movements who want freedom such as North east India insurgency and jammu and kashmir I believe these HUGE issues deserve a mention in the India article since its a major problem what with all the human rights abuses against the native population by the Indian army Talkd2me (talk) 08:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Aryan Invasion theory oops read migration
The Aryans came from central INDIA The language they spoken is still spoken today.That is HINDI.Hindi is the national language of India,today Admin RegentsPark your edit summary read to the effect TOI is not about this, please read carefully before trigger-happy undoing, there were three other references with quotations, don't edit war, that the AI(M)T is disputed is as clear as sunlight, Byrant and Patton write "For two centuries, scholars concentrating on the South Asian data have described an Indo-European/Aryan migration/invasion into South Asia to explain the formation of Indian civilization. The conflating of language, people/culture, "race" to maintain the "myth of Aryan invasion" continues, perhaps as Leach so cogently notes, due to the academic prestige at stake. "... Renfrew ... opts to distort archeological record.... Archeological data ... does not support ... any version of migration/invasion ... population movement into South Asia". Is Wikipedia a tool for protection of the academic prestige of discredited theorists?? The theory is there and it is disputed is a known fact supported by evidence. Why is this article hijacked by faddists? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And admin RP is right, the TOI article isn't about the AIT. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The Times of India article hypothesizes that there are no exotic "Aryans" or local "Dravidians" in India, so the article debunks the AIT without mentioning it, however, since there is a surfeit of debunks in other sources, I withdraw this wonderful TOO article, that punctures the Adi-Dravidian bubble, which naturally follows the AIT. It reads "A path breaking study by Harvard and indigenous researchers on ancestral Indian populations says there is a genetic relationship between all Indians and more importantly, the hitherto believed `"fact" that Aryans and Dravidians signify the ancestry of north and south Indians might after all, be a myth." Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The TOI article will help us debunk the next line in the sub-section Ancient India " The caste system, which created a hierarchy of priests, warriors, and free peasants, but which excluded indigenous peoples by labeling their occupations impure, arose during this period." According the TOI article both Aryans and Dravidians are indigenous. Are featured articles called so because their "feature" is to propagate myths? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You have not thus far produced any widely used Indian history texts published by internationally recognized publishers in support of your viewpoint. I have produced five quotes from widely used text books written by well-known historians of India, which include Burton Stein, Barbara D. Metcalf, Thomas R. Metcalf, Hermann Kulke, Dietmar Rothermund, Romila Thapar, and Upinder Singh.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Since you have started a new section (for no reason), here they are again (with quotes): Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  15:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC) Last updated  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well-known historians of India:
 * Quote: (Page 47) It is now widely accepted that the subcontinent began to be infiltrated well before the middle of the first millennium BCE by people speaking an Indo-European language, later to be called Sanskrit and closely associated with the ancient language of people of the Iranian plateau, as evidenced from the ancient Zoroastrian text Avesta. Historical linguists find this a plausible chronological basis for the later developments of languages like Marathi, which possess a strong element of ancient Dravidian linguistic features, and also for Panini's grammar (written around 400 BCE), which may have been intended to standardize Sanskrit usage against strong tendencies to incorporate other and older languages of the subcontinent.
 * Quote (page 31): IMMIGRATION AND SETTLEMENT OF THE INDO-ARYANS: The second millennium BC witnessed another major historical event in the early history of the south Asian subcontinent after the rise and fall of the Indus civilisation: a semi-nomadic people which called itself Aria in its sacred hymns came down to the northwestern plains through the mountain passes of Afghanistan.
 * Quote (pages 105–106): The theory of an Aryan invasion no longer has credence. ... The more acceptable theory is that groups of Indo-Aryan speakers gradually migrated from the Indo-Iranian borderlands and Afghanistan to northern India, where they introduced the language. The impetus to migrate was a search for better pastures, for arable land and some advantage from an exchange of goods.  The migrations were generally not disruptive of settlement and cultures.  ... There is a tendency among those who oppose the idea of Aryan speakers coming from outside India to equate invasion with migration.  Historically the two are distinctly different processes in terms of what would have been the precondition of either, such as the activities and organization involved, or the pattern of social and historical change that ensued. ... The linguistic evidence remains firm. Indo-Aryan is of the Indo-European family of languages and there is a linguistic relationship with some ancient languages of west Asia and Iran, as well as some that took shape in Europe.  Indo-Aryan is a cognate of Old Iranian, dating to the second millennium BC, with which it has a close relationship.
 * Quote (page xiii): "Central Asian peoples reached the subcontinent in the centuries around 1000 BC, bringing with them a language, the Indo-European, that also spread westwards into much of Europe. As a result the languages that grew up in North and Central India share fundamental linguistic patterns with those of many European countries."
 * Quote (page 186): "The dominant view is that the Indo-Aryans came to the subcontinent as immigrants. Another view, advocated mainly by some Indian scholars, is that they were indigenous to the subcontinent."
 * Other scholars:
 * Quote (pp 37–38): "The date most commonly accepted for the Aryan movement into India is 1500 B C — or broadly speaking, since it seems to have been a gradual, continuing movement, 1700-1200 BC. The only archaeological culture that so far might possibly be connected to the Aryans, the Painted Grey Ware culture of the Western Ganges valley, is dated (C— 14) to around the eleventh century BC (Thapar 1966: 30(n). This would represent a phase of settlement subsequent to the first phase centered on the Upper Indus and the valley of the Kabul river. ... The traditional Indian view It must be noted that all of this does not accord with Indian tradition, which retains no memory of any migration from an earlier home outside India. (It does retain, in the Ramayana epic, a possible memory of Aryan penetration of the South of India, and also, in the story recorded in the Sampatha Brahmana of the stopping of the fire-god Aged at the river Gandak in Bihar, of their movement eastward down the Ganges valley.)  ...Although spokesmen for the traditional Indian view continue to try to fight back with selective modern arguments, the philological evidence alone does not allow an Indian origin of the Aryans. In addition to the special relationship with Balto-Slavic and Finno-Ugric, neither of which is likely to have moved very far from its original location, there is the matter of the nature of the common vocabulary shared by Sanskrit with the rest of Indo-European, which points to a more northerly ultimate home."
 * Quote (page 44): "Most scholars agree that the Aryans began migrating by horse•drawn chariot from Iran (the Persian word for "Aryan") or Turkestan into northwestern India between 1500 and 1000 B. C.E., after the collapse of the Harappan cities. The migration to India came when rainfall in the Indus region was increasing again, improving economic conditions. Some historians and Indian nationalists argue that Aryan settlement in India was far older and that the Harappans may have been Aryans. However, in the mainstream view, the Aryans arrived in small groups over several centuries, bringing with them a rich oral literature and unusual ideas about government, society, and religion. For the next 500 years, the Aryans expanded throughout northern India as more arrived."
 * Quote (pp 4-5): "At about the time when the Indus Valley Civilization became extinct, according to the commonly accepted theory, there took place a relatively large migration of people from the west into the upper Indus Valley.3 They were a pastoral but militarily powerful people who called themselves arya (literally, 'noble' or 'honorable'; whence the word Aryan). Modern linguistic studies have demonstrated that the language of these people, the language in which the ancient vedic literature including the Upanisads was written and which later came to be known as Sanskrit, belongs to a family of languages (generally referred to as Indo-European) that includes Greek, Latin, and most of the modern European and northern Indian languages, as well as the ancient and modern languages of Iran. This distribution of languages suggests that a related group of nomadic pastoral people migrated across Europe and toward the east, settling first in Iran and finally in northern India. Footnote 3: " The Aryan migration theory has been challenged recently by several archaeologists: see Colin Renfrew,Archaeology and Language: The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins (London: Jonathan Cape, 1987). Even though the migration theory possibly needs revisions and the Aryan migrations may have occurred at different times and at a much earlier period, I think the preponderance of evidence still supports the view that there was an Aryan migration into India in the second millennium BCE and that the language of the Veda reflects the language of those Aryans. For the most recent study of this question by leading archeologists and textual scholars, see The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia, ed. G. Erdosy (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1995)."
 * Quote (page 186): "The dominant view is that the Indo-Aryans came to the subcontinent as immigrants. Another view, advocated mainly by some Indian scholars, is that they were indigenous to the subcontinent."
 * Other scholars:
 * Quote (pp 37–38): "The date most commonly accepted for the Aryan movement into India is 1500 B C — or broadly speaking, since it seems to have been a gradual, continuing movement, 1700-1200 BC. The only archaeological culture that so far might possibly be connected to the Aryans, the Painted Grey Ware culture of the Western Ganges valley, is dated (C— 14) to around the eleventh century BC (Thapar 1966: 30(n). This would represent a phase of settlement subsequent to the first phase centered on the Upper Indus and the valley of the Kabul river. ... The traditional Indian view It must be noted that all of this does not accord with Indian tradition, which retains no memory of any migration from an earlier home outside India. (It does retain, in the Ramayana epic, a possible memory of Aryan penetration of the South of India, and also, in the story recorded in the Sampatha Brahmana of the stopping of the fire-god Aged at the river Gandak in Bihar, of their movement eastward down the Ganges valley.)  ...Although spokesmen for the traditional Indian view continue to try to fight back with selective modern arguments, the philological evidence alone does not allow an Indian origin of the Aryans. In addition to the special relationship with Balto-Slavic and Finno-Ugric, neither of which is likely to have moved very far from its original location, there is the matter of the nature of the common vocabulary shared by Sanskrit with the rest of Indo-European, which points to a more northerly ultimate home."
 * Quote (page 44): "Most scholars agree that the Aryans began migrating by horse•drawn chariot from Iran (the Persian word for "Aryan") or Turkestan into northwestern India between 1500 and 1000 B. C.E., after the collapse of the Harappan cities. The migration to India came when rainfall in the Indus region was increasing again, improving economic conditions. Some historians and Indian nationalists argue that Aryan settlement in India was far older and that the Harappans may have been Aryans. However, in the mainstream view, the Aryans arrived in small groups over several centuries, bringing with them a rich oral literature and unusual ideas about government, society, and religion. For the next 500 years, the Aryans expanded throughout northern India as more arrived."
 * Quote (pp 4-5): "At about the time when the Indus Valley Civilization became extinct, according to the commonly accepted theory, there took place a relatively large migration of people from the west into the upper Indus Valley.3 They were a pastoral but militarily powerful people who called themselves arya (literally, 'noble' or 'honorable'; whence the word Aryan). Modern linguistic studies have demonstrated that the language of these people, the language in which the ancient vedic literature including the Upanisads was written and which later came to be known as Sanskrit, belongs to a family of languages (generally referred to as Indo-European) that includes Greek, Latin, and most of the modern European and northern Indian languages, as well as the ancient and modern languages of Iran. This distribution of languages suggests that a related group of nomadic pastoral people migrated across Europe and toward the east, settling first in Iran and finally in northern India. Footnote 3: " The Aryan migration theory has been challenged recently by several archaeologists: see Colin Renfrew,Archaeology and Language: The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins (London: Jonathan Cape, 1987). Even though the migration theory possibly needs revisions and the Aryan migrations may have occurred at different times and at a much earlier period, I think the preponderance of evidence still supports the view that there was an Aryan migration into India in the second millennium BCE and that the language of the Veda reflects the language of those Aryans. For the most recent study of this question by leading archeologists and textual scholars, see The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia, ed. G. Erdosy (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1995)."
 * Quote (page 44): "Most scholars agree that the Aryans began migrating by horse•drawn chariot from Iran (the Persian word for "Aryan") or Turkestan into northwestern India between 1500 and 1000 B. C.E., after the collapse of the Harappan cities. The migration to India came when rainfall in the Indus region was increasing again, improving economic conditions. Some historians and Indian nationalists argue that Aryan settlement in India was far older and that the Harappans may have been Aryans. However, in the mainstream view, the Aryans arrived in small groups over several centuries, bringing with them a rich oral literature and unusual ideas about government, society, and religion. For the next 500 years, the Aryans expanded throughout northern India as more arrived."
 * Quote (pp 4-5): "At about the time when the Indus Valley Civilization became extinct, according to the commonly accepted theory, there took place a relatively large migration of people from the west into the upper Indus Valley.3 They were a pastoral but militarily powerful people who called themselves arya (literally, 'noble' or 'honorable'; whence the word Aryan). Modern linguistic studies have demonstrated that the language of these people, the language in which the ancient vedic literature including the Upanisads was written and which later came to be known as Sanskrit, belongs to a family of languages (generally referred to as Indo-European) that includes Greek, Latin, and most of the modern European and northern Indian languages, as well as the ancient and modern languages of Iran. This distribution of languages suggests that a related group of nomadic pastoral people migrated across Europe and toward the east, settling first in Iran and finally in northern India. Footnote 3: " The Aryan migration theory has been challenged recently by several archaeologists: see Colin Renfrew,Archaeology and Language: The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins (London: Jonathan Cape, 1987). Even though the migration theory possibly needs revisions and the Aryan migrations may have occurred at different times and at a much earlier period, I think the preponderance of evidence still supports the view that there was an Aryan migration into India in the second millennium BCE and that the language of the Veda reflects the language of those Aryans. For the most recent study of this question by leading archeologists and textual scholars, see The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia, ed. G. Erdosy (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1995)."
 * Quote (pp 4-5): "At about the time when the Indus Valley Civilization became extinct, according to the commonly accepted theory, there took place a relatively large migration of people from the west into the upper Indus Valley.3 They were a pastoral but militarily powerful people who called themselves arya (literally, 'noble' or 'honorable'; whence the word Aryan). Modern linguistic studies have demonstrated that the language of these people, the language in which the ancient vedic literature including the Upanisads was written and which later came to be known as Sanskrit, belongs to a family of languages (generally referred to as Indo-European) that includes Greek, Latin, and most of the modern European and northern Indian languages, as well as the ancient and modern languages of Iran. This distribution of languages suggests that a related group of nomadic pastoral people migrated across Europe and toward the east, settling first in Iran and finally in northern India. Footnote 3: " The Aryan migration theory has been challenged recently by several archaeologists: see Colin Renfrew,Archaeology and Language: The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins (London: Jonathan Cape, 1987). Even though the migration theory possibly needs revisions and the Aryan migrations may have occurred at different times and at a much earlier period, I think the preponderance of evidence still supports the view that there was an Aryan migration into India in the second millennium BCE and that the language of the Veda reflects the language of those Aryans. For the most recent study of this question by leading archeologists and textual scholars, see The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia, ed. G. Erdosy (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1995)."
 * There is no doubt about the existence of the AIT, the point is whether it is disputed, for which I have presented evidence. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No one is talking about the Aryan Invasion Theory. The dominant view is that there were several waves of Indo-Aryan migrations from the northwest.  Most historians subscribe to that view.  "Most" includes the possibility of dispute.  The dispute among historians, however, is not significant (see below).   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute
The AIT is disputed. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Singh this article's favourite also mentions the dispute, attributing it to Indians, they stand disproved by the origin of my sources, not a single Injun. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The disputers Gavin D. Flood, Kenneth A. R. Kennedy, Edwin Bryant, Mikel Burley, Edmund Leach, Laurie L. Patton,, Charles Michael Byrd, Stephen Oppenheimer - don't smell any Injuns around. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We are debating a sentence in the history section of the FA India. Not a single one of these people (not all of whom dispute Aryan migration, by the way) are historians.  The expression "Most historians" allows the possibility of dispute; the Indo-Aryan migration is, however, not disputed by enough historians to merit inclusion in a summary history section.  You are welcome to discuss the dispute ad infinitum and ad nauseam on the Indo-Aryan migration page.  All the very best in explicating the dispute there.  It will be of great help to the Wikipedia community.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Pathetic argument and rude unsolicited advice. The discussion is whether AMT is disputed or not, and not about who disputes it. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "Most historians" is the expression in the text. Those people by the way don't dispute AMT themselves.  It is best not to call them disputers.  Gavin Flood, for example, does not.  He support a revised Aryan migration theory founded on the arguments of Asko Parpola.  Also, it is best not to use "Injun" in your attempt at humor.  It is an ethnic slur and offensive to Native Americans.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Here is Gavin Flood himself: (Introduction to Hinduism, Cambridge University Press. pp 33–34) THE ARYAN MIGRATIONS RECONSIDERED Both the Aryan migration thesis and the cultural transformation thesis have bodies of supporting evidence. Arguably, however, the meticulous, thorough work of Asko Parpola establishes strong evidence for the Indus valley script belonging to the Dravidian language group. His evidence is based on an analysis of language from a wide-ranging cultural sphere, from Anatolia to the Deccan; on iconographic continuities between Indus valley and Dravidian forms of Hinduism, and on discontinuities between vedic or Aryan forms and those of the Indus valley. ... A modified Aryan migration theory is therefore supported by Parpola's work. At the beginning of the second millennium BCE, Aryan nomads entered the Indian subcontinent. They were, of course, a minor-ity, and, while the Indus valley culture continues without a break, as the archaeological record shows, the Aryan culture lived and developed alongside it and absorbed elements of it. However, there is little doubt that there are continuities between the Indus valley and vedic cultures. The new groups, who possessed arya, 'nobility', formed a dominating elite speaking the Aryan language, though Sanskrit has absorbed proto-Dravidian features, such as the retroflex sound which does not exist in other Indo-European languages, as well as agricultural terms. Dravidian languages, as one would expect, have also absorbed elements of Sanskrit. Over a number of centuries bilingualism would have developed until the majority of the population adopted the Aryan language, a form of vedic Sanskrit, as Modern French developed from vulgar Latin." Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * (1)Injun is racist with reference to natives of America, here it refers to natives of India. (2)The deleted sentence read: The traditional but disputed Aryan Invasion/Migration theory considers this period to have encompassed several waves of Indo-Aryan migration into the subcontinent from the north-west. Flood acknowledges that the A I/M T is disputed. Wikipedia is to be a faithful reflection of scholarly consensus, that the AI/MT is disputed has scholarly consensus as demonstrated above. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, then don't call them disputers!! They are not the ones who dispute the Aryan migration theory. The disputers are the Hindu nationalist fringe "scholars."  And, yes, most "disputers" are indeed Indian cranks.  Scholars such as Gavin Flood are only bending over backwards in putting out the Hindu nationalist arguments, so that they can be seen for what they are worth.  The well-known historians of India are near unanimous in broadly accepting the Aryan migration theory.  Please don't flatter your attempt at introducing your POV by calling it "deleted."  It never had even the remotest consensus to be in the text in the first place.  When you can establish that consensus, you can post here.  Until then you are merely wasting time and that beyond a certain point can be disruptive.  It ties up productive editors such as Regents Park, Saravask, and myself who are among the India page's leading contributors.     Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As for the use of "Injun," you are not free to make up your private make-believe language and then use it on Wikipedia with the abandon reserved for accepted English language words and expressions. Wikipedia's own entry Injun makes no reference to natives of South Asia.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * About vedic history, much of which has been known by excavations and scientific research, is the discussion here trying to put any less weight on the same?
 * Fowler, are there any sources that say 'The disputers are the Hindu nationalist fringe "scholars." And, yes, most "disputers" are indeed Indian cranks.  Scholars such as Gavin Flood are only bending over backwards in putting out the Hindu nationalist arguments, so that they can be seen for what they are worth.'? In absence of sources, it looks like editor's personal opinion. Not sure expressions such as 'cranks' are welcome on Wikipedia, repeatedly even as the book page [| link] says in its features section that the book includes Discussion of contemporary scholarly debates about Hinduism and not some arbitrary thrown words like 'cranks' etc.
 * Is there any information about funding of 'western' sources - this is in light of this critique that I have come across that throws light on aspects of it. [| You tube link]. I am not sure, if funding of any of the sources is done by either the state or by some extremely right wing fascist extremist Christian groups like Klu Klux Klan, in latter case would mean automatic removal of related 'western' sources. One can not be too sure at all. Any information on funding and consequent effect is welcome.<font color="#FF9933">इति इतिUAनेति नेति <font color="#FF9933"> Humour Thisthat2011 04:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear Humour Thisthat2011, Mr. Y. Khandke, has has altered the actual quotes in some places, or confused the names of the editors of a volume with the authors of the individual papers, or in some other case, selectively cherry-picked quotes, or over and over again picked quotes for authors who are critiquing the Aryan invasion theory, not the migration theory. Here are some of his examples:
 * (Altered quote) Burley (, =, for example, is talking about the discredited Aryan Invasion theory, which Mr. Khandke has deceptively changed himself to ""...(The Aryan Invasion/Migration) theory which places ..."
 * (Cherry picking) Gavin Flood is not a disputant himself (see my quote above about his cautious support for a revised migration theory), yet Mr. Khandke has not only included him in that list, but also conveniently ignored the first paragraph of his section on Aryans: The Aryans: The most commonly accepted theory to date has been that Hinduism is the consequence of incursions of groups known as Aryans into the north-ern plains of India from central Asia, via the mountain passes of Afghanistan, around 1500 BCE.  Some of these groups went into Iran and there are close affinities between the Iranian religion of the Avesta (the sacred scripture of Zoroastrianism) and the religion of the Veda. (page 30)"
 * (Confusing authors with editors) Edwin Bryant and Laurie Patton are only the editors of the volume: Mr. Khandke has quoted a paper by Shaffer and Lichtenstein but counted Bryant and Patton among the disputants!
 * (Quoting from critiques of Aryan invasion theories): This book, which is not exactly a reliable source, critiques the Aryan invasion theory, not migration.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a minor aside, the use of the term "Injuns" strikes me, an US American, as really bizarre. Just saying. Pfly (talk) 07:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Per the above and other incidents, an ANI thread has been started. Saravask 11:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * (1) Fowler mentions that Charles Michael Byrd disputes Invasion and not migration, alluding that he doesn't dispute migration - which is a misinterpretation of Byrd - considering that Byrd writes " the theory denies the Indian origin of India's predominant culture" which means that Byrad considers that the Aryans were autohcthonous, that is Byrad disputes that Aryans arrived from outside India - whether by invasion or any other means. Also I have mentioned migration paranthetically so I haven't misquoted Byrd. (2) I stand correct on confusing editors with contributors so Shaffer and Lichtenstein are the ones who dispute the theory - are they bad sources, also since Bryant and Patton have included the essay in their book, their mention as those who acknowledge that the theory is disputed continues to be true. (3)Flood too acknowledges that the theory is disputed so his mention in the list of those who acknowledge that there is a dispute is valid . (4)Fowler stop creating a strawman - my argument is for my statement, for which I have presented evidence. (5)Saravask taking a content dispute to ANI is a sinister hit below the belt. (6) Fowler: Regarding Flood, he writes about a minority that arrived, does the word "waves" used in the article convey a sense of minority? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid deception is deception whether done parenthetically or not. You have chosen to blur the distinction between Aryan invasion and Aryan migration.  The very title of this section&mdash;deception in the guise of feeble coyness&mdash;speaks to that.  You are not allowed to interpret Byrd and extract meanings that suit your bald POV.  He is talking about Aryan invasion.  Period.  You can't quote him in support of your ends.  The Aryan migration theory is disputed by a minority of scholars.  The minority is too small and, in many cases, unrecognized as scholarly, to gain mention in the summary history section of a Wikipedia FA.  None of the people you have quoted including Edwin Bryant or Laurie Patton are historians.  As scholars of India none are even remotely in the same league as Colin P. Masica, Barbara D. Metcalf, Thomas R. Metcalf, Romila Thapar, Michael Witzel, Burton Stein], Hermann Kulke, Dietmar Rothermund, Patrick Olivelle or Stanley Wolpert, all of whom have lent their support to the notion Aryan migration.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Does an editor have to be explained that parenthesis are used to indicate "in effect" additions, apart from the verbatim, the source says that Hindus are native to India they have not come from outside, neither by invasion, nor by any other means, the quote is in English and can be read to judge whether it contradicts the parenthetical matter. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand this strawman argument, I don't say that the AI/M theory doesn't exist, it is there it is traditional, all I have stated with sources that it is disputed. Why the historian "red herring"? If you don't want the word disputed you will have to provide evidence that the dispute doesn't exist, or it is FRINGE, UNDUE, UNRELIABLY sourced, or NON-NOTABLE. No nit-picking please. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I would like to know if a content dispute can be taken to ANI. Per Yogesh Khandke's views it can not be.<font color="#FF9933">इति इतिUAनेति नेति <font color="#FF9933"> Humour Thisthat2011 06:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Doens

I AGREE TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THAT MAHTMA GHANDI LED A REBELLION TO FREE INDIA DEH SHIVA BER MOHA HA SHUBH LUNKHURH YU R A FOOL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.169.115 (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

content dispute Ancient history of India banner added
Due to on going dispute about the Aryan migration/invasion theory. I have added a content dispute banner regarding this to the article, please do not remove this banner until the content dispute is resolved and both parties are happy. If you believe this banner is unjustified please provide reasoning for removal here. Thank you Distributor108 (talk) 07:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The matter is much discussed and the content of the article is at consensus. The mere presence of discussion does not merit a tag. --regentspark (comment) 13:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no need for a tag, can have the discussion on the talk page without it--sarvajna (talk) 19:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've removed your editprotected you added at the top of this talk page. The template is to be used when there is consensus for a change, not to ask whether there is consensus. Anomie⚔ 01:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Update lead article sentence
The third paragraph of the lead article (as below):
 * "The Indian economy is the world's tenth-largest by nominal GDP and third-largest by purchasing power parity (PPP). Following market-based economic reforms in 1991, India became one of the fastest-growing major economies; it is considered a newly industrialised country. However, it continues to face the challenges of poverty, illiteracy, corruption, and inadequate public healthcare. A nuclear weapons state and a regional power, it has the third-largest standing army in the world and ranks ninth in military expenditure among nations. India is a federal constitutional republic governed under a parliamentary system consisting of 28 states and 7 union territories. India is a pluralistic, multilingual, and multiethnic society. It is also home to a diversity of wildlife in a variety of protected habitats."


 * The bold sentence (of para above) needs update. As per SIPRI Yearbook 2011, India ranks eighth 'and not ninth' in military expenditure among nations.
 * Source: SIPRI Yearbook 2011 - 15 countries with the highest military expenditure in 2010

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.178.162.100 (talk) 11:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Fundamental_Rights_in_India
It is stated in this article that Right to information is a fundamental right. I have doubt regarding it. I don't think, that it is so can someone please help in that. Thanks  Yash  t  101   08:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * it is not explicitly mentioned in the constitution but the Supreme Court interpreting the article 21 and 19 has ruled that right to information ia also a fundamental right this might have some info, other sources can also be found(I am too lazy today) --sarvajna (talk) 09:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, until I gt a 'verifiable' source, I'm going to remove it from the article as it is a GA, and unsourced info shouldn't be present in a GA. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Where is it mentioned in the India article about fundamental rights, also the one I provided above is not enough? --sarvajna (talk) 10:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It is on the article Fundamental Rights in India. And the link you gave doesn't work. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ok lets continue the discussion on the respective page, sorry for the bad link I will get one more--sarvajna (talk) 13:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 April 2012
National Language : Hindi

Pratapbeh (talk) 09:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * ❌ Please see this: no national language in India  Yash  t  101   09:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * As per the Constitution of India, there is NO National Language. Hindi is the OFFICIAL language of the GOVERNMENT of India. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Editors views needed
Please express your views here Talk:Afghanistan. Thanks very much — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.212.88.26 (talk) 17:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

unnecessary edit
I do not understand the necessity of this edit, if you read it the para talks about what the Indian govt claims --sarvajna (talk) 15:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think it makes much of a difference either way. CMD (talk) 15:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * so can it be reverted back? --sarvajna (talk) 07:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't see a reason to, but if you have a good one. CMD (talk) 09:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not hung up about this, but the clause needs something there (grammatically). "that is" or "currently" both work though "that is" is probably less pov. --regentspark (comment) 12:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have changed it to currently --sarvajna (talk) 18:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but no dice. Stop wasting precious time of productive editors by pushing the usual nationalist agenda.  The Northern Areas (Now Gilgit-Baltistan) are no more "currently" administered by Pakistan than Jammu and Kashmir is "currently" administered by India.   Kashmir remains an international dispute, the longest continuing dispute before the UN.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I got my time wasted not just you. I am not sure who had added the portion that you just removed but someone had made a change ( removing the word currently) to that portion so I reverted it. check the edit history before you say Removing garbage added by Ratnakar kulkarni --sarvajna (talk) 11:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The 'fact' is cited purely as a claim of the Indian government and as such has encyclopedic value in discussing how the Indian government perceives its geographical reach.Pectoretalk 13:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It you mean the note that fowler removed and you restored, I agree. It is useful encyclopedic information and is stated neutrally and clearly. --regentspark (comment) 14:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * My comment is strictly related, as RegentsPark correctly assumed, to the material on India's northernmost point.Pectoretalk 16:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid there are several northernmost points. See, for example, List of extreme points of India.  Although that article is not rigorously sourced, it speaks to the complexity involved in defining these points.  Kashmir is disputed territory, all of it.  Consequently, the undisputed northernmost point in India is in Himachal Pradesh, just below Kashmir.  If, we take the tack of most encyclopedias and mention in geography only what is currently administered, then Jammu and Kashmir can be included in India and Northern Areas (now Gilgit-Baltistan) in Pakistan.  But, if, on the other hand, we are going to add the Indian government's  POV, then we must also add the Pakistani government's POV and include the undisputed northernmost point in Himachal Pradesh in that footnote.  Kashmir, after all,  is an international dispute, (and, like I said earlier), the oldest unresolved dispute before the UN.  In my view, it is best to avoid the footnotes and the governmental POVs altogether.  The footnote, as finessed by Ratnakar Kulkarni, is doubly problematic, as it adds the POV-ridden "currently" only to the Northern Areas (now Gilgit-Baltistan), not to Jammu and Kashmir.  If we decide to keep the footnote and the "currently," then it should read: "The northernmost point under Indian control is the disputed Siachen Glacier in Jammu and Kashmir, currently administered by India; however, the Government of India regards the entire region of the former princely state of Kashmir, including the Northern Areas currently administered by Pakistan, to be its territory. It therefore assigns the longitude 37° 6' to its northernmost point.  This is disputed by the Government of Pakistan, which regards the entire region of Kashmir to be a part of Pakistan.  The northernmost undisputed point in India is Dharwas (33.2 North Latitude), Chamba district, in the Indian state of Himachal Pradesh."   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Fowler let me make a clarifications here The footnote, as finessed by Ratnakar Kulkarni, is doubly problematic, as it adds the POV-ridden "currently" only to the Northern Areas. I did not add anything to it, it was already present I just reverted it to the original as an editor had removed "currently" . Please check the revision history again.--sarvajna (talk) 08:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Fowler, the text is quite clear that this is an Indian government point of view, that the Siachen northernmost point is the point under Indian control, and that Kashmir is a disputed territory. I don't see this as a problem because it is written accurately and clearly. Since the article is about India, it makes sense to include the official line as long as it is clear that this is a government of India view and nothing else. The other, separate, question of the word "currently" is different and I agree that it is non-neutral. I've suggested using "that is" rather than "currently" above and perhaps that would be better. (Also, don't dump on Ratnakar.kulkarni, none of this is his doing!) --regentspark (comment) 10:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Fowler does have a point that if we include the Indian government POV we should also include the Pakistani one, and perhaps even the Chinese one. We don't write country articles to align to or present a particular official line. I agree with Regentspark that "that is" would be much better, and that although Ratnakar.kulkarni may have made a slight error readding currently this is in no way an issue of their creation. CMD (talk) 12:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Chipmunk. A discussion of India's northernmost point has to include the POVs of all governments involved in the Kashmir dispute, Indian, Pakistani, and perhaps even Chinese (although I doubt they have anything to say as the northernmost point is not in Aksai Chin), not just that of the Indian government. After all, where else would the Pakistani government POV be included on Wikipedia? Certainly not in the Pakistan article, for there would be no occasion there for mentioning India's northernmost point, and Pakistan's own northernmost point is much farther north (see List of countries by northernmost point). I believe India's undisputed northernmost point (in Himachal Pradesh) needs to be mentioned, if we are going to include governmental POVs. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  13:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * PS As an aside, although Pakistan's northernmost point too is in Kashmir, its undisputed northernmost point, in Chitral district, is almost as north.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with you on this fowler and cmd. The note is about India's northernmost point, not about territories under dispute. It categorically states where the northernmost point actually is, and even adds that the territory where the point is located is disputed. It then states the official position of the government of India and clearly indicates that that "official" point is not in India. I don't see why we need to add anything to this or take away anything from this. Adding some point in Himachal Pradesh makes little sense because there is this entire territory that is actually in India that is being ignored. Adding Pakistan's viewpoint makes little sense because this is about the northernmost point, not about the dispute. Deleting India's official position is also not a good idea because every map in India will show the northernmost point far north of the Siachen Glacier. That information is useful. In my opinion, the current text is well stated, clear, and warranted. --regentspark (comment) 14:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Adding the point in Himachal Pradesh makes just as much sense as having the point in Kashmir. In one case we give an official Indian position, ignoring a large amount of Pakistani territory, and in another we give the official Pakistani position, ignoring a large amount of Indian territory. In either case, the northernmost point changes from the de facto one, so I don't see how they're both not equally valid for inclusion. CMD (talk) 15:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * (Reply to RP) The note describes Siachen Glacier as disputed, not Jammu and Kashmir state in India as disputed. The problem is that the inclusion of the Jammu and Kashmir state within India, voted for by a pliant regional assembly, after Sheikh Abdullah was jailed in the 1950s, is not internationally recognized.  In particular, neither the UN, nor most permanent security council members such as the US, UK, China, France have recognized it.  Only Russia has, and it was the Soviet Union's vetoes in the UN Security Council throughout the 1950s, 60s, and 70s, that saved India from conducting a plebiscite in Kashmir.  If we give a northernmost point in a disputed territory, then we are obligated, as an encyclopedia, to also give the northernmost point which is not in disputed territory.  That is why it is important to mention the Himachal Pradesh location.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes correct the note says that Siachen is disputed but does not mention about J&K because the note deals with the Geography(as claimed by the GOI) and it mentiones about the northernmost point(again according to GOI).--sarvajna (talk) 16:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Fowler, the reality is that the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir is in India and that the northernmost point in India is in that state. I've said this elsewhere (I think it was on the China talk page) that we should stick to the facts and mention disputes only when the context is the dispute. If we're talking about geography, the existence of a dispute is a distraction. It is neither practical, nor is it good writing to add a disputed caveat to every mention of the state of Jammu and Kashmir on wikipedia. It is also quite pointless to talk about locations in Himachal Pradesh when that does not conform to any reality whatsoever. By that logic, we should include mention of Aksai Chin, add Hindutashravi's claims to every geographical description of India, caveat Arunachal Pradesh appropriately, etc. Better not to go there and stick to what is real. Jammu and Kashmir is in India, Azad Kashmir is in Pakistan, Aksai Chin is in China, Arunachal Pradesh is in India. I think the note has value but would rather see it deleted than see it converted into a confused mess of caveats. --regentspark (comment) 16:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete the note. That's what I attempted to do.  My point is that it is equally ludicrous to mention an Indian government fantasy about a region that the Indian government is clueless about, that no Indian official has stepped in ever, no Indian official knows the language, a region which had unilaterally acceded to Pakistan long before the Maharaja's hand was forced into signing his accession to India.  Far from suggesting that we include all caveats, I am suggesting that we include none, especially not the Indian government's cockamamie ones.  By the way, has anyone in the Indian government actually said what that northernmost point in Gilgit-Baltistan is which is the official northernmost point in India, or do they merely keep repeating banal generalities about the entire state of Kashmir being in India?   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I actually think it is a useful note because it explains what maps in India will show. But you're right that the 'official' latitude is not sourced. So go ahead. --regentspark (comment) 17:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Suggesting not to delete the note. Let us not get into baseless propaganda of forcing hands just so as to avoid inhumane ignorance of warmongering trigger-happy 'irregulars' running over territory and pillaging population. India considers the whole of J&K state as Indian as any other state. Do we need the actual official numbers from GoIndia?<font color="#FF9933">इति इतिUAनेति नेति <font color="#FF9933"> Humour Thisthat2011 17:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Tend to agree with CMD and Fowler about balancing the GoI POV, whether by deleting the note or adding the undisputed HP northernmost point. But, as said above, probably better just to get rid of it rather than convolute it. As RP said, the mention of the GoI-claimed point is unsourced anyway. Notes [d] and [e] seem to be more trouble (long discussions cropping up over and over) than they're worth. Saravask 00:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think RP has a good point about explaining what official maps in India show. One possibility would be to explicitly say so in the note:  "Official maps in India will show points considerably northwards to be in Indian territory.  This is because the Government of India considers the entire disputed region of Kashmir, now administered by India, Pakistan, and China, to be Indian territory."  I agree with Saravask about the two notes (I'm assuming (d) is the official fantasy border with Afghanistan).  Perhaps a single note, which addresses the official maps should be cited to both points.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with RP, the reality is that the northern most point Siachen is under India's control regardless of GoI's position or pakistan's position but it is disputed so it is very well written in the note. I do not see any reason why location of HP should be mentioned in the note--sarvajna (talk) 09:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Rather ironically, fowler, the note in question was added by you in this edit (modified, slightly, by Saravask in this edit). It was expressed so well that I couldn't imagine a pov pusher having put it in (and sort of suspected you were the culprit). Regardless, I'm willing to give up the note and stick to the 'real' northernmost point. --regentspark (comment) 14:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Didn't see this post earlier. :) Well, just because I wrote it doesn't mean it's not POV-ridden.  It was written in 2007, when standards about what is POV and what isn't were different.  Based on your point about official maps, I think mentioning official maps explicitly, as I did above, is a good way to go.  So, I'm proposing that we say in the footnote: "Official maps in India will show points farther north to be in Indian territory.  This is because the Government of India considers the entire disputed region of Kashmir, now administered by India, Pakistan, and China, to be Indian territory."   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Official maps in India will show points farther north to be in Indian territory are you passing a judgement that the disputed territory is not or will never be part of India?--sarvajna (talk) 06:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No. CMD (talk) 00:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

food of india
i would really like to see a section on cuisines of india. I think there is a lot to offer in this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igodspeed (talk • contribs) 05:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you read the FAQ at the top of this page? <font face="Batik Regular"><font color="#00703C">Secret of success <font color="#29AB87">(talk)  06:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Indian flag

 * The indian flag in this article has been depicted incorrectly. A humble request is that please be sure and precise before putting any information here  because there are so many people referring to wikipedia who may not distinguish about which facts are correct.Hope the correction will be made soon.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanshlata (talk • contribs) 12:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you be more specific about which particular aspect is incorrect? The flag looks fine to me. --regentspark (comment) 13:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * the ashoka chakra in the middle of the flag has been given radiating lines instead of the spokes which are actually there, (they are twenty-four in number) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shashwatpkumar (talk • contribs) 06:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The image is perfectly fine. You can open the image and confirm. Kondi (talk) 07:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Buddha - India's first historical figure
I'm going to partially agree with RK on this. First is a bit overarching here. Perhaps "first significant" would be better. But, sourced or not, it is worth noting that Mahavira showed up at around the same time (likely a bit before). --regentspark (comment) 14:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Highly controversial statement. Before Mahavira, Parshva is considered in scholars related to Jainism as the earliest historical figure in Jainism. Then there are many theories saying Krishna was a historical figure.-- Redtigerxyz Talk 16:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that usually if the most reliable sources say that Budhdha is the first Indian historical figure, then that is mentioned so regardless of other reliable sources mentioning something else.<font color="#FF9933">इति इतिUAनेति नेति <font color="#FF9933"> Humour Thisthat2011 16:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Because there are several history texts which mention about other historical figures present before Buddha its better to omit the statement which says Buddha was the first historic figure(Logically speaking even Buddha's father can be considered a historic figure)--sarvajna (talk) 18:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A historical figure is a significant figure described in recorded history. It doesn't mean that there were no humans in India before the Buddha.  The stuff about Mahavira (Vardhamana), whose antecedents are far murkier historically, living a hundred years before the Buddha is traditional garbage.  Modern historians assign a much later date to Vardhamana.  Burton Stein (in History of India) states his death, from slow starvation, to have occurred around 400 BCE.  When a widely-used text book such as Kulke and Rothermund, which is now in its 4th edition, says that the Buddha was the first historical figure of Indian history, it doesn't say it lightly; it means that it is a consensus view among historians.  Krishna?  Which episode of Krishna's life is the stuff of recorded history?  Which widely- and internationally used text book describes Krishna as a historical figure?   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A better point is "does it really need saying"? First historical figure is a hazy term, even when sourced and there doesn't seem to be a real need to say it. --regentspark (comment) 23:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe it is important, because it makes the point (without belaboring it) that India's recorded history begins around the same time as the Buddha (ie. fifth century BCE), even though scholars, through other means such as archaeology or analysis of myth, have uncovered a great deal of pre-history. This is very different for other cultures, such as Mesopotamia, which had access to writing much earlier, and which had a predilection for historiography, whose recorded history begins as early as 3500 BCE. But perhaps there is another way of saying the same thing.  Will be back later with a proposal.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

RP: Why don't we say, "Buddhism, based on the teachings of Gautama Buddha, whose lifetime was marked by the advent of India's recorded history, attracted followers from all social classes ...." There are plenty of sources for this. Note: I'm traveling and not reliably interactive. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  06:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That would probably require different sourcing (the advent of India's recorded history part). If it is the advent of recorded history that is important then perhaps the two can be separated. Something along the lines of (following the urbanization sentence) "This period also marked the advent of recorded history in India (new citation). Buddhism ...." the rest being as it is currently in the article.
 * Please see my long post below with many sources.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec) PS :Mahavira's antecedents are murkier. One indication is that a Google Books search for "historical Buddha" turns up 61,000 books, whereas one for "historical Mahavira" (and variant spellings and names) turns up only only 27.  Will be gone for a number of hours now.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  06:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * you may be correct about Mahavira's antecedents but "Historical Buddha" would not mean "First historical figure of India". Do not take me wrong I am not suggesting that its Mahavira came first before Buddha. I would like to ask you the same question, the quote from book says "....Buddha who is regarded...", regarded by who? I have seen few articles where I see after such statements --sarvajna (talk) 16:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Fowler I have mentioned it on your talk page, Hermann Kulke, Dietmar Rothermund do not mention clearly that Buddha was first historical figure it says Buddha is regarded as the first historic figure but regarded by who? Also do not bring your own scholarly analysis of something being a garbage here it would serve no purpose.--sarvajna (talk) 06:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The exact quote is: "The reform movement is mainly identified with the teachings of Gautama Buddha who is regarded as the first historic figure of Indian history. ... The Buddha, however, was not only only great reformer of that age. There was also Mahavira, the founder of Jainism, who is supposed to have been a younger contemporary of the Buddha."  I will now be gone for a number of hours.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  06:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I now believe it is best to leave in the bit about "India's first historical figure." I've had time to look at the sources, and I find that there are plenty of reliable ones attesting to the truth of the statement. A culture's first historical figure constitutes a very important piece of encyclopedic information, as it tells us roughly when the first documents began to be produced in that culture. Here are the sources, with the quotes:
 * Quote: "At the end of this period the first historical personality of India, Gautama Buddha, stepped into the limelight of history."
 * Quote: "This reform movement is mainly identified with the teaching of Gautama Buddha who is regarded as the first historic figure of Indian history. ... The Buddha, however, was not the only great reformer of the age. There was also Mahavira, the founder of Jainism, who is supposed to have been a younger contemporary of the Buddha."
 * "The earliest documentary sources from the sub-continent – those related to the career of the Buddha and the evolution of the sangha (congregation of monks) which transmitted his teachings – exemplify this type of community."
 * Quote: "Given that the life of Gautama Buddha, the earliest historical figure in Indian history, dates back to the fifth century BCE, ..."
 * Quote: "The doctrine of Buddha, who died after 500 BCE (probably active in the 5th century of later), and is the first Indian historic personage, goes counter to Aryan ritual and social practices. ..."

If someone has equally high quality sources which confer this honor on another individual, please produce them here. Otherwise, merely arguing on the basis of half remembered bits of history is not very useful. If such sources are not available, then I propose we quickly reinstate the reference to India's first historical figure. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  03:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * These are few sources I could find about Parsva of Jainism

1. A History of Indian Philosophy, Vol. 1 Page 169, "...that a disciple of Parsva met a disciple of Mahavira and brought the union of old Jainism and that propounded by Mahavira seems to suggest that this Parsva was probably a historical figure"

2.Encyclopedia of world's religion Page 255, "..The twenty-third of these, Parsva is said to have lived only 250 years before mahavira and hence may well have been a historical figure"

3. This one suggest that Bimbisar was the first historic figure India: From Indus Valley Civlization to Mauryas Page 299, "..Both Buddha and Mahavir are said to have belonged to the time of Bimbisar....He is the first known hitorical figure" --sarvajna (talk) 09:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I said high-quality sources. Your first book is a facsimile reprint of a book published in 1922, the second is a reprint of a book published in 1959, and the third is published by a third-rate and unreliable publishing house, Concept Publishing, in India.  In any case, the first two make only half-hearted endorsements.  One (in 1922) says, "was probably a historical figure," another (in 1959) says, "may well have been a historical figure."   I have already checked all the sources mentioning Parsva.  There is nothing among them as reliable as the sources I've quoted above.  Moreover, all my sources are history books, a few are standard Indian history text-books used in courses around the world.  They have been vetted for balance, unlike, say, a specialist monograph on religion (Jainism).  It is the history section, after all, we are talking about.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Fowler, there are two separate questions here. First, whether Buddha is or is not "the first historical figure". Second, why do we we need to explicitly name someone as that in the article. Even if it is reliably sourced, first historical figure seems to be (to me) a weak claim to make (perhaps the Narmada Man should be given that honor!) and should be stated in the article only if it is necessary. I don't see the necessity. If, as you say above, the purpose is to indicate that this is the time when India's recorded history begins, then that's what the article should directly say. --regentspark (comment) 12:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * (Reply to RK) PS A search for "historical Parsva" (or variant spellings) on Google books brings up just five books, three of which are the same. As I have already indicated above, a similar search for the "historical Buddha" brings up almost 61,000 books.  It gives you an idea of the lopsidedness of published opinion about the historicity of each reformer.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * (Reply to RP). Well, a weak claim is decided by the sources.  But the sources give it prominence.  Kulke and Rothermund mention the fact twice.  Burt Stein mentions the career of the Buddha.  After all, it had remained in the article for almost a year, until someone removed it a week or two ago without explanation or even edit summary, and now we seem to be getting so worked up about it.  I don't know who the Narbada Man is, but if it is something unearthed in an archeological dig, then it is not historical (ie. not in recorded history).  The Buddha is an integral part of the history of India, not just of its religions.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The Narmada Man may instead be just a Narmada hominid, but anyway is most definitely pre historic.
 * Egypt: "The earliest known evidence of Egyptian hieroglyphic inscriptions appeared during the predynastic period on Naqada III pottery vessels, dated to about 3200 BC."
 * Iran: "The emergence of written records from around 3000 BC also parallels Mesopotamian history."
 * China: "The first Chinese dynasty that left historical records, the loosely feudal Shang (Yin), settled along the Yellow River in eastern China from the 17th to the 11th century BC."
 * Japan: "The Japanese first appear in written history in the Chinese Book of Han."
 * None of these mentions a first historical figure. But perhaps Gautama B. is far more important to literacy in India than any one person is to literacy in any of the civilizations I've listed immediately above. -- Hoary (talk) 13:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, India's first script, Brahmi, was used in the Edicts of Ashoka. These, India's first inscriptions,  in the main, transmitted Buddhist precepts, and provided the first tangible evidence of Buddhism.   However, the Pali canon, which told the life story of the Buddha, was orally transmitted for a few centuries before that.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * PS It's a little trickier for India. Although no script was used until the third century BCE, India had in place for at least a millennium before that a tradition of oral transmission of great fidelity.  The early Hindu religious texts, such as the Vedas, were all orally transmitted, and their system of recitation was so rigorous that to this day the oldest text, the Rig Veda, has no variant readings.  In other words, the lack of a script was not the reason for a lack of historical data.  It is more that Indian culture did not have a predilection for history, preferring a rich mythology and religious speculation instead.  I'll have to think more about this.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * (I was kidding about the Narmada Man!) It just seems to me that the start of recorded history is much more interesting (and more definitive) than the first historical figure. So that's what we should say. --regentspark (comment) 21:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

A notoriously ahistorical culture such as ancient India's did not suddenly start recording history definitively and for all time. It happened in fits and starts, often aided by the visits of observant foreigners. Even after the edicts of Ashoka had been scattered along the length and breadth of the sub-continent, there was a gap of some 200 years in which little was recorded, and about which little is known. The first records in India were inextricably tied with the life of Buddha (as observed above in the quote of Burton Stein above). Later, the first scripts in India (and southeast Asia) were all derived from Brahmi and were all tied to the spread of Buddhism. So, simply saying "the onset of recorded history" is meaningless in the Indian context; some mention of the Buddha and Buddhism is needed in it. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  02:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * One possibility would be to say: "Buddhism, based on the teachings of Gautama Buddha, the chronicling of whose life is also central to the beginnings beginning of recorded recording history in India, attracted followers from all social classes excepting the middle class;" Alternatively, if this is too convoluted, we could break it up: "Buddhism, based on the teachings of Gautama Buddha attracted followers from all social classes excepting the middle class; the chronicling of the life of the Buddha is central to the beginnings beginning of recorded recording history in India."  (Note: we need "class" after "middle.")  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * PS The added bit could be cited to Stein and Arnold, p. 21, quoted above.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Surely it makes more sense, it would be more apt to say that the chronicling of the life of the Buddha is central to the beginnings of recorded history in India than saying that Buddha was the first historical figure.Thanks --sarvajna (talk) 03:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * RK, unless I'm mistaken, fowler has willingly moved away from the 'first historical figure' (see his suggestions immediately above yours). Let's focus on crafting the alternative text. Fowler, I like Buddhism, based on the teachings of Gautama Buddha, the chronicling of whose life is also central to the beginnings recorded history in India[add stein cite], attracted followers from all social classes excepting the middle class;. I think it works fine and is not too cumbersome. Though I like your rendering better, an alternative would be to break it up as follows: Buddhism, based on the teachings of Gautama Buddha attracted followers from all social classes excepting the middle,[29][31] and the chronicling of the life of Buddha is central to the beginnings of recorded history in India.[stein cite] Jainism came into prominence around the same time during the life of its exemplar, Mahavira.[32] --regentspark (comment) 14:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * yes I got it, when I said that it makes sense I was referring to Fowlers suggestions. I personally feel the alternative ...and the chronicling of the life of Buddha is central to the beginnings of recorded history in India.. is good. Thanks --sarvajna (talk) 19:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Discuss, or be frozen (maybe with a few blocks to boot)
00:48: Comment above: Will be back later with a proposal.

05:30: No conspicuous presentation of any proposal, but the same editor reintroduces India's first historical figure as a description of Gautama B, with the edit summary: ''You're new to this page. I'm afraid that is how we have functioned here. Best not to play this game with me. Widely used texts have been vetted for balance.''

I too am new to this page (though not to Wikipedia). I'm in no mood to play games. The previous "functioning" of this article is of little interest to me. What do interest me are Wikipedia policies. These include, but are not limited to, verifiability and a prohibition of multiple reversions.

Now, what needs to be said, and what reliable evidence do you have for saying it? Present here, discuss here. If on the other hand there's more silly nonsense in the article itself, I'll be inclined to protect it until people here have come to their senses. And maybe do some blocking as well (after all, at least one 3RR block could already be warranted). -- Hoary (talk) 05:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Have undone my last revert.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  06:49, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'm also happy to note the continuation above of a civil discussion on what best to say. -- Hoary (talk) 06:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposal
Based on the inputs of RK, RP, and Hoary, I am proposing that we go with the following sentence: ""Buddhism, based on the teachings of Gautama Buddha attracted followers from all social classes excepting the middle class; chronicling the life of the Buddha was central to the beginnings of recorded history in India." The added bit will be cited to Stein-Arnold (p. 21, see bibliography upstairs).  The other citations will remain the same.  Please respond below.    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks good for me. Thanks sarvajna (talk) 04:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * and me. --regentspark (comment) 08:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Same. Support Fowler's proposal. Saravask 17:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Map
the wrong map of India is shown here. they are said as claimed and uncontrolled, while it is not only claimed but also controlled. and by the way Pakistan has achieved their wrong means by spreading fake maps all over the world, and control? what has Pakistan done worthy of showing that they have control? only spread a bunch of fake maps. the region was supposedly won over by Pakistan in 1984, but it was not a war or dispute, it was a group of terrorists who had illegally entered the country and made it their home, they were followed by the Pakistani army, and there wasn't even a war. at all places, in Wikipedia a wrong map of India, giving away half of Kashmir to Pakistan, and another strip to china, and a line is drawn saying it is Chinese and Pakistani territory claimed by India, and the same for Arunachal Pradesh.all these articles are protected. Why? why is Wikipedia so intent to tarnish the reputation of itself in the heart of a billion people? if it doesn't have proper maps, then I am ready to supply, but this misinformation shouldn't be conveyed, and worse of all protected, Mr. jimmy wales, answer to this and rectify your error or defend yourself, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shashwatpkumar (talk • contribs) 11:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Please read the FAQ upstairs. I have removed your private email.  This is neither a chat room, nor the fishing grounds of an advocacy group.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

It is a democracy, lets vote for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igodspeed (talk • contribs) 06:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Name in native script
I have a question similar to the one I asked at Talk:Mumbai: Why isn't the country's native name rendered in any native script?

The source of the article says:  I couldn't find anything like a consensus at WP:IN. If there was a clear consensus, there should be a clearer link to it.

The FAQ on the top of this talk page says: "Q: Why is Bhārat Gaṇarājya not rendered in Devanagari script? A: See this discussion. That discussions, if printed, will take about 20 pages. That's a lot. I tried to skim through it and couldn't find anything that looks like an answer. Maybe there is one, but it's very hard to find. Can anybody write a convincing summary of it? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 13:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * How much are you paying :) Simple answer, there is no single "native script" in India. --regentspark (comment) 13:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, so the reader just gets nothing? For all the countries the native name is written at the top.
 * How about doing it like in the article Soviet Union? That country had at least four official scripts: Latin, Armenian, Georgian and many different variants of Cyrillic. That article gives the name in Russian, which is the main language, in the Latin transliteration of the Russian name, and most importantly - links to an article about other names. It makes perfect sense here to link to Names of India from the top of the template. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 13:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * With due respect Amire80, the consensus is "no native scripts" and, while I empathize with your need for order, I really don't think we need to keep revisiting this issue every time a new editor appears on the scene. If I may, I suggest you respect both that consensus as well as the time and effort that we have all put into reaching that consensus, and we can all focus on other things. Regards, --regentspark (comment) 14:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess that I wasn't clear. I didn't suggest adding a native script. I suggested adding a link to Names of India. Is there a problem with it? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 14:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the misunderstanding. I'm not sure Names of India would work because, unlike in the Soviet case (which is a mere listing of official names), that article is a discussion of the history of the names of India. An infobox should contain factual data rather than links to nuanced discussion.--regentspark (comment) 14:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This is similar to the Soviet case. However, I can already see the word "official" in the title causing problems. Not to mention other problems with that list (for e.g., Punjabi uses multiple scripts). Leave well alone is, imo, a good maxim in this case. --regentspark (comment) 14:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, no, to leave it alone is not a good solution, because people expect to find a name in this article, and this article doesn't give anything. People can, of course, scroll down to the "Etymology" section, but that makes it too different from other country articles. I agree that India is a unique case of a country that uses more scripts than any other, but something is still needed, because the way it is now, a reader can well think that its only script is Latin.
 * That's precisely why a link to another article is a good solution. It clearly tells the reader "hey, there's more to it".
 * If the world "official" in the title of that article causes problems, then these problems need solutions. Not having a name of India at the top of these article is a problem, too. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 15:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure. Go ahead and create an article on names of India in various scripts. Be sure not to confuse language and script. Don't forget that, if using Hindustani, you need to render it in Nastaliq as well as devanagari. And, with lanuages like Punjabi, you'll need Gurmukhi, devnagri and nastaliq at a minimum (not sure what to do with Western Pahari languages?). And, remember to add sources (some of the names in the article I link above are dubious at best).  If you can come up with a good, well documented and well sourced, and non-contentious list, I, for one, will support your linking it from the infobox. --regentspark (comment) 15:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you point out any actual problems with Names of the Republic of India in its official languages except the title, which I proposed to change? (See its talk page.) --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 16:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure. None of the 'names' are sourced. The article confuses languages with scripts. I tell you what. Since you seem to think this is a problem (why it is necessary for English speakers to see a bunch of squiggles is beyond me but whatever), why don't you create a list that contains a rendering of "India" and "Bharat Ganarajya" in every Indian script. That way we neither have to source the names nor have to worry about the language script dichotomy. There must be a list of Indian scripts out there and, given that you want to do this, I assume you're familiar with them. --regentspark (comment) 16:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * sure I can prepare a list that contains a rendering of "India" and "Bharat Ganarajya" in the languages(oops squiggles as per RP) considered official under eighth schedule. --sarvajna (talk) 10:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Already present in Etymology section.<font color="#FF9933">इति इतिUAनेति नेति <font color="#FF9933"> Humour Thisthat2011 13:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not in native scripts, and it should at the top, as it is with articles about other countries.
 * regentspark's remark is correct: I thought that finding references for the names would be easy, but it proved to be trickier than I thought. Fair enough, I'll work on it. I like the challenge :) --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 20:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Historically, the annulment of marriage in India
Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: The historical verdict in India. For the first time, one girl, Laxmi Sargara from Jodhpur, the court to annul her marriage. When Laxmi was only one year, her parents "married" her for a three year old boy. The phenomenon of child marriage in India is formally illegal, but many areas are still practiced. That encrease the importance of this decisions of Indian courts.78.2.93.78 (talk) 17:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Foreign relations
Affiliations Neo656 (talk) 05:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)neo656

Edit request on 21 May 2012

 * languages=none

Maulikbharat2 (talk) 10:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * languages=Hindi

Maulikbharat2 (talk) 10:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Not done because of this. Nev1 (talk) 15:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Minor problem with National symbols of India.
The nationals symbols of India in this article is listed as a table with no border. Also, It does not have a distinguishing color. Is that actually intended?→ V ani s che nu TM 09:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Why this phrase in the lead section
My issue is with the following phrase: "..whereas Zoroastrianism, Christianity, and Islam arrived in the 1st millennium CE and also helped shape the region's diverse culture." While mentioning the religions born in India is understandable, why would an encyclopedia article have such a phrase so weasel and aimless that it says "also helped shape the culture". I just looked around about some articles to see how they have mentioned non-indigenous religions that have impacted its culture. Neither United States nor United Kingdom articles mention "Christianity" in the lead section. Without a tinge of doubt, the influence of Christianity on both of these countries are more profound than the influence of Zoroastrianism, Christianity, or Islam on India. So i request we remove that phrase and stick with just mentioning indigenous religions in the lead section. Thanks 117.214.20.149 (talk) 09:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Neither the US nor the UK is as religiously diverse as India and neither country's Wikipedia page is a featured article. However, the FA Indonesia, about a country equally diverse, does mention three religions, none of which is indigenous.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Why this article is read-only?
Too god to be improved?--Sunil of India (talk) 00:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This page is of high quality, but all autoconfirmed editors, registered with minor experience, can edit it. The limited protection it has maintains some article stability. CMD (talk) 01:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Source Reliability
May someone confirm, Is this source reliable to claim "India has the world's largest Hindu, Sikh, Jain, population" in Demographics section. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 23:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Foreign Policy is a reliable source. It is published by the Washington Post. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  01:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Why this article is read-only?
Too god to be improved?--Sunil of India (talk) 00:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This page is of high quality, but all autoconfirmed editors, registered with minor experience, can edit it. The limited protection it has maintains some article stability. CMD (talk) 01:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Source Reliability
May someone confirm, Is this source reliable to claim "India has the world's largest Hindu, Sikh, Jain, population" in Demographics section. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 23:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Foreign Policy is a reliable source. It is published by the Washington Post. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  01:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 May 2012
I would request an edit request. I would request that the term "mythology" is removed when referring to Hindu scriptures or text. I appreciate your assistance in allowing me to update/make this change.

Thank you

Sharma103 (talk) 16:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Sharma103 (talk) 16:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not done. The term mythology is well sourced. You need to provide reliable sources that attest to the historical accuracy of the material in various Hindu scriptures and texts. Thanks. --regentspark (comment) 17:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 May 2012
<!national language=HINDI>

Iravi9 (talk) 17:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not done. See the archives for various discussions on this. Thanks. --regentspark (comment) 17:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Why this article is read-only?
Too god to be improved?--Sunil of India (talk) 00:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This page is of high quality, but all autoconfirmed editors, registered with minor experience, can edit it. The limited protection it has maintains some article stability. CMD (talk) 01:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Source Reliability
May someone confirm, Is this source reliable to claim "India has the world's largest Hindu, Sikh, Jain, population" in Demographics section. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 23:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Foreign Policy is a reliable source. It is published by the Washington Post. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  01:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 May 2012
I would request an edit request. I would request that the term "mythology" is removed when referring to Hindu scriptures or text. I appreciate your assistance in allowing me to update/make this change.

Thank you

Sharma103 (talk) 16:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Sharma103 (talk) 16:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not done. The term mythology is well sourced. You need to provide reliable sources that attest to the historical accuracy of the material in various Hindu scriptures and texts. Thanks. --regentspark (comment) 17:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 May 2012
<!national language=HINDI>

Iravi9 (talk) 17:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not done. See the archives for various discussions on this. Thanks. --regentspark (comment) 17:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Added sentence based on talk page consensus
I'm sorry this page accidentally went off my watchlist and I forgot about the consensus reached in the archived section: Talk:India/Archive_36 and discussed in the sections immediately before that. I have now added the consensus wording on Buddhism and the beginnings of recorded history in India. Regards, Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

"Four of the world's major religions—Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism"
I have deepest respect and sympathy for the Jains and Sikhs and their culture and customs, but I am not sure if we should refer to them as being among the world's "major religions". 134.155.36.48 (talk) 20:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Hummmm if you think Sikhism is not a major religion then you might need to recheck few facts UK's official second language is PUNJABI 6% people in America are Punjabi 9% people in Australia are Punjabi 12% in Italy are Punjabi Punjab is the worlds largest agriculture Producing state(are wise) and to achieve that Sikhism is the worlds youngest religion its only about 400 years  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamaljits.77 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

A line on Medieval history
I added a line on Medieval History, beginning of sixteenth century role of local warriors, the Afghan Suri kings and their adviser, Chief of Army and Prime Minister, the Hindu king 'Hemu' (Hem Chandra Vikramaditya) who later acceeded to the throne of Delhi defeating Akbar's army at Agra and Delhi, but it is removed. Local Afghan rulers and Hindu king together had a rule of 16 years from 1540 to 1556 in North India after Sher Shah Suri defeated Mughal king Humanyun in battle of Chausa and forced him to flee to Kabul. It was only in 1556 that Mughals could recapture Delhi and North India when 'Hemu' the last Hindu emperor of India was defeated and killed in the 'Second battle of Panipat' by Akbar's army. This 16 years period was an important period of India's history and a line on it should be placed on the page. Sudhirkbhargava (talk) 11:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I feel that it can be added with a bit a generalization to suite the section and with good references sarvajna (talk) 14:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is necessary. An interruption in any Empire is a fairly trivial historical event and is best included, assuming it can be properly sourced, in an article on that empire. --regentspark (comment) 14:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with RegentsPark.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If we look at the section it says In the early 16th century, northern India, being then under mainly Muslim rulers, fell again to the superior mobility and firepower of a new generation of Central Asian warriors not mentioning much about Hemu or related events. We need not make it trivial by mentioning every detail but a sentence can be written sarvajna (talk) 15:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Kind of pointless RK. We'd have to say something like "except for a brief period when a Hindu ruler jointly ruled with a Muslim one", which is an inane sort of statement. All this assuming that good references can be found. --regentspark (comment) 16:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * RK, The text is talking about Muslim rulers in India just before the invasion of Babur in the early 16th century. Hemu came much later and is irrelevant to the point of the sentence.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Text says in the beginning of sixteenth century, If we analyse the period Mughal ruler Babur invaded and won Panipat war in 1526, could rule portions of north India before he was defeated by the local Afghan king Sher Shah Suri in 1540 whose period was considered native.Then from 1540 to 1556, North India was under local Afghan kings and Hindu king Hemu who had the support of all Hindu kings also. In 1556, the Mughal king Akbar defeated Hemu in second battle of Panipat and established Mughal rule in North India. So Mughal rule should be counted from 1556 and not from the beginningof 16th century. Moreover, the line I have added talks of two native Indian kings who deserve mentions in their country's page. I hope you are understanding the difference between Mughal invaders and Muslim rulers. Afghans Muslim rulers were considered natives while Mughals were considered invaders. I think the line added on native king is approprite.117.198.128.16 (talk) 03:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If you're looking to peddle garbage about natives and invaders based on your own WP:OR, start a blog that no one but you will read. Mughal rule was established in 1526 according to all scholarly sources.  There is no consensus here for these marginal views.  End of story.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

......My intention of describing and differentiating various terms is to put facts and background of sixteenth century beginning political situation. I have given mathamatical figures to justify my point that Hemu and Afghans played an important role in librating India in the beginning of sixteenth century. And that is the reason a line about them should be put on the page India. I wonder why you should call facts as garbage.117.198.121.155 (talk) 04:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well let's see. Humayun ruled from Delhi until 1540.  Sher Shah Suri ruled in his place from 1540 until 1555, when he died, and Humayun returned as Mughal emperor.  Humayun died a year later, on January 24, 1556, slipping on the steps of his library in Delhi.  The 13-year old Akbar was made Mughal ruler on February 14, 1556, but was away in Lahore.  Hemu who was the prime minister of a successor of Sher Shah Suri somewhere in the east decided to conquer Delhi and made his way west and crowned himself at Purana Qila, Delhi on October 7, 1556, and according to the Battle for Delhi page, "established Hindu rule in North India, after 350 years of Muslim rule, and was bestowed the title of Samrat Hem Chandra Vikramaditya." Soon Akbar returned to North India.  Hemu met Akbar in the Second Battle of Panipat on November 5, 1556, and lost.  At the prompting of Behram Khan, Akbar's loco parentis, Hemu was beheaded by the 13-year old Akbar.  That was the end of Hemu.  Assuming that Hemu was in fact Badshah of all Hindustan during the interim, which clearly was not the case, how long did he rule?  From October 7 to November 5?  A total of 28 days  When we haven't mentioned the great Mughal emperors Babur, Humayun, Jahangir, Shahjahan, Aurengzeb by name in the briefer-than-brief Mughal paragraph, why should we be mentioning some pipsqueak sidekick of an eastern Afghan successor of Sher Shah, who claimed to have ruled from Delhi for 28 days, and whose behind got whupped by a 13-year old?  Just because he was Hindu?  Not going to happen.  Stop wasting our time.    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  06:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

..Well ! Facts are different. Hemu's behind was not whupped by 13 year old Akbar as you claim, as Akbar did not come to the battle field in Panipat at all and stayed 8 miles away in a camp fully protected. However, after the war, almost dead Hemu was captured in battle field and presented before Akbar (described as divine on this page) at his camp who formally beheaded him to earn the title of Ghazi. This is also true that Hemu, who was associated with Afghans since 1540, had won 22 battles from Punjab to Bengal in between 1553-56 and was defacto king as per Abul Fazal's version in 'Akbarnama', and accedeed to Delhi throne independently on 7th Oct. 1556 after defeating Akbar's forces at Agra and Delhi. So his importance. You rightly say there is paucity of space and many kings do not find space here. I thought 16 years of rule could be mentioned. You are a better judge.117.198.121.155 (talk) 07:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the 16-year rule was Sher Shah Suri's, not Hemu's, and even that is not mentioned. Hemu, the prime minister of Sher Shah's younger brother, Mohammad Adil Shah, is too inconsequential to be mentioned in this page's history section.  You can add your edits to the Hemu page.  Regards,    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  08:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 June 2012
In Subdivisions map, There is Indian map with Title - A clickable map of the 28 states and 7 union territories of India. Parts of Indian territories have been categarized as "Chinese territory claimed by India" & "Pakistani territory claimed by India" As an Indian it offends me this disputed territories have shown as part of other/foreign country. I truely believe that these territories are integral part of India. Kindly correct it to "Disputed Foreign territory (India & China)" & "Disputed Foreign territory (India & Pakistan)"

Shekhar9k (talk) 18:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Declined - sorry you are offended but the map reflects the real world and clearly shows that these are disputed territories but are currently part of China and Pakistan. The same logic applies to Indian territory claimed by others which are shown as Indian territory claimed by x' MilborneOne (talk) 19:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

India also known as Bharat
Why doesn't the lead of this article state that Bharat is an official English name of India? For evidence I have provided this reference from the Indian Government. MadWrites (talk) 14:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * A bit weak as a proof. Bharat is never used as an English name for India. Bharat is the Hindu name.--Wester (talk) 16:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Bharat is not a Hindu name its the Hindi Name, its mentioned in the brackets in the very first line itself along with Republic of India --sarvajna (talk) 19:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I meant Hindi off course. ;) --Wester (talk) 20:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Establishment/Formation
The info-box should have an Establishment/Formation section, not merely an 'Independence' section.

The British occupation and end thereof are a miniscule portion of the history of India. 'Independence' from the British and Islamic occupations are signposts not beginnings or ends in themselves.

India as an entity has been in existence for thousands of years. It seems silly for this page to subscribe to the nonsensical notion that India is a recent construct or that it came into existence at the end of the British occupation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.143.115.163 (talk) 05:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * This article is about the modern country of India and as such didnt exist before 1947. MilborneOne (talk) 11:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

If it is about the 'modern country of India' then why is there a History section that mentions 'Ancient India' and 'Medieval India'? By your logic there shouldn't be a single shred of information about anything that happened before the end of the British occupation. Governing systems, dispensations and even geography may change but the page is about the cultural and geographic entity that has been known as India for millennia. [Side note: I find it amusing that an Englishman is the presiding judge deciding on matters concerning the India page.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.143.116.232 (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, if this page is solely about the 'Republic of India' then there cannot logically be a mention of 'independence', because it was not the present republic that gained said independence. If we are confining ourselves to the republic then surely we must state that it came into being (once again we must use the word formation) on August 15th 1947. Sticking to the logic of this page the entity that gained independence was not the current republic but that thing which preceded it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.143.116.232 (talk) 18:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Nothing wrong with having information about the history before independence to put everything in context. But the present "India" in this article didnt exist before 1947 which was larger and different hence the information to put it all in context. MilborneOne (talk) 18:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Was the People's Republic of China established in 221 BCE? Was the current Federal Republic of Germany formed in 962 CE? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.143.116.232 (talk) 18:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Like I said earlier geography and dispensations may vary but the entity in question remains unchanged. The present 'Germany' in the article on that country didn't exist in 962 did it? The India before 1947 may have been larger or smaller but it wasn't different and that is the point. This is clearly a serious matter that calls for a serious discussion and a re-think on the very nature of the India page. I think we need some higher level people involved here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.143.116.232 (talk) 18:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Higher level? I think you will find eveybody is at the same level. And please dont make comments about other editors it doesnt help. Not sure why you think it is serious we have a large number of articles on the history of india and this one is about the current country called "India" it has sibling articles about other bits of what was also called India like the British Raj. Nobody is saying that the Republic of India doesnt share a common path back in time with other bits of the Indian subcontinent but this article is about the Union and the Republic of India. You are welcome to make a formal proposal for others to comment but you need to define exactly what you want to add to the infobox. MilborneOne (talk) 19:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't threatening to go over your head on anything. I just meant if this is a change that you are not authorized to perform then a higher-level editor might be called for. I would like more people joining in on this that is all. As for making myself clearer on what I want, I would request you to peruse some of the other country pages, the China and Germany ones that I mentioned for instance. It is simple fact that the 'current' Germany was not formed in 962 CE but that is what the infobox says. It is simple fact that the current China was not formed in 221 BCE but that is what the infobox says. I am sure those countries also have separate 'History of' pages - that is not the issue at hand. The point is that India, China, Germany, Russia (formed in 862 apparently) have all been in existence in one form or another for eons. The current form of these countries is just that, the current form, of entites, be they geographic, cultural, and/or ethnic that go back a long way. What a country page should do is form a thread backwards starting with the current entity, It should not regard the current entity as a standalone. Moreover what I am calling for is uniformity and the application of similar standards across all country pages. 114.143.116.232 (talk) 19:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've commented on the DRN you filed but will elaborate here.
 * The problem is not with this page but the other pages. Those are wrong years by your argument and I encourage you to be WP:BOLD to update/change the dates of years where the political entity formed.Curb Chain (talk) 20:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I am not arguing that those dates are wrong. Of course there can be different points of view on what constituted the beginning of a nation but those dates for are more in keeping with the spirit of what I am saying. Which is that these current entities are merely the latest form of nations that have been around in one form or another for a long time. For India it might be worth considering the time of Ashoka as some sort of establishment date. Albeit that too will surely be contested with some saying it should be earlier. If for example it is decided to use 265 BCE (the Maurya Empire at its peak under Ashoka) as the date when the India that we recognize today truly came into being, then that would be the first date in the infobox and the significant subsequent periods could be mentioned under it, such as the Kushan Empire which followed the Maurya Empire, or the various Islamic ocupations, or the Maratha Empire, or the Sikh Empire, or the Company occupation, or the British occupation, etc. 114.143.116.232 (talk) 04:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * User 114.143.116.232, I couldn't help noticing that you filed a case at WP:DRN but have not returned to join the discussion or respond to the advice given there. Would you like me to close the case? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why people keep repeating the 1947 date. That the British occupation ended on that date is simple fact beyond dispute. That is not what I am arguing about. I thought I was fairly clear on what I was trying to convey, which is that 1947 does not mark the beginning of the entity known as India. As for the specific point of this article referring to the 'political entity', that is precisely why I have drawn everyone's attention to other country pages, which even though are also about current 'political entities' use ancient dates for establishment/formation. I would like to put forward the date of 265 BCE as my contribution for a possible 'first date' in the infobox. 114.143.119.26 (talk) 06:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And do you have a RS saying that India was established in 265 BCE? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 08:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

We could use the same source(s) that establishes the extent of Ashoka's empire in the year 265 BCE. I don't think there is any doubt that Ashoka's Empire covered all of India at that time is there? 114.143.119.26 (talk) 15:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Kievan Rus' was a lot smaller than modern Russia. The Holy Roman Empire was a lot larger than modern Germany. Yet anyone with the slightest knowledge and understanding of history will recognize that those two entities were precursors to modern day Russia and Germany respectively. The area that is today Pakistan (and Bangladesh) has always been a part of India. Even the Mughal occupation at its peak did not cover the southern tip of India. The notion that Ashoka's India does not qualify as India because it included present-day Pakistan is ludicrous. I have already covered the greater/lesser argument. The logic of what I am saying should be abundantly clear to any unbiased listener. It is fairly evident that what we have here is merely good old-fashioned India hatred. I believe I have sufficiently made my point. I will not press this matter any further. This issue can now be considered closed. 114.143.119.26 (talk) 04:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by Fowler&fowler (Since this IP is forum shopping, I have to post here as well.) This is a non-issue, mischief created and garbage dumped by an IP, who clearly doesn't have the courage to get a Wikipedia account and be responsible for his actions.  As a long-standing contributor to the India page (since 2006), I can say without hesitation, that the Republic of India, the subject of the India page, was established in 1950 after India gained independence in 1947.  There are all sorts of archaic and irredentist notions of "India."  Hindu nationalists in particular, with their notions of  Akhand Bharat ("Undivided India"), not only claim a provenance for their entity that even predates the beginning of recorded history in India, but also typically include many of India's current day neighbors in it.  As for Ashoka, the India page's ancient history section says, "The (Mauryan) empire was once thought to have controlled most of the subcontinent excepting the far south, but its core regions are now thought to have been separated by large autonomous areas." So there you have it, all impeccably sourced.  What is ludicrous is that you think that a region controlled by a king, whose name was not even known to Indians until James Prinsep deciphered the Brahmi script, and who ruled some 2,300 years ago, when it took days if not months to even communicate between different regions, would have something like a modern nation state just because his edicts are found in disparate places.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  05:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Just like the IP user said if we look at the articles of other country we find different dates of formation, the examples of Russia and Germany are given above, if you just check the page of Chandragupta Maurya it says He succeeded in conquering all most of the Indian subcontinent and is considered the first unifier of India as well as its first genuine emperor so what is wrong in mentioning that the entity called India was formed during Chandragupta Maurya or Ashoka, if this is just about Republic of India something that came into existence after 1947 why should we have a section called medival history or history about Moghals? --sarvajna (talk) 05:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Why don't you compare India to other former colonies, which Germany and Russia are not? Most former colonies have dates of independence (or of constitutional separation from the metropolitan country) in their infoboxes, not vague estimates of reigns of ancient civilizations within their current-day boundaries.  These include Canada, Australia, United States, Mexico (no mention there of the Mayas), Peru (no mention of the Incas), Cuba, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Angola, Mozambique, South Africa, Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya, Tanzania, Morocco, Chad, Algeria, ... Like I said, the Mauryan empire has large autonomous areas over which the Mauryan had little control.  It is ludicrous to compare it with a modern or even medieval nation-state.  You want to go quibble with the Germany or Russia page, be my guest, but please don't waste our time here, Mr. Kulkarni.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  07:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Fowler you have an option, if you feel its waste of time, stop being part of the discussion. No one has forced you. Coming to your comment, the Independence of US and its establishment were almost at the same time (I am considering the time it took for expansion also). It’s the same with Canada, Australia, they do not have a history like that of India, and none of these countries were ever ruled by a single entity before. You cannot compare Maya and Maurya, no Kingdoms of Maya civilization ever ruled over the land mass that is now called as Mexico. You are right about Peru and I checked for Indonesia as well. But on what basis can we mention Buddha or Moghals or Maurya as part of Indian history when it was not India at all.sarvajna (talk) 08:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * But then how do you come up with this 265 BCE date? The 16 Mahajanapadas of 600 BCE represent ancient India. Bharata (emperor) was a legendary emperor of India. When was he born? There are so many ancient happening that are related to India. Sarvajna, lets have a clear view of what you exactly want here. I assume you don't want to remove Independence and Republic dates from infobox; but you want to introduce a "formation date". If you can find reliable sources that say that India was founded in 265 BCE and if you can defy all the other references of other events before this date which also claim to be Indian, we can discuss that. Untill you can do these both things you know that no assumed dates will be added on the article. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Animesh, it was not me, some IP user who came up with 265BCE. Bharata is not considered as a historic figure by many people, you are correct I don't want to remove Independence and Republic dates from infobox, just like I mention above Chandragupta Maurya is considered first emperor of unified India, why cant we have a date from Chandragupta Maurya's period as the formation date?I will try to reply further message if I don't travel out of Bengaluru in sometime :-)  --sarvajna (talk) 09:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Mr. R. Kulkarni, a Wikipedia talk page discussion is meant to be relevant and cogent. You can't wax on randomly here and then blame the other participants when thy object.  As for your statement about the Maya, read Maya_civilization.  See what I mean?  You are talking without control, rigor, or clarity.  This is the end of the discussion for me.  You can, of course, go on posting your random asides, such as the one on the geographical extent of the Maya civilization.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  09:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Fowler please read Maya_civilization again, maya civilization never extended to the whole of present day mexico (I am sorry that I did not mention "present day mexio" before, I thought you will understand).sarvajna (talk) 10:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * @Sarvajna: You see, the IP says Ashoka should be considered as founder of India. You say that Chandragupta should be considered one. These are your both's considerations. Just for time-being I would like to put that Mahajanapada of 600 BCE was the foundation of India. (If you come up with something thats even before that, i am gonna comeup with something even before that. Thus only proving that these are all assumptions and hence cant work.) §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk)  09:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * @Animesh I cannot help if you want to comeup with something else just to counter my argument. You can find relable sources which consider Chandragupta Maurya as the first emperor of unified India. Thanks --sarvajna (talk) 10:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

RK, the point is that we would need a reliable source that states that India was established in whatever year and then it becomes a point worth discussing. It's not for us to become arbiters on history by discussing amongst ourselves. That said, I don't think that India is like the uni-ethnic Germany at all. India is a multi-ethnic society with many nations and overlapping histories and is more akin to Europe than it is to any single European nation. --regentspark (comment) 11:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

That fowler is heavily biased is fairly clear. An earlier participant had asked me what I believed should be the first date in the infobox and I had merely offered 265 BCE as my suggestion. I was not claiming it to be final in any way. It just seems like a strong candidate. If you take a look at one of my earlier comments you will see that I had guessed that others might offer even earlier dates. All I wanted was a discussion and for uniformity in the infoboxes of various countries. Fowler's warped logic seems to be that because India was under British occupation for 190 or 90 years depending on how one views the situation, it was a colony, and therefore a 'lesser' country than a Germany or a Russia which were never colonies. That is the core of his argument. It is risible, crude and not worth entertaining. Those genuinely interested in this matter should carry-on this debate about what would make a good first date in the infobox. A good way to start would be to look at other country pages and get a sense of the logic of my argument. 114.143.119.26 (talk) 11:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * A good way to start would be you coming up with a date backed with reliable sources. We aren't shopping for a wedding gown here to keep trying all and then agree on one. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 11:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I am trying to figure out if you are genuinely interested in the discussion or simply want to annoy all concerned. Can you not see that I have mentioned the date 265 BCE half a dozen times. As for the source for that date we could use the same source(s) that establishes beyond dispute the extent of Ashoka's Empire at its peak. 114.143.119.26 (talk) 12:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)