Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-06-10 India

Mediators opening remarks
Mediation can be a way to improve our skills in collaborative authoring and enrich our time here on WP. If we succeed at this, WP will be the better for it.

Would each of you be able to begin with an opening statement? I will suggest some groundrules for our discussions.

Suggested groundrules for this mediation
The following have proved useful in past mediations:
 * be brief:
 * use “I” messages (I think, I feel…)
 * avoid criticism (“you” messages);
 * when responding to another participant, speak directly to them. It is a good idea to paraphrase what they have just said to show that you have understood them;
 * Use diffs, where they would be useful to support statements;
 * follow WP behavioural policies, especially WP:CIV, WP:NPA and WP:CON.
 * Try to assume good faith; relax and enjoy the discussion.

Please add your opening statement below. Fowler and Fowler has established his format. You may follow this sort of format or choose your own. If you need to reach me with a question or comment, please contact me on my talk page or e-mail me. I am here most days. Sunray (talk) 06:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement of the dispute

 * From my perspective, there are two main issues:
 * 1. Should the following sentence in the India page lead paragraph: "It is the seventh largest country by geographical area, the second most populous country, and the most populous democracy in the world.'" which has been in place since October 2006 (and for over a year, during this time, as "most populous liberal democracy") be replaced by the sentence: "'It is the seventh largest country by geographical area, the second most populous country, and the largest democracy in the world (by virtue of the size of its electorate)"
 * 2. Does explicit mention of democracy in either sentence, but especially in the latter&mdash;with its emphasis on the details&mdash;properly belong to the lead paragraph (geography and population) or is it more appropriate in the third paragraph (government and economy), where, in the context of other descriptions of governance, it could be more informative?

History of the dispute
To my knowledge, the stable versions (see this version from 17 August 2005 and this version from June 13, 2006) of the India page that was put together by bureaucrat Nichalp, admins Ragib, Sundar and others, the main architects of the page's FA drive, had no mention of "democracy," in the lead, let alone the "world's largest."

Looking at the history from say, summer 2006, the "largest democracy" bit was first added by user:Holy Ganga in this edit on June 24, 2006. The edit was changed less than two weeks later to "most populous democracy," by an IP in this edit of July 5, 2006 long before I made my first edit on Wikipedia in October 2006. It stayed that way for more than a month until it was reverted to "largest democracy" by user:Raguks in this edit of August 11, 2006. (All these changes&mdash;the initial ones and the reverts&mdash;were made without concurrent discussion on the talk page.) That same day, "largest democracy" was changed to "largest liberal democracy" by bureaucrat Nichalp in this edit. On 29th September, it was again reverted to "largest democracy" by an IP in this edit.

After I started editing Wikipedia, the issue was first raised in this talk page discussion in October 2006. On 22 October, "largest democracy" was removed by user:Nixer in this edit, which was soon reverted. I myself added supportive references for "largest democracy" in this edit of October 22, 2006. A little later the same day, it was again changed by user:Nixer, this time to "most populous liberal democracy" in this edit, and, although, there was more discussion soon thereafter in  this follow-up discussion, it remained in this new form for one full year.

At the end of this year, "liberal" was again removed by someone, and it went back to "most populous democracy," for another six months, at the end of which the current dispute began in here. Incidentally, the first post in the current dispute was made by the same user:Raguks who made the first revert to "most populous democracy" in August 2006. In the two years that have elapsed since "democracy" was introduced into the lead, it has been "most populous" for approximately 1 year and 8 months and "largest" for the remaining four months.

Ambiguity in "largest"
Claim 1: My first claim is that there is some ambiguity in the modern usage "largest X," where X is a country.

In my understanding, a hundred years ago, a time when people were more aware of the Latin roots of English words, "largest country" most often meant "largest by area," whereas, for example, "largest city" meant "largest by population." The usage is buried in the words' Latin roots ("country" comes from "terra contrata" i.e. "land opposite"; whereas "city" comes from "citizens" i.e. "people"; so "largest country" meant "largest land," but "largest city" meant "largest population (among cities)"). In addition, before the advent of national censuses, "largest" (by default) would not have been associated with population (for countries). Now, however, "largest" seems to be used as a superlative applied to countries to mean both land area and population.

Thus, this New York Times article calls China the "world's largest country," whereas this Encyclopaedia Britannica article on Russia, begins its second paragraph by, "Russia is a land of superlatives. By far the world's largest country, it covers nearly twice the territory of Canada, the second largest." And these are two perfectly reliable sources!

Disambiguation
Claim 2: My second claim is that modern encyclopedias (painfully aware of this ambiguity) disambiguate by using various devices: using qualifiers, replacing "largest" by other words, or providing contextual examples.

Thus, the Britannica quote above has, "largest" occur in an appositive just before the main clause, which then provides the context, "territory" or area, in an example. Similarly, the Britannica article on India, when comparing India's population to that of other countries, says, "With roughly one-sixth of the world's total population, India is the second most populous country, after China." In other words, it uses "most populous" instead of "largest" to compare population (and provides an example as well to provide more context or information).

What about Wikipedia? The United States page disambiguates by using qualifiers, "by land area" and "by population": "third largest by land area and by population." However, with the exception of United States and Japan, the top 15 countries in Wikipedia's list of countries by population, disambiguate by reserving "largest" for area and "populous" for population. For example:
 * 1. People's Republic of China: Area: is the largest country in East Asia and the third or fourth largest country in the world. Population: With a population of over 1.3 billion, it is the most populous country in the world, or
 * 5. Brazil. Area: It is the fifth largest country by geographical area, Population: the fifth most populous country, and the fourth most populous democracy in the world. ..., or
 * 14. Mexico. Area: Covering almost 2 million square kilometers, Mexico is the fifth-largest country in the Americas by total area and the 14th largest in the world.  Population: With an estimated  population of 109 million, it is the 11th most populous country and the most populous Spanish-speaking country in the world.

Ambiguity in "largest democracy"
Claim 3: My third claim is that there is ambiguity in the collocation largest democracy as well. The claim is based on a series of sub-claims:
 * 3a: The most complete modern dictionary definitions of "democracy," (see OED definition), define democracy to be both a form of government (OED 1.) and the country so governed (OED b.). In the Google scholar search for the expression "democracies of Ancient Greece" among scholarly articles published between 1600 and 1950, there are 21 scholarly references.  Of these, only two ("unlimited democracies" and "pure democracies") use "democracy" in the sense of OED 1. above; the rest mean OED b. This suggests that if one were unaware of the precedent of the last 58 years, (and some readers are) and followed dictionary definitions alone, one could define "largest democracy" to mean (especially in light of OED b.) "the largest state or country in which power is vested in the elected representatives of the people."  That, in turn, could invite the query, "largest by what, area or population."  Examples:
 * Example 1: Thus, in the sentence (in one of the references, "The Moral Responsibility for Wars," by S. H. Allen, International Journal of Ethics, 1915: "... The little democracies of ancient Greece were quite as prone to go to war and quite as desperate fighters as their contemporaries who were ruled by tyrants," (see here), it is not at all clear whether "little" applies to population, area, or both. In other words, the answer to the question: "Does "little" apply more to a small (in area) city-state with a large population or a large (in area) city-state with a small population?" is not obvious, in my opinion.
 * Example 2: In the Google News advanced archive search, the first use of the expression "world's largest democracy" in the news media goes back to around 1940. Of the two references there, one, Press Gazette (Hillsboro, Ohio, Jan 2, 1942), uses it in the sentence: "Prime Minister Winston Churchill, leader of the world's largest democracy."  It is unclear how "largest democracy" is being used: a) as euphemism for the "allies" (the US had entered WW II less than a month before, so Churchill could still be regarded as "leader"),  b) by including the dominions of the British Empire (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, which had self-government by then) in the "democracy," and using "largest" in the sense of area, or c) by including the entire British Empire in the "democracy,"&mdash;and incorrectly including, as well, the colonies (like India, which were hardly governed democratically)&mdash;and employing "largest" in the sense of population.
 * 3b: There is evidence that the expression "world's largest democracy" is of recent vintage. Although, as we have seen above, references to the "democracies of Ancient Greece" go back to the late eighteenth century (in Google Scholar), a search for "world's largest democracy" in articles or scholarly books published between 1776 (America's independence) and 1950 (when India became a republic and had its first elections), returns only two links, both from the 1940s, and the second seems to be a false link.  In the following decades the literature grows slowly: 1951-60 = 2, 1961-70 = 18, 1971-80 = 46, and so forth
 * 3c: There is evidence that the phrase "the world's largest democracy" was an expression coined for India (or promoted for India) in the same way that the expression "leader of the free world" was coined for the US President during the cold war. As recently as the decade, 1981-90, with 67 Google scholar links, there are number of references that are qualified or in quotes: thus,
 * "... major reason why, despite her extreme socioeconomic contrasts between the haves and the have-nots, claims to be the world's largest democracy," or
 * "Phrases such as 'the world's largest democracy' roll off the tongue and, repeated too often, lose their force." or
 * "they were often quite critical of Washington's lack of support for the 'world's largest democracy', India." or
 * "In addition there were the political pressures, the electoral markets, of 'the world's largest democracy'." or
 * "Often described as the world's largest democracy, India in fact is a fledgling democracy on the order of Nigeria, the Philippines, or any of a score of Asian ..." or
 * "Citing the country as the 'world's largest democracy' the Americans hoped to establish India as a show-case for American-sponsored development ..." or
 * "Politically India counted for somewhat more, and the idea of 'the world's largest democracy' never ceased to fascinate American observers"
 * 3d There is evidence (not only the last two quotes and the Google Scholar search for 1776-1950), that admiration for (marvel at, or notice of) the size of a democracy was applied only to third world countries (and later to ex-Eastern Block countries), where parliamentary democracy was not a given and not expected to survive (and was therefore more of a miracle). Thus Google search for exact expression "world's largest democracy" (India) turns up 113,000 links; the search for exact expression "world's second largest democracy" (US) turns up 25 links; the search for exact expression "world's third largest democracy" (variously Indonesia or Brazil or ... depending on the decade) turns up 2,020 links; even the exact expression "world's fourth largest democracy" (variously Nigeria, Brazil, ... given notorious political instability) returns 30 links, which is more than that for the US.  Similarly a search for exact expression "South America's largest democracy" on Google yields 9 links, that for "Latin America's largest democracy" yields another 10 links, but "North America's largest democracy" returns just 1 link, which seems to be a Brazilian soccer chat room.  Other "regional" searches are similar: "Africa's largest democracy" returns 25 links, "Asia's largest democracy" returns 20 links, even "Eastern Europe's largest democracy" (ex-Soviet Block) returns 2 links, "Central Europe's largest democracy" (also ex-Soviet Block) returns 1 link, but Western Europe, with some of the oldest democracies (UK, France, ...), turns up nothing.
 * 3e The expression "world's largest industrial democracies," however, has nothing to do with population, but rather means democracies with the largest industrial output and is applied to the G7 or G8 countries. India is therefore nowhere to be found in the  "world's seven largest industrial democracies", and the links that use that expression are respectable ones like NY Times, Britannica, and the University of Iowa.  It's not just these links; at least, 26 scholarly articles or books listed in Google Scholar, use the expression "largest industrial democracies" in the same way.
 * 3e The expression "world's largest industrial democracies," however, has nothing to do with population, but rather means democracies with the largest industrial output and is applied to the G7 or G8 countries. India is therefore nowhere to be found in the  "world's seven largest industrial democracies", and the links that use that expression are respectable ones like NY Times, Britannica, and the University of Iowa.  It's not just these links; at least, 26 scholarly articles or books listed in Google Scholar, use the expression "largest industrial democracies" in the same way.

POV issues in "largest democracy"
Claim 4: My fourth claim is that the expression "largest democracy" has some concomitant POV-issues that are best avoided.

Although there are POV issues in any description of governance in a country as "democratic," these are amplified further when "largest democracy" is used, since (by OED 1), the phrase can have the meaning, "A: largest form of governance by the people" among all the nations of the world, or the "B: largest social state in which all have equal rights, without hereditary or arbitrary differences of rank or privilege," in addition to (OED b.) "C: the most populous of all nations that practice democracy."

Although India has had universal franchise since 1951, it has also suffered from some daunting problems that are traditionally seen as obstacles to the practice of democracy:
 * Literacy: Those who believe that unhindered availability of information is essential for democracy, and that literacy is essential to processing it (to read newspapers, news magazines, etc.) will be sobered by the following statistics: At the time of India's independence in 1947, only 12.2% of its population was literate. The literacy rate increased to "18.33 per cent in 1951 (at the time of India's first elections), to 28.30 per cent in 1961, 34.45 per cent in 1971, 43.57 per cent in 1981, 52.21 per cent in 1991, and 64.84 per cent in 2001." (See here.)  During the period 1951-2001, India's population had increased from 361 million to 1.028 billion.  That means, for example, that the number of illiterate citizens actually increased between 1951 and 2001 (even though percentage illiteracy dropped greatly).  For another example, the number of illiterate citizens in 2001 in India was greater than the entire population of the United States which is the second most populous democracy.
 * Rural electrification: Others might object to the point above about literacy and argue that formal literacy is not needed to process information, as long as information about politics, governance, etc. is available to all the citizens in some medium, say in the form of radio or television. However, they too might be sobered by the statistics that in 1947, only 1500 of India's 700,000 villages&mdash;where 85% of its population lived at that time&mdash;were electrified (see here, p. 15).  These numbers increased as follows: 3,061 in 1951 (at the time of India's first elections); 21,750 in 1961; 106,931 in 1971; 273,906 in 1981; 481,124 in 1991; and 474,982 in 2004.  In addition, the availability of electricity in a village does not mean that all households in that village are electrified: in 2001, only 40% of all rural households in India were electrified; at that time 70% of India's population was rural.  Thus, even if one assumes that all urban households in India in 2001 were electrified, it still means that over 40% of Indian households had no electricity (and therefore no easy access to radio, television etc.)
 * Rural transport: One could object to the above point as well with the argument that information in the form of newspapers, radio, television, while useful, is still not essential for democracy, as long as representatives of different political parties representing differing political viewpoints can be heard by all the citizens. However, in 1998, 50 years after India's independence over 50% of all villages in India were still not connected by any motorable road (See here], section "Animal-drawn carts.") In poorer regions, the numbers where higher (see here).  This, of course, does not mean that politicians have no way of getting to these villages (many rely on helicopters, jeeps, etc.), but it does point to the isolation of much of rural India.

The three points above don't by any means imply that the political system in India is not a democracy, (for example, villages could have native democratic traditions), but they do point to a complex picture. I am not even remotely suggesting that the "democratic" political systems in the United States, Indonesia, Brazil, etc. don't have their own imperfections, but rather that it is better to have statements that do not imply a comparison of political systems (as in statements A and B above).

Disambiguation

 * Claim 5: My fifth claim is that (although newspapers and news magazines use the expression "world's largest democracy" freely, and often perfunctorily), encyclopedias or collections that have survey/review articles on countries, either don't use the expression "world's largest democracy" or disambiguate its anomalies in some fashion.
 * Thus the Library of Congress Country Study on India says in its introduction: "The political system responsible for these gigantic successes and failures has been democratic; India has called itself "the world's largest democracy." Paradoxically, it was the autocratic rule of the British that gave birth to the rule of the people. Democratization started when a group of concerned British citizens in India and well-to-do Indian professionals gathered in Bombay in 1885 to form a political debating society, the Indian National Congress (Congress--see Glossary)."
 * Neither the Britannica article on India, nor the Encarta article on India, uses the expression "world's largest democracy," although each talks, in great detail, about India's democratic system.
 * The Student Britannica, however, in its new edition, does mention the fact, but employs a different term altogether, "world's most populous democracy." The lead paragraph of the 40-page Student Britannica article on India begins with:
 * "'About one sixth of all the human beings on Earth live in India, the world's most populous democracy. Its borders encompass a vast variety of peoples, practicing most of the world's major religions, ... '"
 * The Student Britannica uses that expression in two other places. Its article on International relations: End of empire says:
 * "'One by one, the colonies of Africa became independent nations. Old monarchies in eastern Europe and the Middle East underwent revolutions and became republics. China's revolution led to the establishment of the world's largest Communist state in 1949. India, independent from Great Britain, became the world's most populous democracy."
 * And the Student Britannica's article on Democracy has this picture with caption: "An Indian election official teaches workers at a tea plantation how to use a new electronic voting machine, in Siliguri, West Bengal State. India is the world's most populous democracy."

Awkward Neologism?
Claim 6: My sixth claim is that although "world's most populous democracy" is not as popular than "world's largest democracy," it is not an awkward new expression that is still on wobbly legs.

There is no doubt that the expression "world's largest democracy" is popular. In fact, "world's largest democracy (A)" is on average used eight times more often than "world's most populous democracy (B)" in both Google Scholar and Google News archives: Google News (A) = 4,160 and Google News (B) = 556; Google Scholar (A) = 770 and Google Scholar (B) = 95. However, "world's most populous democracy" has been used often enough, for it to be used in Wikipedia.
 * The New York Times has used the expression "most populous democracy" in many many instances
 * The Times, London, has used it  quite a few times.
 * The BBC has used it a number of times.
 * PBS has used it in its programs,
 * as has NPR.
 * Other newspapers and newsmedia (Washington Post, LA Times, Philadelphia Enquirer, International Herald Tribune, and so forth) have also used it more than just once or twice.
 * It's not a new expression either, it had been used often enough by 1977, the end of the first three decades of independent India. In the Google News (advanced search), it goes back to 1940, which is not much later than use of "largest democracy," which except for one use in The Sandusky Star Journal (Ohio) in 1920, began to be used from around 1940.  (PS The 1926 ref is to women's suffrage.)
 * Here, in compressed format, are some other reliable sources and well-known people who have used the phrase. Among the users is Sonia Gandhi, who employed it in her keynote address on the 50th anniversary of India's Election Commission:

Liberal Democracy
Claim 7: My seventh claim is that "liberal democracy" is a more precise description of India's form of government than "democracy" alone.

Since there are many forms of democracy (even "totalitarian democracy"), see box on the right, it is more precise and informative to use the expression "liberal democracy." Although poverty, illiteracy, etc. have handicapped India's democracy, the latter still meets Larry Diamond's eleven conditions for a liberal democracy.

Lead paragraph or third?
Claim 8: My eighth claim is that the first and third paragraphs in the India page lead cover different topics, and it is best to respect that division of content when adding new text.

For two years now (see this edit from June 24, 2006) the first paragraph in the lead has been primarily about geography (and secondarily about population). Later, when the third paragraph was added, the division of content (approximately) became:
 * Paragraph 1: Geography (and population).
 * Paragraph 2: History
 * Paragraph 3: Current-day India: politics, government, economy, environment, etc.

Among other country FAs, all except Belgium&mdash;in other words, Australia, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Canada, Chad, Germany, Libya, Pakistan, and Peru)&mdash;follow this tripartite division of content. While this does not mean that we absolutely cannot put in a sentence about the form of government in the first paragraph, it does suggest, in my view, that the precedent, both in the recent (two-year) history of the India page and in other FAs, suggests that the third paragraph would be better.

Consequently, I feel that while any mention of democracy in the lead is best suited for the third paragraph, if it has to be made in the first paragraph, the form "most populous liberal democracy," with its comparison of population alone (i.e. the most populous of all countries that are liberal democracies), will be more appropriate than "largest liberal democracy (by virtue of its electorate)," with its political implications discussed in Claim 4, and with its comparison of electorates, a political term more appropriate for paragraph 3.

Even more appropriate and informative would the following addition (in boldface) in paragraph 3: "'India is the world's twelfth largest economy at market exchange rates and the fourth largest in purchasing power. Economic reforms have transformed it into the second fastest growing large economy; however, it still suffers from high levels of poverty, illiteracy, and malnutrition.  In spite of these obstacles, India has remained a parliamentary liberal democracy&mdash;with universal franchise and the world's largest electorate&mdash;since its constitution came into effect in 1950.1 A pluralistic, multilingual, and multiethnic society, India is also home to a diversity of wildlife in a variety of protected habitats.'" Footnote 1: Parliamentary democracy was briefly suspended, from June 1975 to September 1977, during the premiership of Indira Gandhi.

Conclusion
I feel that the superlative "largest" (when applied to countries) has some intrinsic ambiguity (Claim 1), which is often resolved both in Wikipedia and other encyclopedias by reserving "largest" for area and "most populous" for population (Claim 2). The collocation "largest democracy" has some inherited ambiguity (Claim 3a) and is, moreover, a recently coined expression (Claims 3b, 3c), which has been used most often for third world countries (Claim 3d), and which in other combinations (such as "largest industrial democracies") has altogether different meanings (Claim 3e). In addition, "largest democracy," by implying "largest democratic system of governance," introduces POV issues that could be disputed (Claim 4). I believe that major encyclopedias either do not use the expression "largest democracy" unqualified or use another less ambiguous expression such as "most populous democracy" (for example, in the lead of the Student Encyclopaedia article on India) (Claim 5). I believe that while "largest democracy" is certainly more widely used in the media than "most populous democracy," the latter is not an awkward neologism (Claim 6). I believe that "liberal democracy" is a more accurate and informative description of India's form of governance than "democracy" alone (Claim 7) and that there is precedent in the recent history of the India page as well as that of most other country featured articles for statements about politics to be part of the third paragraph of the lead (Claim 8).

Consequently, if space is an issue (and brevity desirable), I propose the addition (in boldface):

"I1: 'It is the seventh largest country by geographical area, the second most populous country, and the most populous liberal democracy in the world." in the lead paragraph. However, if another sentence can be added, I propose not mentioning "democracy" in the lead paragraph and, instead, adding the following (in boldface) in the third paragraph: "I2: '.... Economic reforms have transformed it into the second fastest growing large economy; however, it still suffers from high levels of poverty, illiteracy, and malnutrition. In spite of these obstacles, India has remained a parliamentary liberal democracy&mdash;with universal franchise and the world's largest electorate&mdash;since its constitution came into effect in 1950.'"

Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  02:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Mediator's comments
Fowler and Fowler has done quite a bit of work here on an opening statement. I haven't yet seen anything from the others. I'm wondering whether they will check in anytime soon. Would Supreme Unmanifest and MintCond be willing to check in? Sunray (talk) 17:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have read the statement. Thank you F&f for the good work. I will prepare the statement as soon as I can. Supreme Unmanifest (talk) 18:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yawn...anybody there? KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 12:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments on presentation to date
More than enough time has elapsed since this MedCab case was opened (on June 10, 2008) for the parties to have registered an opening statement. To date, only Fowler&Fowler has done so. In essence, he argues against use of the term "largest democracy" because of its ambiguity. His presentation appears to be factual and is well sourced. He states his case in a respectful manner. The only comment by another party to the dispute was by Supreme Unmanifest, who applauded F&F's work and said he would prepare a statement. Two weeks have since passed and there has been no further input by any of the parties, other than F&F. Apparently users Supreme Unmanifest and MintCond have not edited WP during that time. Accordingly, unless responses are posted here by July 1, 2008, I intend to close this mediation. Sunray (talk) 17:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * May be those two accounts were single-purpose accounts, or socks? --Ragib (talk) 19:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggest continuing on article talk page
Fowler&fowler: Would you be willing to make a brief summary here that would be suitable to users who frequent Talk:India? For example, you might summarize claims 1, 2, 4, 5 & 7 into a brief paragraph or two. If you agree to do this, I would suggest that we then move the discussion to the article talk page and continue the discussion there. Sunray (talk) 07:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Sunray, I was away for a few days and have only just seen this. I will post a summary later today.  Regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Summary
The superlative "largest" (when applied to countries) has some intrinsic ambiguity. Two perfectly reliable sources can use it quite differently: thus, a New York Times article calls China the "world's largest country,"  whereas the Encyclopaedia Britannica article on Russia, states in its lead, "... By far the world's largest country, it covers nearly twice the territory of Canada, the second largest." The ambiguity is often resolved both in Wikipedia and other encyclopedias by reserving "largest" for area and "most populous" for population. For example, the Britannica article on India says, "With roughly one-sixth of the world's total population, India is the second most populous country, after China." Similarly, the Wikipedia article on People's Republic of China states, "... is the largest country in East Asia and the third or fourth largest country in the world. ... With a population of over 1.3 billion, it is the most populous country in the world." The collocation "largest democracy" has some of its own ambiguity (for example, "largest industrial democracies" is applied to G8 countries, and does not include India); however, it also has concomitant POV-issues that are best avoided. Although there are POV issues in any description of governance in a country as "democratic," these are further amplified when "largest democracy" is used, since, (by OED 1), the phrase can have the meaning, "A: largest form of governance by the people" among all the nations of the world, or the "B: largest social state in which all have equal rights, without hereditary or arbitrary differences of rank or privilege," in addition to (OED b.) "C: the most populous of all nations that practice democracy." In addition, the phrase "largest democracy in X" (where, X is some large region) has been applied most often to third world democracies (e.g. India, Brazil, or Indonesia) and hardly ever to Western democracies (e.g. United States), thereby introducing another POV dimension. Consequently, major encyclopedias either don't use the expression "world's largest democracy" (for example, neither the Britannica article on India, nor the  Encarta article on India, mentions "world's largest democracy," although each talks, in great detail, about India's democratic system) or disambiguate its anomalies in some fashion (for example, the 40-page Student Britannica article on India begins with: "About one sixth of all the human beings on Earth live in India, the world's most populous democracy...."). Since there are many forms of democracy (even "totalitarian democracy"), it is more informative to use the expression "liberal democracy" to describe India's form of governance. Consequently, "the most populous liberal democracy in the world" is a more accurate (and less ambiguous) description than "largest democracy." Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  11:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * PS I have removed the "I believe ..." or "I feel ..." statements; if you'd like me to put them back, please let me know.  Also, this is not exactly a brief paragraph ); if you'd like me to prune it, please let me know as well.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I like your summary. I have done some minor reformatting to try to improve readability:


 * The superlative "largest" (when applied to countries) has some intrinsic ambiguity. Two perfectly reliable sources can use it quite differently: thus, a  New York Times article calls China the "world's largest country,"  whereas the Encyclopaedia Britannica article on Russia, states in its lead, "... By far the world's largest country, it covers nearly twice the territory of Canada, the second largest."  The ambiguity is often resolved both in Wikipedia and other encyclopedias by reserving "largest" for area and "most populous" for population.  For example, the Britannica article on India says, "With roughly one-sixth of the world's total population, India is the second most populous country, after China." Similarly, the Wikipedia article on People's Republic of China states, "... is the largest country in East Asia and the third or fourth largest country in the world. ... With a population of over 1.3 billion, it is the most populous country in the world."


 * The collocation "largest democracy" is also ambiguous. For example, "largest industrial democracies" is applied to G8 countries, and does not include India; however, it also has a concomitant POV&mdash;issues that are best avoided. Although there are POV issues in any description of governance in a country as "democratic," these are further amplified when "largest democracy" is used, since, according to the OED, the phrase can have the following meanings:
 * "the largest form of governance by the people" among all the nations of the world,
 * "the largest social state in which all have equal rights, without hereditary or arbitrary differences of rank or privilege," or
 * "the most populous of all nations that practice democracy."


 * In addition, the phrase "largest democracy in X" (where, X is some large region) has been applied most often to third world democracies (e.g. India, Brazil, or Indonesia) and hardly ever to Western democracies (e.g. United States), thereby introducing another POV dimension. Consequently, major encyclopedias either don't use the expression "world's largest democracy" (for example, neither the  Britannica article on India, nor the  Encarta article on India, mentions "world's largest democracy," although each talks, in great detail, about India's democratic system) or disambiguates its anomalies in some fashion. For example, the 40-page Student Britannica article on India begins with: "About one sixth of all the human beings on Earth live in India, the world's most populous democracy....").  Since there are many forms of democracy (even "totalitarian democracy"), it is more informative to use the expression "liberal democracy" to describe India's form of governance.  Consequently, "the most populous liberal democracy in the world" is a more accurate (and less ambiguous) description than "largest democracy."


 * Please feel free to correct any errors I've made. I've not been as rigorous with the quotations from OED, but hopefully, my text does convey the same meaning. Once you have checked it over, I propose to port it over to Talk:India with a brief introduction. Then, I can facilitate any further discussion on that page. How does that strike you? Sunray (talk) 21:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I made just one change: I removed a remnant right parentheses. I too had first formatted in a fashion similar to yours&mdash;started a new paragraph at the same spot and enumerated the three meanings from OED, ... so this is great!  Regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've copied your summary and will add it to the Talk:India page for discussion there. Sunray (talk) 23:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)