Talk:India/Archive 4

message: This link talks about only two official languages according to the constitutional provisions. Unless anybody knows otherwise, I will change the no. of official languagues to two. Lost 05:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it is truely two. But some non-Hindi speakers challenge this and claim that all the Scheduled languages are natioanl and official languages.Cygnus_hansa 23:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official languages 

message: Home to one of the four major ancient civilisations
The above sentence in the second paragraph needs corroboration. Is there a list that catalogoues the other three major civilizations? Can something be cited to support this? I have requested citation in the article Chancemill 12:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to my best knowledge the other three are Chinese, Mesoptamian and Egyptian civilizations. I will try to find citations and add to the article. --Bharat 12:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ancient civilizations 

message: Your comments are welcome on this article, re-written by me: Hindustan. Basic refs are from Webster's New World dictionary.Cygnus_hansa 00:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plz comment 

message: There seems to be a debate about the usage of svg maps as i noticed that the one on this page has been reverted to the old png one. Now if some good soul can tell me where all the action is taking place, id like to add to the discussion -- PlaneMad|YakYak 09:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: SVG map

message: Your comments are welcome on this article, re-written by me: Hindustan. Basic refs are from Webster's New World dictionary.Vaikunda Raja 00:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks I mentioned it earlier because Ayyavazhi is quite commonly rejected and deleted by saying this was unknown or too small to note unaware about its complexity. - Vaikunda Raja 00:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plz comment 

message: Any particular reason why citation templates are used in the external links section? -- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK05:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps to increase the cost of adding a link (for obvious reasons)? -- Sundar \talk \contribs 06:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations in external links 

message: This is wikipedia...You are supposed to let people add things that are factual. I keep trying to add that India is one of the oldes countries in the world and u keep deleting it....why? 71.107.54.199 01:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the fact that Wikipedia is open does not mean that anything and eveything can be added. To answer your question: a) India as a country existed only since 1947. b) To add text to an article, please cite credible sources. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 01:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: This article is about India, the country. If you want to talk about the geographic region called India by the Greeks, please feel free to discuss at Talk:History of India about starting a separate article about that. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 06:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, then let's not feed the troll. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 06:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. Let's ignore people who don't have the decency to reply in a civil manner, and do not cite credible sources to support their arguments. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why wont you let me put down that INdia is ancient?

message: Im not sure why you guys are picking on this Aryan fellow but he is right. India is one of the oldest countries , or at least oldest civilazations in the world. Yes I agree the country became offical in 1947...but so what?.....India was recgonized by the Greeks, Muslim invaders, the British, and even the local people....I mean read up on any history book and I cant think of one that says India is not one of the oldest countries in the world....Somebody wrote down that they wanted a link. Well look on the CIA world factook website for the country India....The first sentence says that it is one of the oldest civalizations in the world 204.102.210.1 19:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: India is one of the oldest countries

message: According to me, this addition seems out of place. Though I have immense respect for Subhas Chandra Bose, these comments seem highly exaggerated. I have left a message at Soman's talk page, but would also like to hear others' views as the additions may soon be lost after other edits. -- Lost 13:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not happy with either version. The copy without SCB makes it sound like the struggle was entirely non-violent. Introducing Netaji's name will open a Pandora's box. I think we should mention that the freedom struggle, even in the 20th century did not start with Gandhiji and was not always non-violent. — Ravikiran 14:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you. The struggle may have been largely peaceful but there were definitely people like Bhagat Singh, Bose and others. The additions however make it sound like Mahatma Gandhi and Bose were the only two leaders of that time. If there is to be any name, I feel it should be Gandhi's only with a passing mention of the more aggressive leaders/ revolutionaries. Putting in Netaji's name will see many other names creeping in. -- Lost 14:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Indian National Army]] 

message: The first paragraph of the economy section reads:
:The economy of India is the fourth largest in the world as measured by purchasing power parity (PPP), with a GDP of US $3.63 trillion. However when it comes to PPP—GDP per capita figures—India's economy is ranked 152nd in the world.
How did something like this ever become a featured article? Unbelievable. – Timwi 12:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a contradiction if one understands the difference between ranking based on absolute figures and that which is based on per capita figures. But, there was an inconsistency between 152 mentioned here and in the now-linked list. I've changed the figure here to 122. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 13:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed ... Please notice that India happens to have 1 billion+ people. So, even though the economy may be 4th largest or whatever, when you reduce it to per capita, any stat is going to go way low in rankings. --Ragib 14:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Q to Timwi: What is unbelievable? =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blatant contradiction 

message: Trying to remove the  "citation needed" for the 23 languages recognized by the constitution, I managed to track down the 8th schedule of the constitution which lists the recognized languages and I found a copy here . It mentions only 18. But it might be out of date and stuff. If someone can track down the up to date copy, correct the number of languages and cite it, I will be much gratified. — Ravikiran 14:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Link it to the Manorama Yearbook 2006. Some careless nut has gone and removed my reference prompting someone to add a {cite} to it. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Languages of India 

message: Please see: /Picture selection to select images for the India page. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Selection of images 

message: The South Asia Free Trade Agreement should be added to this box, I would've done it myself but I don't know how to. If you look at the International Ties to Pakistan on the Pakistan page you will see what I'm talking about. Gsingh 16:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  International Ties to India 

message: Hi, is there an official (Government of India) site which states that it is illegal in India to publish the India map with the PoK as not belonging to India? Thanks for the help -- Wikicheng 06:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This page merely points out the disputed territories. It doesn't give any judgement. Is is wrong to tell what is the dispute? I don't think so. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The GoI position is that there's no "Kashmir dispute", but a "Kashmir situation" caused by illegal occupation by Pakistan and terrorism. Looking at it this way, calling Kashmir a dispute is not neutral enough for  the Indian government, and showing Kashmir as disputed on a map is indeed illegal in India. deeptrivia (talk) 05:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Ah, yes. As far as I know, it is illegal. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 07:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It acknowledges the existence of a LoC different from the de jure border, but does not accept it as legitimate (or de jure). Within India, it is indeed illegal to publish a map showing the PoK as being distinct from India. Maps printed in foreigh publications that enter the country (TIME, National Geographic) are stamped with a notice which reads something like "The borders of India as depicted in this map are neither true nor accurate." ImpuMozhi 22:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Of course it doesn't matter for Wikipedia. I was  (and am still) looking for an official statement by the govt of India stating that it is illegal. I have googles enough but couldn't locate the statement. I wanted this for a totally different purpose, not even remotely connected to my favourite Wikipedia.  -- Wikicheng 05:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: , , and  seem to be the closest resources to what you're asking for though an official statement by GoI is still elusive. -- 
Sundar \talk \contribs 05:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map of India 

message: I strongly object to the opening statement of this article "India, officially the Republic of India, is a country and emerging superpower located in South Asia". By merging fact with what is at best opinion, we oversimplifying issues. I don't mind if it says a ways down in the article that according to whatever magazine/experts that India is an emerging superpower, but the inclusion of that phrase in the context that it's presented in will just not do. AreJay 00:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, it shouldn't be on the intro, there are a number of sources present on India as an emerging superpower that can be used though. It is commonly accepted that India is an emerging superpower. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 00:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The intro paragraph needs to be a summary of the whole article, and some magazine's terming India as an emerging superpower is not really what is representative of the whole article. --Ragib 00:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that "officially the Republic of India" is not fact; fact would be "officially the UNION of India." ImpuMozhi 02:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I know your attitude towards it Nichalp :) I remember you nominated India as an emerging superpower for deletion...I must thank-you though, the AfD forced us to cite sources more effectively. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 23:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, no users work on the emerging superpower article, its the three articles within that that have the references. Basically the media decides who is and who isn't an emerging superpower. But still, it shouldn't be in the intro, its in the Politics and History section as far as I know and that is neough. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 23:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emerging superpower 

message: ::Vkvora keeps adding a report on a hunger report in the Economy section. Such items need to be kept off the main economy section as it is too vague to merit it's inclusion in the summary of the economy section. 
::Secondly, India border's the nation-state of the PRC. Mainland China is the incorrect term as we are listing the nation-states, not geographical entities. 
:::=Nichalp «Talk»= 05:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Irrelevent edits

message: Don't let someone put that word back into the article.  Its not English and, according to someone on the Italian wikipedia IRC channel, means something along the lines of 'dickheads' or 'dumbheads'.  As such, its almost certainly a form of vandalism.  Kevin_b_er 22:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "coglionazzi" 

message: Their is no mention of India being one of the oldest countries in the world or one of the oldest civilazations in the world. I understand that it gained independance in 1947, but India existed well before 1947, and well before the British came. It was known as Bharat, Hindustan, or Land of the Aryans. It is mentioned in the Vedas and other Indian text books. Even the CIA world factbook website says that India is one of the oldest civalaztions in the world. I dont know how mu ch more evidence you want from me. Are you open minded or does this page belong to you only? ARYAN818 01:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I quote : "India has long played a major role in human history". More specific information can be found on the relevant pages or sections.--Grammatical error 20:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Grammatical error: The above rants should be ignored. =Nichalp «Talk»= 20:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The above rants??? Im not giving any rants my friend...I am giving fact after fact after fact on how India is one of the oldest countries in the world...And all u guys are doing is telling me that im wrong & that im making rants....If India isn't one of the oldest countries in the world, then what country is??? ARYAN818 20:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you referring to India as a culture, or as an independent state? Important distinction to make, one way or the other. Luna Santin 21:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: 'India, officially the Republic of India, is a country in South Asia. It is one of the oldest countries in the world, t''
Now, let's see why this sentence is extremely misleading. Here, you are saying that "Republic of India" (the subject of the page), is a very old country. That, technically is not correct. What you may be implying is that the civilization in the region is one of the oldest. The country itself is 59 years old. Under your logic, every country that is part of the Indian subcontinent can claim to be so (there is no reason why we can't write "Pakistan is one of the oldest countries in the world", under your logic). As Luna above wrote, you are confusing the Civilization with the country. *This* article is about the country, not the civilization or the region. Thank you. --Ragib 05:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Going by the repetitive queries, we could have an FAQ section here. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 06:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is their no mention of India being one of the oldest?

message: I'm unsure of whether this is a problem for other users, but for me, the sections from 12 onward don't appear as distinct from the table. i.e. they seem to be part of the table format and thereby get extended in their length. Does this seem to occur for anyone else?--Kaushik twin 19:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem was caused by the "International ties" template not being closed properly. I've edited the same, and it seems to be normal now. Could somebody check why the interlanguage link to the Gothic wikipedia appears as normal text at the bottom of the page rather than on the sidebar?-- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK04:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: got iw link fixed now. Possibly problems with unicode text --Ragib 04:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Format Issue

message: I think this sentence is bad.  "Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism and Jainism all have their origins in India, while Islam and Christianity enjoy a strong cultural heritage."
Why?  Because the sentece before that is, "Home to the Indus Valley Civilization, a centre of important trade routes and vast empires, India has long played a major role in human history."  Taken together, these sentences say (at least until the final phrase), "India is a really old and important place.  For example, major/influential religions like blah, blah, and blah, started here."  But what does it mean to say, "while Islam and Christianity enjoy a strong cultural heritage"?  I know there are lots of Muslims and Christians in India, but I am pretty sure that India's influence on these religions (especially Christainity) is minimal-- certainly not of the same magnitude as the other religions mentioned in the same sentence.
Therefore, I propose we delete that last phrase from that sentence. Rangek 18:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the intended meaning of the sentence was that, both Islam and Christianity have influenced Indian culture, not the other way around. --Ragib 18:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, then we should make it say that.  Right now it is unclear. Rangek 02:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, go ahead. --Ragib 06:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just as a sidenote: It is not incorrect to say that India had a strong impact on Christianity. Christianity has existed in India since the time of the disciples, and has developed almost independently. Many traditions, especially those followed by the Nasranis are exclusive to India. -- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK15:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But that is my point.  The influence of India on Christianity at large is small.  I know of no theological or liturgical Christian practice that has direct roots in India.  This is a much different situation tnhan that of Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism and Jainism. Rangek 15:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree. Majority of the original  traditions and Christian theological practices that originated in India died with the Portuguese invasion. -- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK13:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Second paragraph, second sentence

message: What was the exact, formal name given to India when it was a British colony? For example, Palestine was "The British Mandate of Palestine". 
Many thanks. --A Sunshade Lust 03:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: British India, I think -- Lost 13:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  India's name when it was a british colony 

message: The maps of India in this article are not consistent. Pakistani administered Kashmir is shown as a part of India. In case of map of India, line of control is shown as boundary. Following explanation is provided at note 4 for the map of India:
“^ The black line is the boundary as recognised by the government of India. The northern region of Kashmir is currently administered by India, Pakistan, and China (and coloured in as such). The delimiting of the three administered regions is not the international boundary but a ceasefire line demarcated in red. The boundary separating India and Pakistan is known as the Line of Control, that separating India and China as the 'Line of Actual Control'. Most of the state of Arunachal Pradesh is still claimed by China.”
However, in case of States and territories of India, Pakistani administered Kashmir is shown as a part of India.
Why this inconsistency exists?
There is pro-Indian bias in case of map used to show “States and territories of India”. —Preceding unsigned comment added by maakhter (talk • contribs) 
:Your claim doesn't match :Image:India-states-numbered.svg, which clearly marks the disputed territories. --Ragib 20:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed map is used

message: :*http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1822829.cms
::Seven of the top 10 happiest countries, according to the first 'World Map of Happiness', are from western democracies, while countries in Asia, known for their strong cultural values, family ties and collective identities surprisingly scored low — China (82), Japan (90) and Thailand (76). 
::While Denmark's satisfaction with life index was placed at 273.33, India's was at 180. The map, claiming to be the first to illustrate international differences in happiness, placed US at 23, UK at 41 and France at 62. 
:::vkvora 06:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poverty reason for India's rank   

message: :Hi everyone, I am new to this site. Can anyone just tell me more about this site
::User:Bhagubhai Bhadwani 03:11, 29 July 2006 (IST)
:Bhagubhai pahelan sing in to karo
::vkvora 13:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hello Everybody 

message: Just wanted to note the frivolous "dispute" as noted by , a one time commenter on this talk page, who has found it better to go straight to Requests for mediation (with me) regarding this page. (see Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/India). Since there doesn't seem to be any discussion, let alone a dispute, I've rejected the frivolous RFM. I suggest other users advise  on abuse of wikipedia's processes, and request him to voice his comments/opinions here first. Thanks. --Ragib 18:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Frivolous "dispute" from {{user|maakhter}}

message: What is the standard practice of Wikipedia to show maps of countries? How it handles the maps of countries where there is a disputed territory? For example, Kashmir is a disputed territory among Pakistan, India, and China.
In case of Pakistan, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan) the Line of Control (LoC) is shown as a boundary. Here is the URL for the map used: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PakistanNumbered.png
However, in case of India, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India) (map used for States and territories of India) Line of Control is not used as a boundary and Pakistani Administered Kashmir is also shown as a part of India. Here is the URL for the map used:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:India-states-numbered.svg
Please correct above anomalies to improve the image of Wikipedia as an impartial organization.
Maakhter 19:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Maakhter, this issue may be better raised here. These guys have done a lot of hard work in creating the maps and can probably answer your queries better. -- Lost(talk) 19:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image of Wikipedia as an impartial organization

message: I found an area marked as disputed between Orissa and Andhra, between Koraput and Vishakapatnam (Screenshot) from the Survey of India map server. Anyone have anymore info on this? -- PlaneMad|YakYak 10:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  disputed area in Orissa 

message: *http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IndianJustice/message/4968
Please forward the following message nationwide. Against per capita food intake of 700 kg or more in USA, 500 kg in EU, 300 kg in China but is only 148kg in India. The figure 212 MT I gave in the message was for best year average is around 195 MT and losses are at least 10% to 15%. The real per capita food consumption could be even less than 148 kg. This is average, poor may be getting much less than 100kg.  – Ravinder Singh 
:::vkvora 17:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anon at 59.184.131.141, you are not User:Vkvora2001, and if you are, you are not signed in. So don't add user signatures unless you are the user in signed in mode. Thanks. --Ragib 17:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have signed it now. Thanks...vkvora 17:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hunger in Superpower

message: Majority of Indians live in poverty and a big segment(35%) live in extreme poverty. After all poverty in India does not have the same meaning poverty in say the UK. I think that needs to be included in this article as well as some pictures. Currently the article presents too pretty a picture of India, and I think that is deceitful. According to the new World Bank figures, India's poverty rate is exactly at 35% which is more than what piety Indian politicians claim. Thank you very much. Here is the link: Economic Report Card- Advil 1:52 am, 04 August 2006
:Why are you replicating what User:Dargay said in Pakistan talk page here and stating India instead? If you have an issue, then check out HDI of Pakistan vis-a-vis India since 1988 that the HDI rank was initiated. Pakistan was streets ahead of India then but now is progressively slipping further down. --Idleguy 06:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, the way the Pakistani economy is running with the help of Middle East and US investments surely, Pakistan will overtake India in per capita income as well. God willing! --Advil 2:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just curious, was that meant to be sarcastic? -- Sundar \talk \contribs 07:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it wasn't. Note India is an emerging superpower, with the 2nd/3rd (debatable) largest military in the world, the 4th highest GDP (PPP) in the world and a number of other statistics in its favour. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 07:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extreme Poverty 

message: India actually is second in movie production behind Nigeria's Nollywood (so I made the appropriate changes).  I didn't believe it too but its true, Nigeria produces on the order of 3000 movies a year.
Can you back this up with proof? Where did you hear this? Hammer Raccoon 22:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...which requires a subscription to read. The article should remain as it was until you can provide a source that says otherwise. And remember to sign your posts. Hammer Raccoon 23:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My gut reaction was to agree with you, Hammer.  What if the source was a book?  Not every fact is on the interweb, you know.  Seems like someone should make a trip to the library....  Maybe my school has a subscription.  I'll check it out.... Rangek 05:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Economist article in question does indeed state, "Nollywood, as Nigeria's film industry is known, now makes over 2,000 low-budget films a year, about two-thirds of them in English. That is more than either Hollywood or India's Bollywood." Rangek 17:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, lets remain civil here. I personally didn't want the status quo of the article to be changed without a source to back it up. Seeing as I couldn't read your source, I couldn't verify your claims. And besides, I figured Nollywood couldn't possibly have overtaken Bollywood in such a short period of time. As it turns out, my bad. Some Google trawling has led me to several figures that put India's output at around 1000 a year - , ,  - more than Hollywood, but seemingly less than Nollywood. I'm not sure how you cite newspaper articles, but it would be good if someone could in case someone disputes this again. Hammer Raccoon 21:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and you might want to bring this up on the Cinema of India page. Hammer Raccoon 21:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bollywood 

message: *http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=72099
::India 6th most dangerous country for kids: Poll
::::vkvora 14:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  India has been judged as the sixth most dangerous country  

message: ::Home to the Indus Valley Civilization, a centre of important trade routes and vast empires, India has long played a major role in human history. Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism and Jainism all have their origins in India, while Islam and Christianity enjoy a strong cultural heritage having arrived through trade even before foreign invasions.
::Secularity is the state of being free from religious or spiritual qualities.  For instance, eating a meal, playing a game, or bathing are examples of secular activities, because there is nothing inherently religious about them.  Saying a prayer or visiting a place of worship are examples of non-secular activities.  An approximate synonym for secular is worldly.
:::vkvora 06:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secularity and India. 

message: from the time of independence of india to the current day the indian leaders have said that the muslim population of india is greater than that of pakistan. we should remember that bangladesh was also a part of pakistn before 1971.and in that year the population of west pakistan (that is the current day pakistan) was 80 milliom and that of east pakistan (that is the current day bangladesh) was 90 million if we add that we get apopulation of 170 million in 1971 of which 90% were muslim or 153 million . so how many muslims are today in india ?
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Islam_by_country"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.29.194.169 (talk • contribs) 
:At least, the population figure for East Pakistan (1971) stated above is wrong. The population of independent Bangladesh, according to the 1974 census, was 71.3 million .  The population of west pakistan was lower than this, as Bengalis were 56% of the population of united pakistan. --Ragib 20:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  population of muslims in india 

message: Please vote for the Kamal Haasan article to become an article to be improved to be featured here, Wikipedia:Article Creation and Improvement Drive#Kamal Haasan Thamizhan 14:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Kamal Haasan]] 

message: How many does India have? The info table states "Hindi, English, and 21 other languages" where as the number rises to 24 at List_of_national_languages_of_India#Recognized_national_languages_of_India_.28Scheduled_list_for_official_use.29 --Wotan 05:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: French is not an official language of the Indian Union. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: it is in pondicherry  Bijun 10:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

text: 22: Assamese, Bengali, Gujarati, Hindi, Kannada, Kashmiri, Malayalam, Marathi, Oriya, Punjabi, Sanskrit, Tamil, Telugu, Urdu, Sindhi, Konkani, Manipuri, Nepali, Bodo, Maithili, Dogri and Santhali. English enjoys associate official status. 
--source; Manorama Yearbook 2006, pg 507, 
=Nichalp «Talk»= 12:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually it is truely two. But some non-Hindi speakers challenge this and claim that all the Scheduled languages are natioanl and official languages.Cygnus_hansa 23:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Link it to the Manorama Yearbook 2006. Some careless nut has gone and removed my reference prompting someone to add a {cite} to it. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I fully endorse Sukh's actions. The addition of scripts for all 22 or so languages is not necessary. Furthermore, the re-insertion of the names have lengthened the infobox, and distorted the layout of the rest of the page components. --Ragib 22:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Ragib.  My rationale for removing them is that they're completely redundant and misleading.  The native-script versions of each language are written in their appropriate articles.  If we were to write the native script version of every foreign term wherever it is used on Wikipedia, it'd be ridiculous!  They also ruin the spacing and the section on languages EVEN LARGER!  Finally, there are (or were before) multiple scripts for some languages, when only one script is recognised in India.  For example, for Punjabi only the Gurmukhi script is considered official in India.  I'm not sure about Kashmiri or Sindhi, but I'm sure a similar situation pertains. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 22:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it lengthens the infobox, but not that it distorts "the layout of the rest of the page components".  The infobox goes to the middle of the History section regardless.  If a script is incorrect then let us fix it, not delete it. How are the scripts misleading?  They are no more redundant than giving the various forms of town names.  Fleet Command said "Please allow correct contents to co-exist and do not engage in editing campaign over small matters like this."  Bejnar 20:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The scripts are ugly and serve absolutely no purpose, and I've removed them. The purpose the information is to let readers know what languages are official in India, not mention the transliteration of of the language in it's native script. Besides some of the languages lack a script making it look really inconsistent. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official languages 

message: India with world's second largest HIV/AIDS patients surely this deserves mention in the main page! I remember that it used to include it in the article and obviously some people removed it.
India has announced that it will verify UN estimations that it has overtaken South Africa as the country with the highest population living with HIV/AIDS in the world. 
So India is either number 1 or number 2 with regard to largest HIV/Aids Population.
Source and evidence:
http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/3753.asp
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3886883.stm
http://www.kaisernetwork.org/health_cast/hcast_index.cfm?display=detail&hc=919
http://www.christiantoday.com/news/south-asia/india.to.verify.uns.hiv.aids.figures/361.htm
http://www.health-now.org/site/article.php?articleId=412&menuId=12
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/fromthefield/216872/16a04d769c9c08a0ff5ecbbae83e4062.htm
I have listed half a dozen links and sources to back up this fact. I will take wikipedians into condfidence before making any changes in the article.
thanks
:read IndophobiaHkelkar 05:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  India Has Worlds (Second?) Largest HIV/AIDS Population 

message: Formation 3300 BCE
Indus Valley Civilization 
----------
How can Indus valley have been indian civilization when the entire Indus valley lies in pakistan not India, Its like Sudan claiming the Egyptian civilization as its own despite the fact that the pyramids, the nile, the pharoes are all located in egypt.
there is a real flaw in the article here. Please correct this error. because pakistan was in india first so people still call it indian
thanks. The preceding was an unsigned comment left by an anonymous user
:I don't think that's really the case. The land that was known as India was named after the Indus, it was always based on the Indus Valley, which along with the Gangetic Plains made up much of the fertile soil in India. Pakistan was only formed in 1947, for historians of ancient history that's practically nothing. So I believe there is no flaw. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 08:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The culture of the Indus Valley was Vedic (on OIT basis). Vedic culture is the primary culture in most of India in the following years. It's simple, although the Republic of India was formed in 1947. A land known as India or more accurately Bharatvarsh, was in existence for many years before Independence. This Bharatvarsh was originally formed on the banks of the Indus. The question is on formation, Vedic civilization began on the Indus, not the Ganges, and it is Vedic civilization that has formed India. Both India and Pakistan can lay claim to the IVC. Hope you understand. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 06:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  While I think the anonymous poster is a bit off in (apparently) insisting that  no culture on the banks of the Indus could be described as Indian since it's presently in Pakistan, I don't think it's helpful to defend this on the basis of the OIT, which AFAIK has essentially no support among modern Indo-Europeanists.  Even proponents of the AIT would admit the existence of a culture describable as "Indian" on the Indus Valley in ancient times (just after the arrival of the Aryans). --saforrest 20:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well we all have our views...It has little support amongst linguists outside India but is not generally based on linguistics in any case. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 01:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Um, I think you have made a mistake because some people forgot to sign. In case you didn't notice, I believe that the culture existing in the subcontinent prior to 1947 could be described as Indian culture, as there was no Pakistan existing before 1947. Nobleeagle  [TALK] [C] 11:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I cant believe what im reading here....This guy is going by a technicallity....Ya INdia was technically "formed" in 1947....But so what?.....The greeks recognized a land called India....The persians recognized a land called Hindustan.....And INDIAN HISTORY always called the whole area land of the "Aryans" or "BHarat"....India is an ancient civilazation that existed well before 1947, it exisisted well before the "Indus Valley Civilazation" and if you dont believe me....all u have to do....is read Indian scripture like the Vedas, UPanishads, and a bunch of other books.....I mean this guy is going by a technicallity and i think thats a joke ARYAN818 05:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article deals with the Republic of India that was created in 1947. The information about ancient civilizations should go to other articles such as History of India, not here. -- Ganeshk (talk) 05:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: There was certainly an "India" before 1947. It was an Empire ruled by Britain (I'm not sure of the precise status - as I understand, it was not technically colony, and even had membership in the League of Nations, despite a nearly complete lack of self-government). Before the formation of British India in 1858, there was a region called India. This region, and the British Empire "India," included more or less the modern countries of India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. The Republic of India has only existed since 1947, but "India" has existed for millennia. And the "history" section of this article is meant to be an epitome of History of India - are you suggesting that the history section of this article should begin with 1947? john k 12:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formation Of India? Indus Valley? Surely Not! 

message: I am rather surprised that I could not find a section on the Indian people, or on the people of India. On the other hand, I suspect this subject could be rather extensive, and may deserve a Wiki article of its own. Or, perhaps, none at all, to be safe. Splashprince 06:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason is very clear ... India is a very diverse country, and unlike European countries, no single "Indian people" exists per se, rather you can look into the extensive articles like Tamil people, Bengali people, Marathi people, Punjabi people and others to get more information. Thank you. --Ragib 06:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The People of India

message: Map of India used in this page is not correct. If Wikipedia fails to post correct map published by government of India, we Indians are going to protest and will pursuade Indian governoment to block wikipedia.
The territory of Kashmir is not shown as part of India, though it is disputed by terrorist stare of Pakistan, wikipedia needs to be nuetral on this issue and should not support illegal occupants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abnaren (talk • contribs) 
:You are entitled to your opinion, up to certain limits. Wikipedia is not under the jurisdiction of the Indian govt, such that it has to comply with Indian government, or any other such entities. Neutral point of view is one of the basic policies of Wikipedia. You can refer to that. Thank you. --Ragib 06:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia represents both (ie all) points of views: The administrated and claimed territories. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map of India is not correct 

message: This page needs a FAQ section on top. It's getting a bit annoying replying the same things over and over again. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You stole the words right out of my mouth!  I think this page could use a general FAQ that highlights consensus that has been reached thus far over contentious issues.  AreJay 18:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think such lists of consensuses are a good idea for most Wikipedia projects and large Wikipedia pages. I suggested the same thing a few weeks back at WP:PIIR but haven't been able to work on it.Nobleeagle  (Talk) 01:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAQ 

message: Delhi is listed as 6 under states when it should be listed as G under Union Territories.  This is throwing all later states off by 1.  I'd edit it, but was unable to determine how. Samadhi69 00:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbering on map incorrect 

message: Northeast India is troubled by violences and insurgent groups. The locals and the migrants from Western India are killing each other. It can even get worst like the Rwandan Genocide. Western media should go and cover a story about the trouble in Northeast India, but they don't. I wonder why. 72.140.235.202 00:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not the appropriate forum to discuss media relate issues. 00:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racial Conflicts in Northeast India 

message: This article states India is 3,287,590 km² in size. This article states it's 3,287,2632 km² (inc. disputed areas) in size.  Which is correct? Lugnuts 07:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, that second figure should be 3,287,263 and not 3,287,2632! Lugnuts 13:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Area 

message: The Indian Union redirect should point to the Political Integration of India article. rohith 20:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Indian Union'' Redirect 

message: Billions of blue blistering barnacles! What reasoning is responsible for calling Thailand an island nation? That thundering nation is lodged firmly in a peninsula in South East Asia! Rama's arrow 02:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thundering typhoons! To crown it all, Maldives is not mentioned! Rama's arrow 02:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You going through a Tintin phase, or what? :) Tpth 06:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great Snakes, I think he is! Nobleeagle  [TALK] [C] 07:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Seven thousand suffering samurais! I am the greatest Tintin fan ever! (no offense, Tintin) Rama's arrow 13:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Frankly, I am Captain Haddock. I share his affinity for whiskey, bungles and accidents. Rama's arrow 13:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  mistake 

message: I was thinking of reading up on India, but after reading the introduction, it occurred to me that the rest of the article may be biased too. The introduction uses a lot of adjectives that I think do not belong in an encyclopedia. For example: "advanced civilization", "major role in human history", "Indian culture and society has been so resilient", "in an intense movement of social reforms", "restoring the glory of the past Indian empires", "among the most diverse in the world" and finally "be an emerging superpower". This all seems a little too subjective.
Vince 09:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - those sentences must be toned down, but I doubt that there is an extensive problem. Rama's arrow 13:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have made the introduction more balanced.  I've also copy edited the first three paragraphs to conform to an encyclopedia style.  Fowler&fowler 05:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction biased 

message: In this Article is says that India has the secodn largest muslim population in the World. The population of India is stated as 1.1 billion with 12.2 % muslims.
However, in the wikipedia article for Pakistan, it states that Pakistan has a population of 185 million with 96% muslims.
96% of 185 million is greater than 12.2% of 1.1 billion. There is an inconsistency, can someone ex[plain which source is to be believed?
: India has the third largest Muslim population in the world and the largest Muslim minority population.  As you state above, India as approximately 140 million Muslims.  Pakistan has many more, no matter which way one interprets the numbers. Fowler&fowler 14:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Second Largest Muslim population

message: Surely it is only pragmatic and proper for some of the extreme levels of poverty within India to gain a mention?  Would it not be a good idea to create a link to such pages for statistical information?  Perhaps it would also be a good idea to avoid political bias on these issues?
User:Nukemason 18:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have been addressed in the introduction (3rd paragraph).  Fowler&fowler 05:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Poverty?

message: Is it not a good idea to have the South India article re-directed to the India article?  The last thing that we would want anyone to think about is that there are 2 separate countries within that part of the world.  
User:Nukemason 18:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: REDIRECT Request

message: somehow my edits were reverted, I added them again.Digitalfunda 06:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits 

message: why delete this map?!--Apengu 16:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, you had added it to the geography section where it is not suitable. The map was naming the states in the local language scripts. This is the English wikipedia, that map is of no use for the English reader. I have rolled-back your addition. Please do not add the image until consensus is reached here. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 16:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree with you. first, many English user also want to know how to write the state's name in local language scripts like many foreigners want to know chinese province in Chinese. second, this map show that there many different languages in india and other south asian countries. so i think this map are suitable.--Apengu 16:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmmm....I have posted on the Indian noticeboard to see what others feel. Thanks for explaining your position and not putting back the map again. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 17:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not put the map in another article, perhaps List of national languages of India or States and territories of India and link to it from India?  --BostonMA talk 17:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would oppose adding the local language map. Only the map that has text in English should be allowed. If someone wants to know how a state's name is written in local language, he/she can visit the corresponding Wikipedia article and look it up. Often, this information is present in the first sentence of the article. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Ambuj and Ganesh. The map is not suitable for the geography section and maps as such should only be in English at enwiki. I would object to the map being put even on the other articles like List of national languages of India or States and territories of India. - Aksi_great (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not seek any problem with this image on english wikipedia. But it could be placed at suitable places like List of national languages of India as BostonMA also mentioned. We have local language context to introduce a peson or a place name associated with an article, which is not undestandable to an english reader, but local language readers also visit to English wikipedia, specially people from south asia.  Shyam (T/C) 19:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  This comment is on the content of the map, not it's placement. This is a nice and informative map. However, all scripts would look the same to someone seeing them for the first time, so it will have little value for him/her. If it is felt that such a map is required anywhere on wikipedia, maybe it could be made more informative by writing something about the script (at least its name in the Roman script) besides the Indian script. deeptrivia (talk) 21:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  I know I am late to this discussion, but why not include this map in the Wikipage on South Asia? Fowler&fowler 12:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, I see, it has already been done. Fowler&fowler 12:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think the map of south asia in local languages is suitable  

message: I am listing some images that I found:
Image:Bangalore city market.jpg|City market in Bangalore
Image:Chennai.ranganathanst.jpg|Ranganathan street in Chennai
Image:KolkataCofeehouse123.jpg|Coffee house in Kolkata
Image:Population density map.png|Map showing population density
Image:Naga_people.jpg|Naga people of Assam
Image:Apatani tribal women.jpg|Apatani tribal women
Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg| Naga girls in traditional attire - Added by Chanakyathegreat
Image:Cuckood.jpg| Naga people dancing - Added by Chanakyathegreat
Image:India population density map en.svg|Labelled
Image:India population density map.svg|Plain
Image:India sex ratio map en.svg|labelled
Image:India sex ratio map.svg|Plain
Image:India literacy rate map en.svg|labelled
Image:India literacy rate map.svg|Plain
Image:Desi_Yehudim_Sari.jpg|Indian Jews in Mumbai - Added by Hkelkar
Any more suggestions? I recently reverted several good faith edits to add a picture in the section. I thought might as well get a consensus. I like the Bangalore one, would rather not add a map since the article already has plenty of them. Naga one is of poor quality. Please comment. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 23:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pics moved to the gallery above.
The caption can be anything that is interesting.
Chanakyathegreat 11:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Bot the pics are of poor quality. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 15:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just uploaded svg versions of my pop density map pick one -- PlaneMad|YakYak 10:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I like the non-labelled one. Still feel we have too many maps on the article. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 16:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry to swamp the place with maps, but im feeling a little map horny lately, added sex ratio map to the gal - PlaneMad|YakYak 18:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image for the demographics section 

message: Afghanistan is a neighbours of India because India has never recognised the occupation of Kashmir by Pakistan. Hence it need to be added in the list. For NPOV the information that the area bordering Afghanistan is under the administration of Pakistan can be added. Also there is another historical reason to add afghanistan as a neighbour. It is the cultural link that exist from the very historical times that is still relavant in recent times.
http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/archives_roll/2001_10-12/cotter_mideast/cotter_mideast.html
Another neighbour is Thailand. It is an island nation and the distance between India and Thailand is only a few miles (distance between phuket and Nicobar islands).
http://go.hrw.com/atlas/norm_map/thailand.gif
Chanakyathegreat 12:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thailand is not an island nation.  Never has been, and never will, barring a major cataclysm.  The Andamans are closer to Indonesia than they are to the mainland of India, so perhaps one could include Indonesia as well.  Fowler&fowler 14:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Afghanistan and Thailand as neighbours 

message: the independence of the Republic of India doesn't date to 3300 BC, any more than the independence of the Republic of Turkey dates to 1800 BC or 7000 BC , the independence of Iraq to 4000 BC or the independence of Peru to 3000 BC. dab (ᛏ) 06:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dab, That formation information is constantly vandalized. I have restored it few times already. - Ganeshk (talk) 06:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: right, sorry, this page isn't on my watchlist, I was made aware of the problem on my talkpage. The "establishment" field isn't a vandal-magnet just on this article, things are similar on the articles on Turkey, Russia, Germany, and probably many others. Why, I even had to fix the Swiss entry, although the exaggeration wasn't quite so bad there. We should simplify the field to a single entry, "establishment of contemporary state, period", otherwise this is simply an invitation for mysticist vandals to add their fantastic continuity hypotheses :) dab (ᛏ) 08:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The vandal is at it again.  Will some admin please do something about it.  Apparently, he has been blocked a few times already.  Fowler&fowler 10:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Country infobox

message: * I have changed the link  Islam in the second paragraph to Islam in India, and, similarly, Christianity to Christianity in India, since the new links are more relevant for the India page.
* I am also adding Zoroastrianism (link Parsi) and Judaism (link Indian Jews)) to the second paragraph, since they have had a long history on the subcontinent.  While they may not be large in numbers, they have certainly been influential.  They are also a reminder (sorely needed in intolerant times) that India was once a land of refuge.
Fowler&fowler 22:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Religions mentioned in the second paragraph

message: I think this is POV as Russia, China, United States, Brasil and Australia have larger area.--Nixer 10:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: China is not a Democracy. Neither is Russia. Anyway its understood that worlds largest means largest by population ARYAN818 00:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Being a Chinese, I don't think China is not a democracy. Is the Western style ONLY ONE style of democraty?--Apengu 15:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You don't judge the size of a democracy by the area of the country, but rather by the size of the demos — the people.  There is a participatory population of 1.2 billion in India, which makes it the world's largest democracy. AreJay 14:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: (To: Nixer):You are right—a more accurate choice of words would be "the world's most populous democracy," since China (the most populous country of the world) is not a democracy.  However, since the term "democracy" is about people (recall Lincoln: "government of the people, by the people, and for the people") and not land area, "largest democracy" has come to mean "most populous democracy."  And that usage is now commonly accepted the world over.  Here are three examples from Time magazine, the BBC, and the UN: India Awakens Time magazine, 2006.  Gearing up for India's electronic election, BBC, 2004.  India becomes a billionaire: World's largest democracy to reach one billion persons on independence day United Nations Population Division.  Glad you wrote, since that usage is often a point of confusion.  I will add a footnote with those references and a word of explanation.  Fowler&fowler 14:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Still I think it is POV to say China is undemocratic.--Nixer 15:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what you mean by POV, but what is meant here is that China is not a Western style parliamentary democracy i.e. a multi-party system of political participation and with free elections, where all parties are allowed to run for elected office and where all citizens are allowed to vote.  This is certainly the consensus view, witness: Encyclopaedia Britannica on China and Encarta Encyclopedia on China.  If your objection is about that particular definition of democracy, you should really take it up on the Wikipedia page on democracy.  But the short response to your comment is: The CCP (Communist Party of China) has ruled China since 1949.  What is the name of the opposition party?  Fowler&fowler 18:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And why it should have? In the USA there are two parties with the same ideology and program. What is the name of a party with different ideology?--Nixer 19:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As I had said above, your complaint seems to be with what a democracy should or shouldn't be and properly belongs to the Democracy page.  I agree with you that if a country has 15 parties and they all think alike, then it is not much of a choice (or as Karl Marx said, "Universal suffrage (i.e. parliamentary elections) is an opportunity citizens of a country get every four years to decide who among the ruling classes will misrepresent them in parliament.")  But these are loaded questions (with long history of debate) and their discussion belongs elsewhere.  As for China itself, it not clear if it has lived up to Mao's idealistic call, "Let a hundred flowers bloom.  A hundred schools of thought contend." As far as I can tell, all hundred schools of thought are thinking a lot about Walmart thesedays.  Thanks, BTW, for changing it to "most populous liberal democracy," it is less confusing and sounds better too.  Fowler&fowler 20:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Largest democracy in the world 

message: THe article used to say worlds largest Democracy....NOw it has been changed to worlds most populous liberal Democracy.....I think thats a joke....I mean why do people on wikipedia insist on making things sound so complicated....When people read an article, its much more easier to understand "WORLDS LARGEST DEMOCRACY" instead of writing "WORLDS LARGEST POPULOUS LIBERAL DEMOCRACY"....I mean come one the latter version is longer, and many people dont even know what POPULOUS means or LIBERAL DEMOCRACY means.......Just keep it simple.....Worlds largest Democracy 
ARYAN818 05:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have strong feeling either way about this matter, so I won't belabour the point.  (But since these issues are not as simple as they sound, please read this message completely before responding.) I agree that "world's largest democracy" is short and snappy; unfortunately, it sometimes causes confusion since the usage is not obvious.  Here are some examples of "largest."  Thus when people say, "world's largest country," they mean "by area" (and are likely referring to Russia), but when they say "world's largest city," they mean by population (and might be referring to Tokyo or Mexico City).  The reasons for this usage are  buried in the words' Latin roots ("country" comes from "terra contrata" i.e. "land opposite"; while "city" comes from "citizens" i.e. "people"; so "largest country" means "largest land", while "largest city" means "largest population (among cities)").  The reason why "largest democracy" means most populated democracy is because (as some user mentioned above):  "democracy" comes from the Greek "demos," which means "people."  As for the use of "populous," all I can say is that (a) the word has already been used in that sentence (b) readers of Wikipedia are expected to know the meanings of such words, or are expected to look it up in the dictionary (c) since "populous" has been used earlier, it is more euphonic (in the intonation patterns of the English language) to repeat the word, than to follow it up with "largest" in the same sentence, and (d) I have now provided a Wiktionary link to "populous." As for democracy, I have now provided a Wikilink to liberal democracy.  If you go to the Wikipage for democracy you will see that liberal democracy (i.e. the kind of democracy in India) is only one form of democracy.  There are others as well.  So, all in all, I would prefer the new wording, but since Wikipedia is also governed by consensus, if most respondents here feel the "world's largest democracy" is better, we can change back to it.  Fowler&fowler 12:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I said "World's  Largest Country," I would be referring to China.  Who cares how big a country is geographically? john k 12:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You might refer to China (and come to think of it, I might too), but according to the 2006 Encylopaedia Britannica, "With an area of 6,592,800 square miles (17,075,400 square kilometres), Russia is the world's largest country, covering almost twice the territory of either the United States or China.".  But Russia or China aside, what if it were "largest empire," or "largest kingdom" would you then be talking about area or people.  My point is simply that it is better to choose language that is less confusing for the average reader.  Fowler&fowler 13:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worlds largest Democracy 

message: I reverted a previous edit which had added "concept of zero" to the "decimal number system" listed in the second paragraph of the introduction.  This was done for the following reasons:
* Zero is already a part of the decimal number system (or decimal place value system); without zero (or some such symbol), there would be no place value system.
* It is the place value system that is important, not zero by itself.
* The provenance for zero as a symbol for "nothingness" is more problematic, since all kinds of civilizations (Babylonians, Greek, Mayan, Chinese) had such concepts.
* See article on "Indian number system" footnoted in Introduction; see also the Arabic numerals page.
I hope this seems reasonable.  Fowler&fowler 11:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Decimal number system and zero

message: I've added a line which states that the events of 1857 are often collectively termed as "The First War of Indian Independence" in Indian text-books. I have been engaged in a very tedious discussion on the Rebellion page about the correct term. However, from the discussions I have had - users there have stated that it was not a nationwide movement. However, this article does state otherwise. Which view is correct? I didn't wish to unilaterally delete anything. Hence, the question. (Jvalant 04:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1857 

message: The country infobox was replaced by a country or territory infobox, with the edit summary "not a country".  I apologize if this has been discussed before, but could someone explain this change to me?  Thanks --BostonMA talk 19:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Country Infobox 

message: I think this part of the article is highly flawed, the link to the section islam by country itself has a netural pov tag and I think it would be highly erroneous to claim that India has the worlds second largest population of muslims.
The phrase 'second largest' should be removed and just left with the percentage figures, or rather it should say 'one of the largest'.S Seagal 02:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to pop explosions in Pakistan and B'desh, I dont think we have that title any longer.Bakaman Bakatalk 07:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is India really home to the Worlds Second Largest Muslim Population? 

message: I noticed that a number of people have changed the sentence "with four-fifths of the population living on less that $2 a day," (in the lead) to "25% below the poverty line."  Although I agree that a dollar can go much farther in India, I still feel that poverty lines set by individual countries are not good economic indicators.  The Indian poverty line (which is the inflation-adjusted amount that would have bought 2400 calories in food per person per day in rural areas and 2100 calories in urban areas in 1973) is now Rs. 540 per month, or $12 per month (at the Rs 45 = $1 exchange rate), or 40 cents per day.  This assumes that the entire income of Rs. 540 is being spent on food.  With this definition of the poverty line (ie. 40 cents per day), the proportions of Indians below the poverty line is 23% or 25% (depending on what statistics one quotes).   I am happy to  replace the UN Human Development Index figure of "79.9% living on less than $2 per day" by "23% below the poverty line," but I feel that the latter doesn't convey any information unless one says, "23% below the poverty line of $0.40 per day."  I'd like to hear what other people think.   Fowler&fowler 22:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Poverty Line

message: Abt the information posted in infobox. Did India get independence from UK or from British Empire
: From the UK.  Fowler&fowler 21:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Independance

message: This is not a bad article, but considering the long history of India and the fact that it has the world's second largest population, it is awfully short. Of course, Wikipedia articles generally should not be too long, but important topics like this one are allowed more length. I like the pictures, although perhaps some of them could be smaller. I might try to help on this article if I get time. HeBhagawan 21:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The current length is fine from my perspective.  Fowler&fowler 14:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The article should be longer

message: The economy section of this article says that India is the fourth-largest in the world by PPP.  The Economy of India article states that India's economy, by PPP, is third-largest.  This is a contradiction.  What should be done about this? -- Tuvok^Talk|Desk|Contribs  23:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have corrected the ranking in the Economy of India to 4th for PPP and 12th for nominal GDP.  Someone had changed the numbers there without explanation.  Fowler&fowler 01:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economy Section Contradictory