Talk:India/Archive 6

message: Pardon my ignorance, but will somebody please explain how Punjabi cinema is a 'strong' cinema industry?  Or is someone also counting all the 'hindi' movies that come out with liberal doses of punjabi thrown in?  And why on earth is the wikilink for Punjabi cinema(??) pointing to some movie?  Is that the only movie that's been made in the history of Punjabi cinema?  I am surprised that a new ip user is bitten when he/she tries to make some edits and I am given hell when I try to retain them, but many edits over the past few days pass unscrutinised.  Somebody please explain.  Sarvagnya 05:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is  not an important industry as yet in India. Rgds--Darrendeng 06:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be removed. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bro I've learned one thing about Wikipedia...Yes u get info fast....But there are alot of people who go nuts & ku ku if u make changes they dont like....It doesnt matter if u have evidence....or worst.....LOGIC....They just want the article there way....If u dont believe me....Just look down at the next dispute about LAND OF THE ARYANS.... ARYAN818 22:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Punjabi cinema? 

message: Most Indians, (along with Iranians, Afghans, etc.) are of Aryan heritage. Most of the evidence that Aryans came from India.....is in India.....not Euorope....In ancient times the land was known as Bharat or land of the Aryans,....and yet...this article acts like India's oldest civiliazation was the "Indus Valley" people.....I mean India's history goes longer & deeper then that and I think there should be mention of its Aryan heritage ARYAN818 22:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, why don't you add it then?--SUIT 04:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No it is not necessary. See the comments in the header. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See thats why I dont add it...Cuz people like NICHALP are just going to erase it anyway ARYAN818 22:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of LAND OF THE ARYANS? 

message: I think it is a bad idea to make revolutionary changes to an FA without consulting other editors, in particular when they are unsourced. Doing so tends to decrease the quality of the article, and as an FA is supposed to be of highest quality, the article may be de-FAed as a result. The same applies to adding on sentences, as it may decrease the flow of the article if not done carefully, and over time will result in a loss of an FA. Thanks, Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 04:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revolutionary changes to the article 

message: India maintains the third largest military force in the world. The armed forces of India consists of the Indian Army, Indian Air Force and the Indian Navy. There are auxillary forces like the Indian Paramilitary Forces, the Indian Coast Guard and the Strategic Forces Command. India is a declared nuclear weapons nation. The Indian Army maintains the second largest active troops in the world. The Indian Navy is the fifth largest in terms of manpower and the Indian Air Force is the fourth largest in the world. The President of India is the supreme commander of the Indian armed forces.
Expand it here and later can be added to the main article.
Chanakyathegreat 04:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Current draft is too choppy =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Military of India

message: Wikipedia:Vernacular_scripts--D-Boy 06:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  will scripts be removed from this article as well seeing as they do not help? 

message: Tibet, which is currenty in control by China, is fighting for its freedom and has never agreed to this takeover.  It is relevant to say, that the Tibetan governement in exile considers its country to be its country.  Such as India considers Kashmir to be apart of the Indian Union.  If we want to respect that Kashmir is apart of India, then we have to respect the fact that Tibet deserves the same treatment.  It does not matter that China is in control of Tibet; that does not make it right nor justfied by the power of the gun.  So, I claim that India shares a border with Tibet as it should and it could even state it is a so called Autonomous region of China but in order for us not to be overwhelmed by the negative Chinese influence, we need to admit this onto the India page.  India shares a border with Tibet as it shares a border with Afghanistan. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jayjrn (talk • contribs) 05:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We are differciating between a nation-state and nation when listing the countries tha border India. The ground situation is that the nation-state of PRC, which administers Tibet borders India. For his part, the Dalai Lama, the temporal and political head of Tibet has stated that he does not seek independence for Tibet  =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Only Hong Kong and Macau can be separated as separate entities from the PRC.  Other regions must follow the national Chinese boundary.  Thus, India does not border Tibet, it borders the PRC.  Also, Wikipedia is not a place for you to promote your personal agenda. And I don't know what world you live in, but the power of the gun and actual occupation is indeed the number one justification of territorial claims.  Thus, Tibet's chance of independence from China is several thousand-fold less than Taiwan's. --Mamin27 23:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tibet 

message: Photographs on the page don't give a balanced picture of mordern India. We should try to bring out the fact that India is such a unique country with so many culture and also that it is on road to progress. According to me, we are missing on visuals on most of topics about india. Can something be done about it? Also i would appreciate if someone can help in understanding how we upload pictures on wikipedia.  --sticksnstones 13:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are more than welcome to contribute to the article. There are certain criteria which must be followed before you add images to the page.
# The image should be free -- viz- free for commercial use, and free to make derivatives without conditions.
# Image should be of a high resolution >1000px
# Image should be colourful and be representative of the section that it is placed in.
# Images should be regionally balanced. All regions of India should be represented on this page.
# Please note, most of the images on the page are Featured Pictures
To upload picture, please make sure that they are *your* images, and you licence it as I've mentioned it above. Click the "upload" button on the menu to the left.
=Nichalp «Talk»= 16:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photographs on the Page 

message: Can anyone help me understand why the above section is blank? Sometime back (version) it was named "Administrative divisions" and had a list of the state names. Is there any plan to bring that section back? Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 22:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added it. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See this and the subsequent revert. Saravask 20:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Nichalp, Saravask. I was not sure whether it was vandalism or intentional. That section is really helpful to the article. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  States and Territories section 

message: Care to provide good citations--Milki 19:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aryan invasion theory ? 

message: This is just a minor issue. The to-do list says to FA the India article on the Vietmanese and Hungarian wikipedias. I wonder why this is case since this is the English Wikipedia. Moreover, neither language is Indian so it unlikely anybody regularly editing or discussing the page knows these languages. GizzaChat © 22:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Short term "to-do" list. 

message: Since this is an issue that has vexed the Pakistan and India pages for some time, I thought I'd clarify the numbers by examining the census figures put out by the Governments of Pakistan, India, and the CIA fact book (rather than quote a Wikipedia page that has a "disputed" tag on it!).  Here is what I found.  (I am adding this to the talk pages of both Pakistan and India).  Please read the data and analysis carefully before you write angry or impatient rejoinders.
Data:
* The government of Pakistan did its last census in 1998, but did not include Azad Kashmir and the Northern Areas in the final census numbers, although at least for the Northern Areas, the census was taken (as far as I can tell).
* The government of India did its last census in 2001 and did include Jammu and Kashmir (i.e. Indian administered Kashmir, but not Azad Kashmir or Northern Areas) in the census.
* The CIA factbook is made up of projections from these census figures, using the rates of growth of each population and religious group.
Assumptions:
The most pragmatic approach to evaluate the 2006 (end of the year) numbers would be to:
* Include Azad Kashmir and the Northern Areas in the Pakistan numbers
* Include Jammu and Kashmir in the India numbers.
* Use the rates of growth for each religious community in the census to compute the end of year 2006 numbers. 
Note: I know that various Wikipedians will dispute the above assumptions, but in light of current day reality, they seem to be the best assumptions.  So here are the statistics.
Pakistan:
According to the 1998 census, the population was 132,352,000.  (See 1998 numbers here).  For normalizing the computation for both countries, let us assume that these numbers did not include the year 1998 itself.  Therefore, in order to estimate the numbers of end of 2006, we will count 1998, 1999, ..., 2006, a total of 9 years.  The average annual growth rate for population in Pakistan for the period 1981-1998 according to the government census page is 2.69%.  The Pakistani government end of the year figure for 2006 of is 158,946,500 (see bottom of this page).  The or the Wikipedia Pakistan#Demographics number is of 165,803,560 (based on the US Government Census estimates, see also: CIA Factbook Pakistan Page).  We will use the larger number.  Now what about the populations of Azad Kashmir and the Northern Areas.  According to the Wikipedia Northern Areas#Demographics page the numbers for the 1998 census were 870,347.  Let us give the Northern Areas an average population growth rate of 6% (more than double the Pakistani rate of 2.69%, since it is sparsely populated).  Then the end of year 2006 population for the Northern Areas is:
 870347\left(1+6/100\right)^9= 1470400 
What about Azad Kashmir?  Well, no census was taken recently, but according to the Wikipedia Azad Kashmir: Demographics page, it has approximately 4 million inhabitants today.  So, the total end of 2006 population of Pakistan is:
 165803560 + 1470400 + 4000000 = 171273960
i.e. 171 million 273 thousand 960.  Now, according to the Pakistan Census Organisation: Population by Religion Page, 96.28% of Pakistanis are Muslim (the Wikpedia Pakistan: Demographics page shows 96%), so the total end of 2006 Muslim population of Pakistan is:
 173540400\times 96.28/100 = 164900000 
i.e. 164 million, 900 thousand at the end of 2006.
India:
According to the Government of India 2001 Data by Religion], the total Muslim population of India at the end of 2000 was 138,188,220 (See here for the numbers) for 13.4% of the population.  However, the rates of growth of population for different communities in India are quite different.  According to the 2001 India census Growth Rates by Religious Communities Page, the ten-yearly growth rate for Muslims during 1981-1990 was 34.5 and during 1991-2000 was 36.0.  (See: here),   This gives an average ten-year Muslim community growth rate (for the period 1981-2000) of:
 (34.5+36.0)/2 = 35.25 
This gives a yearly growth rate of approximately 3.05% since:
 100\left(1+3.05/100\right)^{10} = 135.05 
Since the 2001 census give the end of 2000 figures, as in the Pakistan case, we will count 2001, i.e. we will have 2001, 2002, ..., 2006, a total of six years.  Therefore, the end of 2006 Muslim population of India is: 
 138188220 \left(1+3.05/100\right)^6 = 165490000 
i.e. 165 million 490 thousand
This also means that although, Muslims comprised 13.4% of India's population at the end of 2000, they now constitute over 15% of the population.
Conclusion:
The numbers for the two countries are more or less equal.  These are the projections from the best sources I can get.  I know some Pakistanis will say, what about the Afghan refugees in Pakistan that number approximately 3 million, to which I am sure some Indians will say, what about the Bangladeshi undocumented immigrants in India, etc.  These seem to be the official numbers.  From my point of view the numbers are close enough that neither country can say with absolute confidence that it has the second largest Muslim population in the world and the other doesn't.  Maybe we can say they tie for second place.
Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PS. I should add that I am not trying to violate WP:NOR here, but just saying that the credible sources out there, like the Government censuses, don't make a clear cut case for either country (exclusively) being the second most populous Muslim country in 2006. At least this is what I found.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Second Largest Muslim Population

message: I would like to have a straw poll regarding the use of thousand million vs. billion in articles related to India.  Do editors believe that thousand million is less ambiguous than billion?  Should one be used in preference to the other in articles related to India?  Please express you opinons below.  --BostonMA talk 00:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You make a good point about common sense.  That certainly applies to the population of India (or any other country for that matter).  However, I cannot resist the urge to allow you the experience of exposure to the term "thousand million people"   Not that it invalidates your point.  --BostonMA talk 01:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it hurt to mention both figures, one perhaps in brackets? One is the American form and the other is British I think anyway.GizzaChat © 01:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that the British switched to the short billion in the 1970's.  --BostonMA talk 01:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Here's what the OED says: 1. orig. and still commonly in Great Britain: A million millions. (= U.S. trillion.) 2. In U.S., and increasingly in Britain: A thousand millions.  (It is interesting that they use the plural millions.)  Anyway, in light of what Nichalp says, there should be no confusion with billion on this page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thousand Million 

message: As India has 22 official languages, a page similar to Official names of the USSR should be made, I think. EamonnPKeane 12:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like fun (to read), if the English transliteration is there.  I won't be much help with creating the page though.  Someone will have to round up the various people with knowledge of those languages.  I suppose it could be done here.   Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I cannot be sure about all 22 languages but I suspect that, unlike the Russian example, the name stays similar in most of the languages ("Bharat", "Hindustan", "India").--Blacksun 04:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Names of India in official languages

message: I have added the  template and have mentioned it here per the instructions in the hidden text of the article. With regards, AnupamTalk 06:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the point of having the template inserted in any county article. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indo-Iranian-speaking Template 

message: The guidelines ask us to use Indian English. But it is conspicuously missing in the text. How come, all numbers are in millions/billions and not lakhs/crores? Similarly why are all economic figures given only in USD and not their INR equivalents (in addition)? (In contrast, the geographical area is specified both in sq kilometers and sq miles) Sunayana 13:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't know what the official Wikipedia policy is, or if there even is one, but the United Kingdom page is written in British English and, concurrently, its GDP numbers are given in US dollars (and US usage, i.e. a trillion is "one thousand million billion").  It is the same with Australia.  I should imagine that other countries do the same, and it is some sort of precedent.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't know that each time a figure is mentioned in billions of US dollars, a parenthetical transliteration in crores of rupees is needed.  I think it may seem a little heavy-handed and confusing to an average reader of that worldwide audience.  However, I agree that some mention should be made, perhaps in the economy section, along the lines of: "The legal tender in India is a rupee equal in value to US $??; moreover, the Indian numbering system is widely used in throughout the country, in both monetary transactions and the press.  Commonly used units are a lakh (100,000) and a crore (10 million)."  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It's more like a US person saying they should not use United States customary units (pints, quarts, gallons, etc.) and use only SI units, which they won't do. deeptrivia (talk) 07:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indian English? Where? 

message: The first thing Wikipedia says that India is a country in the Middle East. It should be changed to South Asia. 
Darkness1089 19:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What Wikipedia are you reading?  The first thing Wikipedia says where? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Since when is India in the Middle East?? 

message: Should Ayyavazhi be listed with the religions found in India? Sfacets 22:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have this discussion going on at two different talk pages; here, and at Talk:India/Ayyavazhi. In response to the sources you cited above, I stated the following at Talk:India/Ayyavazhi: Just because something is published by a university does not mean it is valid (as per your claim above, that "Since it is a University publication it is valid."). There is an entire process of peer review that is conducted in order to substantiate scholarly claims. If 33 Ayyavazhi theologians state that Ayyavazhi is a prominent belief system, then, well, what do you expect? It's like asking the College of Cardinals (not a 'university', by the way) to advise objectively on beliefs like the immaculate conception. Is there any significant Western scholarship on Ayyavazhi that would give your push for its inclusion on the India page more well-rounded support? Sarayuparin 22:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've replied there. - Paul 22:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ayyavazhi