Talk:India/Archive 24

message: In past few days, there has been a spur in activity on this page over the challenges/problems India is facing and how Indian government ****** it. (There is even a debate on weather there is control, mild control, no control and what not...so I blanked the word). Sentences have been cut making them look like a lizard that cut it's tail running for protection and paragraphs have been added at free will. In order to limit such edits and restore stability I have created a new article Socio-economic problems of India that can accommodate all such stuff. A link to this article can be put up on the India page replacing the current sentence which really appears list like. I propose - 
Since independence, India has faced Socio-economic problems and has been taking steps to address them.
Going forward, those who are interested in elaborating such information can do so at this article which can act as parent article to individual problems/solutions offered in India. I would like to gain a consensus before replacing the current sentence with this one. Everyone interested is welcome here for discussion but no door to door campaigning this time. --GPPande talk! 18:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Any/every country faces problems that it works to resolve - this proposal is like stating the obvious. I encourage GPPande to assume good faith regarding the efforts of others. S h i v a (Visnu) 19:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything in the world is obvious depending upon weather you knew it earlier or not. We are not here to discuss that. Feel to reword the sentence if that suits. Summary sentence with link to details is all that is needed in this style of article. By the way, I didn't pinch(name) you. Why is it hurting so much? --GPPande talk! 20:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Again, I encourage you to assume good faith regarding the efforts of others and be polite and respectful. S h i v a (Visnu) 20:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh please. Lets get to the real point here. Your views on the sentence to be constructed is welcome. Keep other things off. --GPPande talk! 20:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Time to end the barbs please. =Nichalp «Talk»= 20:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Please hold on. The idea of summary style is not to list all the problems, or all the festivals or all the members of abc. =Nichalp «Talk»= 20:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey Kokar, this was the very reason I have created the new article. Please add on the information to Socio-economic problems of India as has been done by other editors. All detail information should go into the child articles and not summary style article which highlights the important aspects only. Otherwise it would be too lengthy to read. Not good - right na? You would be glad to know that you can edit this child article. --GPPande talk! 20:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree with Kokar in that it is essential to briefly point out some of these challenges India is facing. His suggestions can be swiftly incorporated in 2-3 sentences in the "Economy" and "Demographics" sections. I feel it is essential both in terms of WP:SS and WP:NPOV to give the full picture. S h i v a (Visnu) 20:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solution to all problems!!! 

message: where are the books used including in the classrooms etc was the question so voila, here is the answer
PELINKA 146 Libraries in the USA
 
first 10
1. Adelphi University  Garden City, NY 11530 United States 
     
2. Alibris  Emeryville, CA 94608 United States 
    
3. American University  Washington, DC 20016 United States 
    
4. Arizona State University  Tempe, AZ 85287 United States 
     
5. Arkansas State University - Jonesboro  State University, AR 72467 United States 
     
6. Austin College  Sherman, TX 75090 United States 
    
 
7. Bates College Library  Lewiston, ME 04240 United States 
     
8. Boise State University  Boise, ID 83725 United States 
     
9. Boston College  Chestnut Hill, MA 02467 United States 
     
10. Bowdoin College  Brunswick, ME 04011 United States 
    
  
HESHMATI first 10 of 38:
1. Alibris  Emeryville, CA 94608 United States 
    
 
2. American University  Washington, DC 20016 United States 
    
 
 
3. Baylor University Libraries  Waco, TX 76798 United States 
    
 
4. Colorado State University  Ft Collins, CO 80521 United States 
    
 
5. Columbia University Libraries  New York, NY 10027 United States 
    
  
6. George Mason University  Fairfax, VA 22030 United States 
    
 
 
7. George Washington University  Washington, DC 20037 United States 
    
   
 
8. Georgetown University  Washington, DC 20057 United States 
    
  
9. Illinois State University  Normal, IL 61761 United States 
    
  
10. Indiana University  Bloomington, IN 47405 United States
:I think KH2 meant, "Where are they used (i.e. cited) in the article?"  But, more importantly, they are specialized texts, not really appropriate to a general article like this.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  From user Weber regarding the quick removal of literature on India 

message: Guess we should include this. I believe the mission is quite remarkable being one of the handful and given the economical status. The most appropriate (unless we create another), IMO, is Military section. Docku: What up? 02:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  A sentence or two on the moon mission is definitely necessary -RavichandarMy coffee shop 05:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See the discussion three sections above. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  moon mission 

message: According to Languages of india#Language families, Dravidian, Austro-Asiatic, Tibeto-Burman, Dardic and Nihalic languages are also spoken in India. So, why is this template on Indo-Aryan languages included here. Either it should be removed or those of other families of languages (if they exist) should be included. India is made of diverse ethnic, language and cultural groups. This being the case, I believe that, this particular template gives undue importance to one group alone. Thanks-RavichandarMy coffee shop 05:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it per WP:BB. --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 18:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: This is the last paragraph of the economy section:
In 2007, estimated exports stood at US$140 billion and imports were around US$224.9 billion. Textiles, jewellery, engineering goods and software are major export commodities. While crude oil, machineries, fertilizers, and chemicals are major imports. India's most important trading partners are the United States, the European Union, and China.
The statistics are not sourced and ideally it should be merged with another paragraph since it is quite small in length. GizzaDiscuss © 00:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 2007 figures updated (added actual numbers instead of estimated) with a reference. --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 11:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economy section 

message: Dr. Amit Kumar Bhandari (a very promising younger Indian economist from the Indian Institute of Social Welfare and Business Management (IISWBM) in Calcutta) et al in Heshmati (a world class Swedish economist, who worked a long time with the United Nation's WIDER Institute in Helsinki and who is now among others Professor in Seoul's KNU, among the top 5% of the world's economists according to the IDEAS/REPEC criteria of Number of Works, Number of Distinct Works, Number of Distinct Works, Weighted by Number of Authors, Number of Journal Pages, Number of Journal Pages, Weighted by Number of Authors, Number of Abstract Views in RePEc Services over the past 12 months, Number of Downloads through RePEc Services over the past 12 months 
Number of Abstract Views in RePEc Services over the past 12 months, Weighted by Number of Authors, Number of Downloads through RePEc Services over the past 12 months, Weighted by Number of Authors) and associates portray a valid picture about liberalization, globalization and development in India. What's so wrong with it that you simply erased it? And you also erased the Tony Blair quote - which reminds especially us Europeans not to project superiority complexes onto this important nation, and democracy. If you do not agree with the presentation, at least include the argument in other style and in a condensed fashion, but simply erasing it is without justification. Roadmap to Bangalore was recently very positively reviewed in the "Journal of Common Market Studies", one of the leading social sciences journals in the world, and how come that you simply erase the entry, once and for all? Kind regards
From User Franz weber, 21:33 Central European Time, November 17, 2008, Vienna, Austria  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Franz weber (talk • contribs) 20:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's wrong with Almas Heshmati et al. view on globalization in India? 

message: Modification of this list results in the validity loss of this poll.
====1) Include all languages specified in the constitution. This means Official languages of the Union, of the States and the 8th schedule.==== 
====2) Hindi as the only Official language of the Union. (nothing else)====
--Indiastarforce (talk) 08:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Based on the constitution and language acts regarding English there are 6 legal versions for the infobox. Please choose one. 

message: --Indiastarforce (talk) 08:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: '''2) Hindi as the only Official language of the Union. (nothing else)'''

message: --Kalarimaster (talk) 23:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: '''4) Include point 1) and English (Kalarimaster proposal)'''

message: I object to the current locator map on grounds that it takes a position wrt disputed international borders. here is a locator map that indicates territorial disputes. In the interst of npov, we should use that one until this is being addressed in the orthographic projection one as well. We can't let prettiness take precedence over factuality or npov. dab (𒁳) 19:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: sounds reasonable. Docku: What up? 19:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather than jumping the gun so soon, let's petition the author to change the map instead. commons:User talk:Ssolbergj#Maps - India =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: sure, we can put the map back, after it has been changed. I am just saying, remove the current version, this isn't a judgement on any possible future versions. dab (𒁳) 20:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

text: why are you repeating the point I made right above? I simple "I agree" would suffice. --dab (𒁳) 15:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  locator map 

message: I think, we should rewrite the sentence in a simple way til Dinesh is able to obtain the requested information about the expert committee, so, that the heat calms down a bit. The languages are listed in alphabetical order. So nobody has to complain. If the discussion regarding Dinesh source' doesn't result in a new consensus, RegentsPark initial consensus purposal should be back on top.
Here is the transition purposal, which is just stating facts:
The Indian government created a category of classical languages of India. Kannada, Sanskrit, Tamil and Telugu were accorded this status.
--Kalarimaster (talk) 22:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just thought it was over. Oppose categorically. No change in anything till Dinesh or any other brings up evidence which will change our perception of the subject in a significant way. period. Docku: What up? 22:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see here again two viewpoints in this discussion: One group respects the GoI statements also in academical terms. The other group is just sceptical about it. This purposal should provide full neutrality. I hope you understand that. --Kalarimaster (talk) 22:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont understand you. may be because you are confusing what viewpoints mean. When you say group, do you mean wikipedia editors? It is not wikipedians' viewpoints we are talking about. boy, I am getting tired with this. Docku: What up? 22:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course i mean consensus in the wikipedia community. There seem to be no Krishnamurty, Mahadevan, etc. available to talk with about this issue. --Kalarimaster (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, if we were to include our view points, wikipedia would call it original research. Pls click and read what is inside the blue link, it is important. Docku: What up? 22:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You want me to explain about WP:OR? thanks for the laugh. Tell me, who is here "sceptical" about everything and try to push this scepticism into the article, although there is a sourced info, that a linguistic expert committee investigated this matter? Yes, it's you, Docku, not me. --Kalarimaster (talk) 22:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You know what, I find it hard when people are very sure about everything. If there is skepticism about the subject, let it be so. Did u forget that our skepticism is, indeed stemming out of studies and reports from other scholars who are not members of the "expert commitee". yes, two view points and both are included in the article in the most neutral non-negative way possible. I remember u supported the text proposed by RP yesterday. I would recommend you read the above section of the discussion which happened today before you logged in. Thanks. Docku: What up? 23:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I read all this. And yes, i supported RP's consensus purposal. I'm still OK with it. But we have to wait Dinesh' report to solve the GoI/expert committee word problem. Until this is solved, we should go with a transition phrase, which is 100% neutral. This is my opinion. I want to remind you, that you should be, besides all skepticism (i said once to you, that i encourage you to be so), keep neutral. --Kalarimaster (talk) 23:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Kalarimaster, u r just confusing me. You are OK with RP's text and yet, you would also want some other phrase which you think is 100% neutral. Why dont we just wait on the text agreed by everyone instead of muddying it all up again all over. it is ur call. Docku: What up? 23:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Transition purposal

message: Since user:Dineshkannambadi has not respected the views of the other editors on this page, I have now chosen to replace his edit with the sentence given below.  I feel that putting anything after a sentence (in the culture section) which mentions Ramayana, Mahabharata, Abhijnanashakuntalam, and Sangam poetry, all of which are works of classical literature, suggests, at the very least, that these languages are classical in the same sense.  Our job, as Wikipedia editors, is to report the consensus of published scholarly opinion, and if there is no consensus, to report the controversy.  In this situation, however, there is no controversy among scholarly publications.  The published scholarly opinion is unanimously agreed that India has only two classical languages and they are Sanskrit and Tamil, and this consensus is not new, but goes back a hundred years.  To date, no one has been able to produce any publication on Google Scholar of the quality I have produced below that even remotely suggests that Kannada and Telugu are classical languages.  
user:Dineshkannambadi is incorrect in suggesting that India's Sahitya Akademi (National Academy of Letters) has created this mysterious "expert committee."  The Sahitya Akademi explcitly recommended that no language be given this official tag; and, indeed, I have added two references from the Sahitya Akademi that make clear what they think is classical.  I am happy to challenge user:Dineshkannambadi (and anyone else who wants to join him) to a mediation, an arbitration, or any other Wikipedia dispute resolution method.  The quality of the references below, will, I hope, create the first dawnings in my interlocutors of the work they have cut out for them.  Please, no wikilawyering; simply get your sources, and join me in a mediation.  Please also don't flatter yourself by assuming that this is a threat.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: PS We can obviously reduce the number of footnotes, once there is agreement on the phrasing.  Their number here (and temporarily in the main text) serves to make the point that this is indeed the unanimous published opinion.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: PPS Many of the references below in their more complete forms not only make the point that Sanskrit and Tamil are classical languages, but also that Kannada and Telugu are not.  I haven't always included that information in the footnotes, because it hasn't been strictly relevant to the statement they support.  However, please read the extended biblio in User:Fowler%26fowler/Classical_languages_of_India.  Note, however, that A. K. Ramanujan and Sanford B. Seaver were/are scholars of Kannada; they say unambiguously in the footnotes that there are only two classical languages, Sanskrit and Tamil.  Note too that their books were published in 1985 and 1998 respectively, long before the Government of India got in the act.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Fowler, it is you who has not respected the discussions here. This is meant to be a two line explanation, no a 5K explanation of a simple issue. I dont think anyone who truly cares about this article is going to accepet this 5K of data to explain a simple point.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A. K. Ramanujan and Sanford B. are entitled to their pesonal views, not the official view of GOI.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

text: I Support RegentParks suggestion  which seems the most neutral and NPOV.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi AreJay, All good points.  I guess RegentsPark's version incorporates your objections.  So, if you don't mind, we'll go with that.  And no, I'll have just one unbolded reference. :)  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Second Alternative Phrasing

message: I think we could add something on the origin of the word "bharat", which is sanskrit, meaning "the enlightened", indians were called "bharati" meaning "the enlightened". Also, the first time bharat was cited is in this shlokam- "Uttaram yad samudrasya, himadreeyasya dakshinam, varsham tat bhaaratm namah, bhaarati yatra santati". I do not clearly remember the shlokam, if there is anyone here who could incorporate my suggestions. I felt it can be added since the origin of india, hindustan etc are mentioned.. 41.209.23.34 (talk) 09:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Added a reference. Indirectly from the Vayu Purana.--Regents Park (bail out your boat) 23:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of Bharat 

message: :For the last time, Kalarimaster, the Constitution of India has 85 articles (Article 152 to 237), about one-third of its length, devoted to the States of India.  The articles include everything from how to choose a State Governor, his term of office, how to hold State elections, the salaries of legislators, the finances of states.  However, we don't list the results of those choices on the India page, but rather on the States pages such as Karnataka or Assam.  In the "infobox" on the India page, we don't list all the State Governors or Chief Ministers; we list only the President of India, the Prime Minister , and so forth.  However, in the Karnataka page, we do list the Governor or Chief Ministers.  There is no reason why we should make an exception of Official State Languages; they are listed in the States' infoboxes, such as Karnataka.  Schedule 8 languages are listed in the India infobox, not because some of them might be official languages of some states (as you yourself have admitted), but because they have official recognition in India.   Furthermore, Schedule 8 languages are listed in the Constitution and a Constitutional amendment is required to change that list.  As you have also readily admitted, not all Schedule 8 languages are official state languages; examples are Sindhi or Sanskrit.
:Kalarimaster, I would urge you to voluntarily revert your edit.  We have shown great patience with you on this page.  If you persist in such unilateral action, I will be forced to get admin help.  You have already been blocked for 10 days in early November.  Edit warring so soon after emerging from a long block does not bode well for a productive career on Wikipedia.  Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As a separate issue, summary style and brevity were raised also during the classical languages discussion. Though, i understand and agree with the spirit of it, I find the first pointer flawed in that accuracy can not be superseded for the sake of brevity. Docku: What up? 20:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed that accuracy cannot be superseded for the sake of brevity but, and this is my point, we should be aiming for brevity. Not including state languages in the India article is not inaccurate and adds little, if anything, to the article. My more abstract concern is that the India (collective set of articles) are increasingly top heavy with poor quality articles at the detail level. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 20:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if you really want accuracy, then throw out the Schedule 8 languages as well from the Infobox, and even English.  A preponderance of reliable sources say that the Official language of India is Hindi.  Period.  If you look in the references here, you will see that the main articles on India in both Encyclopaedia Britannica and Encarta Encyclopedia say simply "Hindi." (references 1 and 2); in addition, the British Foreign Office, UNESCO, and the US Library of Congress mention only Hindi.  I think that people don't seem to understand: the India page of the two major encyclopedias lists only Hindi as India's Official language.  This page is about India; the Official Language in the infobox refers to the Official Language of India, not of Karnataka, or of the City of Bangaluru.  If Kalarimaster can produce a preponderance of evidence (by way of secondary sources only) that say the Official language(s) of India are Hindi, English, and all the Official language of the States, we'll put that information in.  We went through this in July 2007.  My list is from then.  Even then, no one who wanted all the other languages could find any evidence in the secondary sources.  If Kalarimaster wants to interpret the Constitution, he should write papers for law journals.  The India page, until July 2007, had only Hindi.  English and the scheduled languages were added to placate certain editors on this page,  but there was much less evidence in the secondary sources for them.  The bottom line for me is: if there is no evidence (and I mean a preponderance of evidence) in the secondary sources for an edit, we can't make it.  Period.  Summary style is an issue if the edit is accurate (ie. has the weight of secondary sources behind it); this one isn't, not even remotely.   Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

text: PS I have now also added a section on Government of India statements about "Official language of India" on my subpage (section 16). I mean it is getting to be ridiculous, even the 15 million students in India who follow the NCERT curriculum, when they get to grade 12, learn in their textbook, in Chapter 12: India after independence, A constitution is written page 164(5), "A compromise was finally arrived at: namely, that while Hindi would be the “official language” of India, English would be used in the courts, the services, and communications between one state and another."  And we have a user, Kalarimaster, who to date has not been able to produce a single secondary sources, but yet is trying to interpret the Constitution of India, from first principles!  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec)Constitutionally, English is not an official language of India since its status as one expired in 1965 and no constitutional amendment was ever passed correcting that. The Official languages act of 1963 calls English an 'associate official language' (I guess this means it is without tenure!). Anyway, English is an official language, de-facto, in the sense that all Central government business is conducted in Hindi as well as English. I don't like the idea of expanding the scope of this article by adding lists of state official languages. It would be much better if people worked on the sub articles and brought their quality up rather than make this article a repository of all information about India. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 22:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Section Break1

message: The article's intro claims that Islam arrived in the first century CE.  Mohamed was not born until the 7th century CE!! Someone should fix that!
160.39.225.111 (talk) 18:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear IP, it is millenium, not century. read it again. Docku: What up? 19:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islam did not arrive in the first century CE! 

message: This is a bit aside from just editorial matters. I dont know what the origins of the people involved in the official language discussions are, but I hope all parties understand that language and linguistic identities are an extremely sensitive issue in India. This is quite understanble since the 'Indian' political identity is very new (about 60 years) whereas the linguistic identities date back centuries. The emphasis given to Hindi has undeniably caused tensions, and many of the amendments, laws and political developments in Republican India have been a result of these. I think if its made explicitly clear that the states specify their own official language, even if its just two lines, it is worth the price in brevity. I know that one might say that might mean, by extension, this article must then talk about governors, chief ministers etc of the states. But the political results of linguistic states are not as important to various Indians (emotionally at least) as just the fact that there is a Tamil state, Punjabi state ... and so on i.e a sort of a legally recognized homeland based on language. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 21:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, we are aware.  But there are higher principles on Wikipedia, independent of everyone's personal sensitivities.  One of them is: making edits only if a preponderance of reliable, i.e. WP:RS secondary sources are behind them.  Wikipedia is not a self-help group.  Why is it that I can produce with very little effort two dozen reliable sources for these edits, (and I don't have any interest in the topic of the Official languages of India), and all the linguistic-nationalists with their precious sensitivities have produced nothing in two years? The same conversation repeats every six months when yet another editor—with a chip on their shoulder—turns up and decides to upgrade this page with the banalities of their family folk-lore.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I hope you guys understand the sensitivity of linguistic issues 

message: Why is there so much emphasis on poverty.  India has become  superpower. Mentions of poverty and malnutrition do not befit a superpower. I returned to India last year and travelled across India. Guess what? I saw no poverty! If we do mention poverty, then poverty should be mentioned on every country's page. I suspect Western bias in people who have never been in powerful and glorious country.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ommalik (talk • contribs) 20:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you only met up with the rich elite and didn't go outside the upper-class districts in the big metros, let alone Bihar. Look up the life expectancy stats etc, Most education officials and businesspeople etc I know nowadays are always going to China and Vietnam for investments, and they like to come back and tell everyone how amazing everything is, obviously only thinking of the pampering given to them to score a business partner. Then they usually harp on like champagne socialists and moan about how bad inequality is in real socialist countries like Australia and Western Europe. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 03:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

text: (Question to User:Ommalik) Which part of India did you visit? I am seriously curious. --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 07:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Apparently no place near where Matty Hayden was ;) AreJay (talk) 07:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is half a sentence in the lead and to sentences in economy that talk about poverty. That really isn't a lot, especially when we are supposed write from a neutral perspective. Most of the information in the article indirectly praises the country. GizzaDiscuss © 07:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: I wrote a similar message to Ssolbergj (in Wikimedia Common) who created these retarded maps. I hope you guys here can back me. It's a clear bias and I don't think that being bias is a policy of Wikipedia. It is high time things are straightened out. 
(Reference:  vs )
Dear Ssolbergj, your map of China colors Arunachal Pradesh in light green which implies it is somehow rather a part of China although under Indian administration and claimed as an integral part of India. I agree this is a disputed region by both countries. In that case why doesn't the India map have Aksai Chin (a Chinese administered region claimed by India) be colored light green on the India map? Why double standards apply for Aksai and Arunachal although they are both disputed?
Same goes with Pakistan occupied kashmir. Shouldn't those areas be indicated in light green too? Please maintain neutrality as prescribed under Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I look forward to you recoloring those maps with a NPOV in mind and not China slanted views. Thank you.
If they don't want to change it, I suggest we change the map of India to its old form (2d one) as it is more accurate.
I look forward to all your replies / opinions / assistance as I am not an established user on Wikipedia. Thank you.
:I suggest we remove this map, and tag it with  =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ) Thanks for bringing a smile to my face.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ATTENTION: Map of India 

message: There are more languages in Nagaland than in Western Europe. It is a ridiculous demand to include languages besides Hindi. Where does one draw the line as to what qualifies as an important language and what doesn't? TheBlueKnight (talk) 09:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: the number of speakers? the eighth schedule? Obviously we cannot list 1,652 "mother tongues". But if we restrict ourselves to those spoken by >1% of the population, we're down to a dozen. Or, more than a million speakers: 26. --dab (𒁳) 10:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  And how is that fair to speakers of less than a million people? Are they any less Indian? TheBlueKnight (talk) 11:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the stable version of a week ago, listing Hindi as the official language, English as the subsidiary official languages, and the twenty one other Schedule 8 languages as officially recognized languages, in the infobox, is fine.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

text: WP:DUE? We never said this article should contain a biography of every Indian who ever lived. --dab (𒁳) 16:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: PS There might have been a case for listing Hindi alone had history gone differently ... It is true that planned development of Hindi as the lingua franca of India began almost a century ago with Gandhi's major support.  However, the Hindustani (Hindi-Urdu) version of Hindi—the bazaar form—that Gandhi supported and could speak himself, was soon forgotten, after his death, by the Hindi-chauvinists, such as Purushottam Das Tandon, who were influencing the framing of the constitution.  Consequently, the Hindi that the Government of India started pushing after independence, for example, over the radio, was so Sanskritized, that in the 1950s many people in the Punjab, and not just the newly arrived partition refugees, began to tune in, for their news, to Radio Pakistan.  That is, until the latter stopped making any distinction between Urdu and Persian.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: PPS (to Dab)  I think you need to write another essay, this time on "Infobox fixation." :) The fixations on Wikipedia are apparently more focused now, and I am afraid WP:Lead fixation might not be comprehensive enough.  The recent effort to add the official states languages in the infobox has not even bothered with demographic section of the India page (itself written in WP:SS) whose summary the infox is supposed to provide! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

text: I am not a party here but the first sentence of this thread by BlueKnight and your comment above made my head spin. I completely agree to your sentiments. BTW, I would remember the Nagaland statement for a long long time....Amazing! Ok, sorry for the interruption - let the serious debate continue. --GPPande talk! 19:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, its just the fact that people (rightly or wrongly) often care more about how things are perceived by others than about the truth (whatever that may be) itself. If a reader reads the infobox and sees only Hindi as the official language then he or she will have a perception that Hindi is more important than other Indian languages (which is clearly not the truth), and many people feel that this should not be the case. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 20:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: a charitable, philanthropic outlook. A more adequate description of the endless Indian disputes here on Wikipedia would be, people trying to make things appear the way they think they ought to be, which usually involves their own group being the greatest ever. --dab (𒁳) 15:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Bias is just not an Indian thing. Bias is natural (humanly) and how well one attempts to overcome the inherency to stay objective will determine how good a editor they are going to be. Pushing ones view because one believes he knows better (out of arrogance) is also bias, just a different kind. Let us just remind ourself that this is not WP:FORUM. Docku: What up? 16:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: sure. which is why we have the WP:NPOV policy. Which seems to work pretty well on the whole. I didn't say the Indian disputes were the only one on Wikipedia. We would do well to remember WP:FORUM indeed, and remove obvious cases of idle pov-pushing on sight without bothering to rehash a stale debate. --dab (𒁳) 16:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Languages 

message: I've noticed that several countries that were mentioned that border with India don't have their proper links. I also saw that in other languages (Portuguese and Spanish) they do. I am a registered user but I also noticed that in spite of the fact that I can make changes in the portuguese and spanish versions, I just can't touch the english version.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmalmeida1973 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Countries are no longer linked as per the August Manual of Style update: Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-09-08/Dispatches 2. Thanks! =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to the countries 

message: The following text looks to be duplicate, some kind of cut and past error:
: Home to the Indus Valley Civilization and a region of historic trade routes and vast empires, the Indian subcontinent was identified with its commercial and cultural wealth for much of its long history.[16] Four major world religions, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism and Jainism originated there, while Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam arrived in the first millennium CE and shaped the region's diverse culture. Gradually annexed by the British East India Company from the early eighteenth century and colonised by the United Kingdom from the mid-nineteenth century, India became an independent nation in 1947 after a struggle for independence that was marked by widespread nonviolent resistance.
I was going to fix it, but the page is semi-protected.
Tarsa (talk) 00:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicate Text in Introductory Paragraphs 

message: What the hell is the section with human rights doing on the main page of India? And whats with human rights not being enforced? 75.111.198.59 (talk) 01:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We dont add or remove information based on our likings or dislikings. Nevertheless, this info added by User:Grosplant is WP:UNDUE. Docku: What up? 01:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, I understand wikipedia is not to be written according to what I like or dislike, I did feel that section was not warranted there according to policy. I lack the ability to make changes to this article. Annant (talk) 06:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human Rights 

message: Yes, nobody is suggesting to call Bengali the official language of India. the above statement you said is "correct" is neither mentioned in the body of the article nor in the infobox. Do you think it is ok? well, i dont think so. 
Of these two following sentences, Official languages of Indian states are not necessarily the same as official languages of India. and India has X number Schedule 8 languages, which one do you think is infobox worthy? I would say neither or first. That is my position. 
Pls dont tell me that the sentence is as ridiculous as "Primie mnister of India is not the same as Chief ministers". lol. Docku: What up? 21:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think either merits a mention in the infobox.  I do not think the situation of having different official languages at a local level is all that remarkable, but if it needs to be dealt with in this article, I'd favour doing so in the body, perhaps by changing the sixth sentence of the second paragraph of the Demographics section to: "In addition, every state and union territory has its own official languages, and the constitution also recognises in particular 21 other languages that are either abundantly spoken or have classical status" and taking everything except Hindi and English out of the infobox. -- Arvind (talk) 21:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: done. --Docku: What's up? 05:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And, not unexpectedly, undone without reference to (or participation in) this discussion. :-).  -- Arvind (talk) 16:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox: Schedule 8 languages or Official State languages or neither