Talk:India/Archive 25

message: In India, 76% of the population lives on less than $2 a day (purchasing power), in nominal terms it is roughly 20 rupees or $0.5. That compares with 73% in Sub-Saharan Africa. 42% earns less than $1.25 (PPP). See . 70% is either illiterate or has not finished primary education. Out of the remaining, only the elite affords to vocation training.
Yet affairs of ordinary Indians are persistently removed from the article.
Anyone else defending the right of ordinary Indians to be mentioned in the economy section?
Lalit Jagannath (talk) 22:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: poverty in India is linked, both from the article lead and from the "economy" section, as it should be, so I find it difficult to understand what you are complaining about. --dab (𒁳) 13:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Note:  has made similar edits to Economy of India and Economic development in India. --KnowledgeHegemony talk 19:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ordinary Indians are ignored in the economy section 

message: Please make a section on education in India. The article should contain comprehensive information about school level and graduate level education, as well as research in various disciplines. Pointers on university system, institutes of engineering, management, science, medicine, etc. are required.
India has prestigious centers of excellence in education and research, and the education system unique in its make. These need to be highlighted with references.
:Please see the FAQ =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on Education Science Technology Required 

message: The image of Ajanta caves had Aurangabad, but there are many Aurangabad. So I put in the proper Aurangabad, Maharashtra
Dewan S. Ahsan 06:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ajanta caves 

message: the word "independence" in the main box is very wrong as india did not arise overnight. its a 5500 year old continuous civilization and thus should have the words "foundation - indus valley civilization - 3500 bc", then "formation - mauryan empire - 2500 bc", then "independence - ..."
the concept of independc is entirely western and wikipedia must support a NPOV. the indian POV is occupation.........
pls change.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.12.217 (talk) 11:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess you mean to say "The Republic of India" was founded on 15th August. Mmm...interesting and in a way true. --KnowledgeHegemony talk 17:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the Republic of India was founded on 26 January 1950. --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 15:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mean to cast aspersions on the IP's motives, but the post looks suspiciously like banned user user:HimalayanAshoka's, who was last posting from Singapore.  See archives from Jan/Feb/March 2007.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  remove "independence" & put "foundation" 

message: There should be some mention of the fact that India has the oldest continuous culture and civilization in the world - quite significant so should be in the lead. 98.234.52.29 (talk) 09:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please discuss this first on the talk pages of both History of India and Culture of India and gain consensus there.  Please also read WP:Main article fixation.  Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural Continuity 

message: may you make photos of Indian Plated mail and Mirror armour? especially interested in famous sind-armour (Idot (talk) 03:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please post request on WP:INB.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need help 

message: Hi There, 
GDP and Per Capita income need to be updated as in Hindi version. The data should not be different whether one is on Hindi Pages or in English.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deep1012 (talk • contribs) 12:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Updated for which year and according to which statistics (World Bank, IMF)? Has the Economy of India page been updated?  If not, please post first on Talk:Economy of India and gain consensus there for this edit.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  GDP 

message: This is for your kind information that there exist other territories within the territory of Goa. The teritories comprises of village communes called as 'COMMUNES OF GOA'(also called as 'Comunidades' in Portuguese and 'Gaunkaries' in Konkani). There are a total of 223 Communes in Goa. More than two-third of the land of Goa (other than forest)belongs to the Communes and the rest belongs to the Government of Goa. As of today the Govt. Of Goa (India) stands illegally on the Comunidades. A grave error has been committed by not including the same in the 'Administrative Divisions' section. A request has been made to wiki:Goa page too. 
Kindly coordinate and edit as follows;
Administrative Divisions 
28 states
7 Union territories
223 Communes of Goa
A link on 'Communes of Goa' is desired on the India page.
I request members to be careful before making rude comments especially if ignorant of the facts. Kindly make necessary changes immediately because a comprehensive article on 'The Communes of Goa' is due to be published on wikipedia.
 
References are given below;
Foral of Afonso Mexia (the Magna Carta), dated 16/09/1526
Government Official Gazette, dated 15/05/1958
Preamble of the Diploma Legislativo No.2070, dated 15/04/1961Gomes, Olivinho J.F. 1996. Village Goa. New Delhi: S. Chand & Co. Ltd. pp. 325-358.Pereira,R.Gomes, 1981, Goa, Volume II : Gaunkari: The Old Village Associations, Goa, PanajiSouza de, Carmo. 2000. “ The village communities. A historical and legal perspective”, in: Borges, Charles J. Goa and Portugal. History and development. New Delhi: Concept Publishing Co. pp. 111-124.Adv. Andre A Pereira, 2007  “The Gaunkaries Of Goa” – A brief Legal synopsis of the Comunidades of Goa.Kamat, Pratima. 2000. “Peasantry and the Colonial State”, in: Borges, Charles J. Goa and Portugal. History and development. New Delhi: Concept Publishing Co. pp. 133-158.
Menezes de, António. 1978. Goa. Historical Notes. Panaji: Casa J.D. Fernandes.Paul Axelrod and Michelle A. Fuerch  © 1998 The American History for Ethnohistory “Portuguese Orientalism and the Making of the Village Communities of Goa”.
For more information; 
http://www.geocities.com/newagegoa/Chapter8.html?1146661378765  --Gaunkars of Goa (talk) 19:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of other territories of Goa (India) 

message: Pakistan does not include Indian administered Kashmir(I.A.K) in its main map. Kindly explain why the main main information box on India has a map including Pakistan Administered Kashmir(P.A.K)? Should the Pakistan wikipedia article add I.A.K in light green as well? Or should the India article remove it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.58.66 (talk) 23:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See Question 1 at Talk:India/FAQ to understand why the map in this article is drawn the way it is. If you have concerns about the map used in Pakistan article, please raise it at Talk:Pakistan. Abecedare (talk) 00:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of Northern Territories 

message: Namaskar frieds (hello),this article is very accurate and sublime but,public health and religion in india should be in main page with neat and short information , it will help to readers to know about religion and public life .And like Germany Infrastructure ,Science ,Education content chapters will enfocus the other important aspects if india, aren't they? so i think that will make India very understandable.
wqwqwqwq 07:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Taking a clue out of the above, I suggest that we subdivide the Culture topic into subheadings like France and Germany. It'll make the section much more readable and organized. Nshuks7 (talk) 07:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are we always imitating other countries?
--Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  public health and religion should be seperate contents like [[France]] 

message: : thanks for pointing out. --Docku: What up? 23:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sports section 

message: It says in the intro that India is considered a potential superpower. Is this really necessary to put down, as China, Russia, and EU are the other mentioned potential superpowers, and on their pages, that isn't mentioned. So is this really necessary, as it seems like someone is just trying to advertise it or something. Deavenger (talk) 23:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; potential superpower is an ill-defined and purely speculative category. The designation was added recently to the lede, and I have edited it to restore the long standing shorter version. We need to remember that this article's lede is a summary of a summary style article, and should therefore contain only the top-level  details. Abecedare (talk) 23:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: concur. dont see the necessity. --Docku: What up? 23:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Necessary? 

message: States are more than administrative divisions, they are also political divisions, since each state has an elected government which wields law-making powers as per the state list in the Constitution. Please revert the title back to States and Union Territories. 70.112.0.5 (talk) 02:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: looks like  has made these modifications. --Docku: What up? 03:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with you. Administrative divisions apply to territory like Goa where there are two constitutions, Goa State Constitution and Constitution of Comunidades (constitution independent of State and Union). This has to be rectified immediately. For more read the discussion page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:INB#Comunidades_Of_Goa_.3F --Gaunkars of Goa (talk) 15:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

text: I've reworded the first two sentence of the section, which should hopefully clarify things.  I've also removed the reference to India being federal - as we've discussed earlier, this isn't entirely accurate, and the wording in the section on "Government" describes the situation quite accurately. -- Arvind (talk) 22:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Arvind, the states are not simply administrative divisions, regardless of whether India is federal or not. They are also political divisions. I think states and union territories would be a better descriptor. 70.112.0.5 (talk) 23:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but the section isn't just about states and union territories.  It's also about the bits into which states are divided - districts, blocks, tehsils, and panchayat villages - which are purely administrative.  Would "political and administrative divisions" be an acceptable heading.  -- Arvind (talk) 23:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes. I am making that change, if you dont mind.70.112.0.5 (talk) 23:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  It is wrong to call states administrative divisions 

message: On the pages of Russia, China, US and so many other countries, the size of the military budget and army, n-power is mentioned in the intro. After all, it makes sense to describe both economic and military power. Why remove the military part from India????Steed Asprey - 171(talk) 7:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The size of the budget, etc. is too specific to be included in the lead of the article.  The size and structure of the armed forces is already mentioned in the "Foreign relations and military" section.  I just realized that there was no information on India's nuclear command structure (this can be incorporated into the "no-first-use" sentence).  I don't favor adding military budget because that's going to change with each annual budget. In addition, the budget doesn't present an accurate picture of how much India spends on defense. AreJay (talk) 19:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  -The size of the budget is not so specific - otherwise, it would not be in the pages of other countries..... The size of the army is mentioned in the "Foreign relations and Military section". But, the bit abt "fastest growing economies" etc is mentioned in the intro and again in the "Economy of India" section. With the same logic, the part abt the economy shld not be present either..... Budgets change once a year only......it is no matter to update it once a year. And as for accuracy, no country really gives an accurate picture of its defence budget... but, like in the other pages, the generally assumed number can be mentioned. Steed Asprey - 171 (talk) 5:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think so..."one of the fastest growing economies.." is an appropriate term to use in the intro. Regardless of the actual % growth, that term will be valid.  It has nothing to do with budget allocation. The point that I was trying to make wrt defense budgets is that there is a huge differential b/w what is allocated and what is actually spent by MoD each year; for the past several years, India has only spent a very small fraction of its defense budget allocation because of red-tapism, etc.  Regadless, this is far too specific to be discussed in the lead. Also, the other countries you mentioned aren't featured articles. I have no doubt that such specific information about military size and budget will be removed from the lead of these articles, should they go through the rigours of the WP:FAC vetting process,.  AreJay (talk) 14:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military power 

message: I've changed the description of the languages in the Eighth Schedule to "Constitutionally recognised languages".  This is more accurate than "official languages" (the languages of the Eighth Schedule aren't "official languages in any standard sense of the word), and is pretty close to the way they're described in other sources, such as the LoC's country profiles.  I really hope this wording is acceptable. -- Arvind (talk) 22:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eighth Schedule, yet again 

message: This is kinda unimportant, but I was just wondering what the light green area on the globe meant. It doesn't seem to say in the article.74.33.174.133 (talk) 19:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Claimed by India, but not controlled by India. Zazaban (talk) 02:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Light Greean Area? 

message: Just noticed. All GDP values have , not a . dot. like this $3,288 trillion should be $3.288 trillion. Make first change or Change it to billions from trillion   (Kashifyy (talk) 05:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing that error. I have corrected that and updated the figures based on the CIA factbook, since that source provides useful rank information. Abecedare (talk) 06:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

text: there is typo in all gdp values. put decimal point instead of comma. hans21 (talk) 11:09, 02 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Don't use CIA as source. IMF is more reliable source than CIA. All Wikipedia's articles on GDP per capita by country, are using the available IMF data. Gggh (talk) 15:54, 02 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong GDP values 

message: I think Science and technology section is not minor for India, being one of the chief programmer exporters and all... 
Also, I would like to add that "India also is the top milk producer worldwide, according to 2005 information, producing 91 million tonnes."
I don't know if I should add it to economy section, as it was removed, I believe without even mention of it...
It was 100.9 million tonnes 2006-2007.
MEEEEEEEEE! (talk) 08:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science and tech 

message: When we can not translate any name. (Its Language Law)
Why the Bharat is named as India in English.
If you are Bharati then solve it.
By Avinash Bhola mail@atoall.com  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.62.101.251 (talk) 11:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually if you wanted to look for "ancient" India, you should look at Meluhha and not Aryavart. The notion that "foreigners" corrupted the name of the country is ridiculous, considering the fact that the Aryans (and the Dravidians, depending on which hypotesis you accept) were alien to India, and can thus be considered "foreigners" themselves. Research into how or why the country is commonly referred to as India is immaterial and beyond the scope of this article. AreJay (talk) 05:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  When we can not translate any name. (Its Language Law) 

message: Why does the world call this country India while Ghandi called for the British to quit  India and the usage of India as the name in stead of Bharat seems illogical --82.134.154.25 (talk) 23:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Why the world does what it does is a mystery. However, wikipedia calls it India because the world does so (See WP:COMMONNAME). --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 00:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is no word for India in Indian languages! 

message: Cars in India are built so that the drivers drive on the right side of the car, which contrasts with how they are built in the United States and many other nations. In America, cars are built so that drivers drive on the left side.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.27.217.251 (talk) 00:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to clarify what you said above, i.e. that you meant "drivers sit on the right side of the car". But again, what exactly is your point? --Ragib (talk) 06:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

text: People in North America drive on the right side of the road. Zazaban (talk) 02:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Driving Side 

message: The GDP numbers are too high by a factor of 1000. It should either be in billions, or $1.3 Trillion instead of $1,300 Trillion  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Therealgandalf (talk • contribs) 18:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  GDP 

message: There must be people who do not recognise India as a full democracy in view that its cast system resembles in many respects apartheid. At least the reference to the cast system should be in the opening paragraph and before any reference to the country's apparently democratic credentials. At least that is what seems right to me. Trompeta (talk) 19:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is generally agreed that India is a democracy regardless of the extent to which the caste system exists in India. You will need to provide a reliable source to back up your assertion that India cannot be recognized as a full democracy because of the caste system and you will need to demonstrate that this is not a fringe view for it to be included in the opening paragraph.--RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 03:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

text: This is news to me!! So just becuase a few people in the US are racists , USA is not a democracy? Just who decides that a country is a "full democracy" or not? --Deepak D'Souza 04:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Ok This is a repeat telecast from the same editor:. --Deepak D'Souza 05:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

text: First, it's caste, not cast.  Second, the caste sysetm is a social structure while democracy is a political institution.  How did you arrive at the conclusion that the existence of a caste system debars India from being considered a "full democracy"? Rigid social structures continue to exist to this day in many parts of the world, including England; would you suggest therefore that the UK isn't a full democracy? Are you basing your assessment on reliable sources?  If so, please indicate which ones.  If not, this hypothetical connection cannot be included in this or any other Wikipedia article (see WP:OR).  Thanks AreJay (talk) 21:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The caste system is an institution??? Wow! In my entire life I have not come across any instutution named "Indian Institute of Caste" or something likewise. The caste system is not an institution. It is a social order that emerged out of Hinduism but is not exclusive to Hinduism alone. The caste system is a feature of Indian society. It is not India in itself. FYI: untouchability and caste based discrimination(indeed any kind of discrimination) have been outlawed by the Indian constitution. There are tougher laws for caste related crimes and affirmative measures to give the historically sidelined groups their due share. You don not have any adequeate knowledge about India or the caste system. You are merely using this page for your personal peeves. I will ignore any further posts from you on this topic. --Deepak D'Souza 04:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Sigh! Caste system is not a personal peeve. It is, as I said, a feature of society. Your statement that India should not be considered a full democracy becasue of the caste system is a personal opinion. You haven't backed it up with any refs at all.  This isn't a question of cultural gap, its about trying to push your own opinion by weaseling:There must be some people who .... And you are not paraprhasing me, but rather yourself.--Deepak D'Souza 04:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Democracy in a Cast dominated society 

message: All the topics about indian defence forces n systems are vandalised with false information with referance to news sites based in pakistan. How come you take referances from pakistani news networks about indian defence to be neutral and trusted.
I hope wiki-india project users and wiki admistrators got my point and will look into this matter and clean up the topic to neutral standards. (Sushilkumarmishra (talk) 11:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please use the talk page to discuss about the article itself, not to discuss related topics. You cna discuss this issue at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. --Deepak D'Souza 04:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  topics abt indian defence 

message: I suggest that there should be a gallery at the end of the article.  Enthusiast10 (talk) 13:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What would you like to put in the gallery?  (Bigweeboy (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gallery 

message: the decimals in the side bar are written as commas. so 3.288 trillion reads as 3,288 trillion which is misleading. i don't know how to edit the sidebar data, can somebody help?
Perryizgr8 (talk) 05:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Abecedare (talk) 07:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks. but how did you do it? i can't see any edit button.Perryizgr8 (talk) 08:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here is the diff of my edit. Don't you see the "edit" (or "edit this page") tab at the top of the India page ? You should be an autoconfirmed user by now and be able to edit the article, even though it is semi-protected (which prevents unregistered or newly registered users from editing it). Abecedare (talk) 18:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  decimals 

message: The article must include images from all corners of India (as said above), so why was this Image removed? >>  atleast it's of the Indian culture. The Taj Mahal was built by the Turkish (Mughal) dynasty. And talking abt world heritage sites there are many other like the the city of Chandigarh or the Kalka-Shimla Toy train. But there seems no mention to them.
Moreover the Building picture of the "Taj" looks more like a advertisement pic for attracting tourists.
There are NO pic's showing true Indian Architecture (TajMahal's Turkish.. remember?)
02.06.09
HFret (talk) 07:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Taj Mahal is Mughal, which is Indian not Turkish. It is also the premier tourist site in India and is perhaps the most famous building in India. I can't see any justification for removing it. The Buddha image was removed apparently because it was a copyright violation.--RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 14:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Culturally 

message: Note: I have moved this discussion to the  India noticeboard talkpage, since it is off-topic here. Please continue any discussion there. Abecedare (talk) 17:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of other territories of India 

message: I know this isn't the brightest attribute of India (and many other countries), but having the largest sex trade in all of Asia, I think some information regarding that fact should be edited onto the India page. Considering there are nearly 200,000 young and usually underage Nepalese women and girls in India right now being forced into prostitution, I think they deserve a voice. By putting information on this page regarding that we could help them by letting the world know that such suffering exists in India and maybe more people would seek out to help them. I know I have. Perhaps also putting information on those attempting to aid this problem. Non-profit organizations spearheading forced prostitution and brothels for example; as this would give people not only a reason to offer help, but the means as well.
Just my two cents.. Wikipedia spreads all sorts of knowledge but I think it can also be used to help fix the worlds problems by shinning much needed light onto them.
JordenBryer (talk) 00:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is an important issue, but this article which tries to summarize all aspects of the huge country is not the suitable place for it. It should be covered in Prostitution in India and possibly Women in India - feel free to contribute to those articles and remember to cite your sources of information. Secondly note that we don't attempt to use wikipedia as a platform to address the world's problem, no matter how noble we consider the goal to be. We try to present  notable information dispassionately and let the readers reach their own conclusions. See the links I have left in the message on your talk page. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 00:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sex Trade In India 

message: I edited about Indian famines in the history section. Since perhaps tens of millions died during the British era famines, I think that is worth mentioning. Editingman (talk)
:I think that is useful information and source, and can be added (with greater details) to Famine in India; Famines, epidemics, and public health in the British Raj; and possibly in the British Raj article. However the information is undue in this article, which deals with (post-independence) Republic of India. Abecedare (talk) 17:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not see it.  The article really 'deals with (post-independence) republic of india'?  The history section I edited in describes the whole Indian history. Editingman (talk)
I agree that the famines were important and huge but don't think the sentence fits in with the rest of the article. It would go in the British Raj para but, since there is no other detail about the Raj, this one detail stands out as WP:UNDUE. (I reverted Editingman's addition because it would be better to discuss it first here and seek consensus.) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 23:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

text: It shouldn't be included because it is WP:UNDUE...there are several calamities that have taken the lives of thousands in India - famines being just one of the them. Many lives are also unfortunately lost because of monsoons, droughts, heatwaves, cold waves, earthquakes, etc. This would, however, imo be beyond the scope of this mainspace article. AreJay (talk) 02:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Famines have occoured even before the British came and even after they have left. Althoug I must say that with India becomming self-sufficient in foodgrain production and the tons of grains stored( or rotting ) in FCI godowns, the chances of a famine are rare now. If I remeber, there were a number of AfDs last year for a string of articles with titles such as Victorian Holocaust and British Indian holocaust etc which focused on the same source and dubbed it as unreliable. --Deepak D'Souza 04:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Undue. Famines were common in most countries in teh old days. Especially with such a large population in India (are these stats inclusive of the pre-partition India?) YellowMonkey  (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 04:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

text: According to B.M. Bhatia's "Famines in India: A study in Some Aspects of the Economic History of India with Special Reference to Food Problem"(1985), there were disproportionately more famines in British India than at any other time in its history.(The rate was 25 times more). That parts of the government had a role to play in the famine in the name of free trade, as in the Irish famine, is widely unknown and perhaps debatable but that does not make it a fringe theory. Thus, mentioning government policy killing tens of millions is going to be due weight, it would be not unlike having the history section of Germany or Poland without the holocaust, a disaster they suffered that killed far less. Editingman (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 03:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevertheless, this has no place in the main article on India. Not only is it WP:UNDUE but also there is no place in a summary article to present the various causes of famines. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 14:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indian Famines 

message: Hey there are many points ablout Bharadhantyam in Tamil epic Chilapadhikaram which predates any written literature in Kannada.Just because Bharathanatyam is the most wide spread Classical dance in India ,it doesn't mean Bharadhantyam is not exclusive to Tamil nadu (arun1paladinArun1paladin (talk) 12:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What makes somebody claim that Bharadhanatyam is not exclusive to Tamil Nadu ? 

message: RRRAD (talk) 18:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: India is already many nations. Indian nationalism, which developed against colonial British rule, is weaker as compared to various regional nationalism, which are more realistic and acceptable to the people. I would refer the book 'India-A nation in the making' by Arvind N. Das.Manoj nav (talk) 17:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  India as the bigger picture 

message: It needs to be updated, most of the information is from 2005 and 2007. I made some changes.(Dewan S. Ahsan 13:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  economy of india 

message: Kindly take necessary actions
Thanks
:Shouldn't this issue be brought up with on the German Wikipedia (dewiki), specifically Rabindranath Tagore's page instead of India on the English version? It is probably best to notify the equivalent of Wikiproject India there, even in English if you can't speak German because there is bound to be at least a few editors who could understand English. GizzaDiscuss © 12:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Some Indians, specifically people in West Bengal pronounce the name as Rabindranath Thakur. It is perfectly valid.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.212.232.208 (talk) 20:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rabindranath Tagore's name written as "Rabindranath Thakur" when the page is viewed in German(Deutsch) language. 

message: Under the Government type in the front page for India, aren't you just supposed to put the President and Prime Minister. Why would you need the VP and Chief Justice?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.62.224.107 (talk) 19:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the chief justice is included as the most senior representative of the judiciary. The VP is less obvious; perhaps one can argue that he is representing the legislative branch as the chairman of the Rajya Sabha. The issue is minor so I won't remove these from the infobox myself, but won't object either if someone else decides to do so. Abecedare (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: is a strange question. The IP should explain why he doesnt like VP and Chief Justice there? --L I C 18:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No question is too strange :-). I got rid of the VP, it is not really an important post. I think the chief justice should also go because the judiciary is not technically in the job of governing.--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not too uncommon to have the above stuff in the article. It's included in United States, the speaker is also included in that page; same case with Pakistan, but not so with England or United Kingdom. From a logical perspective, it does make sense, as like in the US, the Judiciary, Legislature and Executive are the three branches of the government with distinct responsibilities. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 19:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: True (about the chief justice). I don't think that the VP has an important role to play in India but will defer to whatever you guys think is appropriate. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 03:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the President and PM 

message: The entire Jammu and Kashmir belongs to India and no other Country can even touch it. Just draw the map to its original one.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.183.242.98 (talk) 21:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jammu & Kasmir shortened? 

message: I want to add in the etymology section that the name Bharat was derived from the name Bharata the son of King Dushyanta. The information is already there in wiki under Emperor Bharata category. So if there are no concerns I will make the edit after a day or two.
Manohar.sram (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 18:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology of India 

message: Wherever I read, Indian history seems to jump from Asoka to Gupta.  What was happening from (say) 100 B.C. to 100 A.D.?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.42.142.2 (talk) 04:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  First century B.C. & A.D. 

message: I disagree with the Nano immage summary:
Firstly, I totally disagree with this statement :"India's strong engineering base and expertise ". It is a personal opinion. None of the refs say that. And that is true only if you count the number of engineering graduates passing out. Quality wise India's engineering talents are hardly world-beating. Really, think about it: what percentage of your PC is Indian in origin? And what Indian product (apart from Nano) does the world talk about? I dont know any.
For the second part :India as a small-car hub 
#This link is a blog of questionable reliability:. The title says "India a car export hub.." but the text doesnt.
#This link says: India is becomming a hub, not that it is already one.
#This link  also says "India is becoming a small-car manufacturing " not that it is one.
--Deepak D'Souza 14:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for bringing this up Deepak, I was going to bring it up yesterday, but completely forgot. This bit is entirely POV, and treats the future is bright statements as representing the past and present. In addition, while the Nano is a good product, it is not representative of the Indian economy, the section where it is placed. If at all, a business house like the Tatas should be out there, not a car that is being talked about but hasn't yet become a significant player in the world market. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 15:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and made changes to the POV sentence. Gnanapiti (talk) 17:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I also removed the unnecessary statement about patents from the caption - filing is not the same as holding (the ref only supports filing) and reformatted the refs, removing the link to the wordpress blog etc. However, I still hold that this picture doesn't belong there, the auto industry is a rather small part of the Indian economy and is not representative of the section. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 16:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: True. I think the BSE image is sufficient. The Nano image would be more appropritate if there was some section on Engineering and Industry. How about a GDP chart or something lieke that?--Deepak D'Souza 11:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur, I believe one image is sufficient for the section and BSE is the best choice for that; this is not a picture book. That said, if we need another image, I agree with your suggestion that a GDP chart would be a better choice. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 15:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  small-car export hub 

message: Why is there a new image of the Hoysaleshvara temple in the demography section? No context, bleeds into the next section and is in excess of already existing good architectural images. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 21:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New image in the demography section