Talk:India as an emerging superpower/Archive 1

message: India has the potential to become superpower provided the long pending people issues are solved. Ensuring a credible basic income guaranteed system for every one whether they work or not will bring in dignity instead of desperation for the working poor and imposing inheritance taxes will stimulate compassion instead of collusion among people living in India.
Unsolicited 14:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  People Issues in India 

message: *In the science sector, it was the third nation to found a National Space Agency called ISRO, after the Soviet Union and the United States and was therefore the third nation to send satellites into space, starting with Aryabhata in 1975.
This is untrue.  Canada was the third nation to luanch a satellite, with Alouette 1 in 1962.  Kevlar67 23:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, now feel free to change it, I just wanted an explanation. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 09:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thrid Nation in Space 

message: Many of these points now have solutions or Counter POV that undermine the point against the Rise of an Indian Superpower. I think it is necessary to review each and every one of these points in order to reach perfect accuracy. Some of these counter POV are actually good points for India, including the points on nuclear reactors etc.
:I don't think those are solutions that have been carried out. It's only solutions that could've been carried out, or is being carried out. So, those problems still persists. Heilme 07:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Points Against the Rise of an Indian Superpower 

message: This entire article is nothing but a giant ball of uncited claims and original analysis about india.  It needs a serious going over to add references to justify its assertions. Night Gyr 11:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, we seriously need some sources, I think news sources from George Bush and John Howard's recent visits to India would do us fine, as they have large amounts of information on the democracy. But I believe we should try and find references before considering the article as a candidate for deletion. Nobleeagle 06:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was the one that removed the tag, after seeing a few of the sources and the sheer number of the sources. I did not, I can say, read all 130 of them. But after seeing your analysis I agree that the tag should remain. Nobleeagle 22:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think a technological revolution can occur at the pace you seem to be implying. India has advanced greatly from 1995 to 2005, from a period in which it's computer technology was lagging to a period where it's professionals dominate the software market. So an I.T. revolution definitely took place. Not sure whether it would be similar for science and technology, more like a quick advance to the extent that it is quick catching up to the United States. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 00:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Research 

message: Are we going to delete an article because of these simple gaps?Nobleeagle 09:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References in Points For Indian Superpower

message: *Distance to Population Hubs
*English (kind of)
*Arms Imports (done)Nobleeagle 09:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Points That Need References 

message: These points are mostly based on logic or are too broad to have a single reference.
* Foreign Relations
* Energy (but this is common knowledge, just need to find one good website)Nobleeagle 09:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Points That May/May Not Need References 

message: === Points That Need References ===
*Poverty (such a heavy point that stats better not be a lie)
*Technology (last bit)
*Energy Dependence
*Climate or Environmental Problems (also a very heavy point that stats better not be fabricated)
=== Points That May/May Not Need References ===
*Resources
*Infrastructure
*Bad Government (it's obvious there is corruption in the Indian government)Nobleeagle 09:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to add it with literacy then do so. But the IQ would be significantly higher in urban and metropolitan areas. These figures are generally brought down by thousands of small villages without proper education systems. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 00:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References in Points Against Indian Superpower 

message: *Resources
*Infrastructure
*Bad Government (it's obvious there is corruption in the Indian government)Nobleeagle 09:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to add it with literacy then do so. But the IQ would be significantly higher in urban and metropolitan areas. These figures are generally brought down by thousands of small villages without proper education systems. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 00:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Points That May/May Not Need References 

message: I agree that literacy should not be shown as power. Literacy is indeed a human right...its not a point of projecting power. And most of the west and east asia is indeed ahead of south asia. Leave literacy for now in points against because india does need to improve in this front. Oneearth 15:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Literacy

message: After reading Wikipedia's policy on Crystal Balling, you would understand why I remove statements like these:
::Some doomsayers are already predicting that, in the future, water scarcity may even incite a war in the sub-continent. 
Makes me laugh. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 08:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Crystal Balling

message: I hope editors understand that this page is based on the criteria presented on the Superpower page and headings such as Environmental Obstacles will lead to new headings being created that do not match that criteria. So I'm going to remove these headings and put the points in the groups that best suit them. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 22:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Criteria is for points in favour. where is it written that the criteria also stands for points against. the social issues talks of things which are not all political but social. whats political about discrimination against girl child...its social problem and not political. Oneearth 16:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point of view, I just think we should stick to the criteria and it's definitely more political than economic or demographic. I think that the internal religious violence is a very political topic. The main idea is that political things stunt superpower growth a bit more than social things. I just want to stop all these wierd headings come up in this article. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 23:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And by the way, I'm perfectly happy with the new Cultural Problems heading... Nobleeagle  (Talk) 22:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Superpower Criteria

message: Hey , whats the point writing about foreign reln in such detail in this article. all this details should go into Foreign relations of India and the link should be provided to it. Please discuss....Oneearth 14:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please post the same message in the Potential Superpowers - China article, to tell you the truth I intend for the info in both articles to end up in Foreign relations of India and China respectively, but at the moment I want to see the reaction of User:66.--- who has been getting on my nerve over the past few days. Accusing me of OR, Bias and Crystal-balling as well as implying that there is something wrong with me. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 21:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Foreign relations

message: I have proposed that the title be changed to Emerging Superpowers - India on the Superpower page, please vote over there if you have an opinion to this change.Nobleeagle  (Talk) 22:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry but the vote long finished at Talk:Superpower, if you see definitions of emerging listed on Talk:Superpower then I guess the move was justifiable too. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 10:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Title Change

message: I think we need to revise the part about India having "no history of imperialism" to something like "no recent/modern history of imperialism", depending on how "India" and "imperialism" is defined. If we define India as being the state that existed since 1947, and define imperialism moderately, then I suppose you could say that India had no history of imperialism. If you define India to include the Mughals, Marathas, Dogras, Guptas, Mauryas and especially the Cholas under emperors Rajaraja and Rajendra, then the statement that India has "no history of imperialism" may not hold true. --SohanDsouza 04:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about this. The thing was that those ancient states weren't part of a united India. Now the India after 1947 is represented on the world stage by one banner, indicating that it is united. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 06:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No history of imperialism?

message: The article Major Power is under review, being considered for deletion. Also, this article is mainly Original Research.I would propose same treatment here, including establishment of appropriate tag. Please leave your considerations.201.1.154.57 19:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Guinnog 22:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you should first tell everyone what the problems are before going into deletion. This article has already survived deletion and cannot be merged with India which is FA and can't afford to be overloaded with this information. Guinnog, please mention in clear concise points the ORs that are presented in this article. In case you haven't noticed, there are over 100 sources and a number of other references relating directly to India's growth to Superpower status. The article is oversourced, what issues do you have with it???? Nobleeagle  (Talk) 00:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the deletion debate officially reached no consensus, it "survived" because the default result is to take no action. Please read my closing comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Potential Superpowers—India for a fuller explanation of what the result was. --bainer (talk) 22:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  I would propose new afd for the possibility of deletion/merger of this article with India. As we can see, the last afd have not reached consensus.Cloretti2 15:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: How many times do I have to say that a Merge with India is impossible. Next,  I think there was a bit of misunderstanding related to the Influence in S America section, it's meant to cover the good foreign relations. And while Bollywood may not be popular in S America, it is definitely popular in Australia, the US and the UK, with some cinemas showing Bollywood movies. In fact, in Australia, one channel devoted an entire month to Bollywood movies. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 23:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion or merger with India

message: I'm well aware of the caste system divide in India but the true story isn't presented in this article. You see, the dispute created here originated from the views of Mahatma Gandhi at elevating the lower castes to higher roles. There is therefore a quota presented in many professions that allow lower caste people to get jobs that they may not deserve. Therefore:
:Low-caste Indians have faced years of social discrimination and are poorly represented in leading professions
Is incorrect in modern society. In fact the BBC Article you quote says that Lower castes have become politically influential in recent years. It also says that caste violence occurs at regular intervals throughout the country, however I'd say religious violence occurs more often. No-one really cares much about castes anymore (but this is the first-hand view of someone that has not been open to rural or village life). But most importantly, it's going a bit off topic and presented a point against India that has nothing relating to India's growth to superpower status. So I'm removing it for now. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 00:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Firstly, it is referenced and is a current affairs topic. Some Indians may think it is no longer a problem, but then again, some may not realize it is still happening in other parts of the country. As long as there is discrimination issues against caste system (which still do exist and not completely eradicated yet), I think it presents a challenge for social unification in India. A strong nation cannot be a nation that discrimates one another. Maybe another second reference to highlight the problem can be found. Heilme 08:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have rephrased so that it represents the true topic: the quota system. There are no instances of caste violence though that I have seen in the news. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 09:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is wrong to say that the caste system poses a problem to India's superpower goals. There was racism in early 20th century America and Russia as well as class discrimination in Britain and other European nations during the colonial-period. For that reason it should be removed unless there is major and current documented evidence of riots or something like that. GizzaChat © 09:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nup, I don't think caste riots have occured for ages. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 07:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Casteism has baiscally disappeared from India. 210.11.188.15 23:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text: But I am sure there is still caste prejudice in India, even though it has officially been eliminated. Heilme 03:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: To 210.11.188.15: Stop removing well-sourced info!202.40.137.197 08:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The source doesn't really say much, read the entirety of this discussion. And by the way, Heilme, that is your view of things, and that's not for Wikipedia. Small bouts of caste prejudice do not disunite the nation nor affect India's growth to superpower status. In India, religion divides, not caste. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 08:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not just my view of things, Nobleeagle. I read it from the news article. Caste prejudice still happens in India. It's no different than religious prejudice, or racial prejudice. It's a prejudice based on different issues. Heilme 06:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right keep it there, I don't care, nothing that is written here affects India at all. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 07:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I have reworded the sentence. Please check now. --  thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu_Joseph |TALK 06:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. It looks better now. I have changed a few words to improve the grammar. I hope they dont change the intended meaning. Lost 08:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks better now, and nothing about caste violence and discrimination. It's more confusion in eliminating the caste system that is causing problems. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 08:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way to the anons, why don't you create an account. Go to the top-right corner. It makes working Wikipedia much easier. GizzaChat © 11:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caste System 

message: If every indian had the same level of life than americans,we would need several planettes,just for india.So ,the strong demographic of india(and china) is a factor against superpower status,feeding a billion peopol is one thing,but on top of that have hi level of life and be a superpower seems imposible.Natural resources have limits,they aren't infinit,having more peopol,simply redusses the shares.I'm saying that india(and china?) is more or less doomed in poverty because of hi demographics,and not in superpower status(seence is the primary reson to consider it as a emerging superpower).The curant midel class looks like the product of a huge inecaulity than of a sustainable trend.--Ruber chiken 18:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  demographic problemme 

message: Look at this sentence: 
"The Republic of India is considered as one of the possible future superpowers of the world."
This is presented as a statement of fact but it is clearly an opinion. At best, it should be rendered "X considers the Republic of India as one..."
This is a problem of essay-style articles. An expression of opinion does not cease to be an expression of opinion simply because it is sourced! That would be like writing an article called All foos are idiots and saying: All foos are idiots(1), and making 1 a note in which you source the statement to some guy who said foos are idiots.
In sum, this whole article falls foul of WP:NOR. It creates a thesis -- not in itself a novel one -- by bringing together various threads and making a case with them.
I recognise the difficulty of getting rid of bad articles like this one. Even though it flatly breaches a fundamental policy of Wikipedia, there is no way to delete it, because too many interested parties simply do not care what the policies are or how they apply here. Fundamentally, because Wikipedia's policies are descriptive, this sort of thing will destroy the basis for the encyclopaedia. Because, frankly, if you can have India as an emerging superpower, why can you not have America as the Great Satan or The United States going to hell in a handcart or Why China will own the world in 50 years. Grace Note 07:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The big problem with this type of article 

message: Although democracy's definition has changed over the years, republicanism is still a better term. Please read:  if you have any questions. Simply put democracy is linked to the Athenian model where the mob rules. A republic is a better term than democracy, no matter the article. India is a republic so it should make no difference. Don't put what you feel is right, put what IS right. 19:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is most sources cited in this article use the term democracy...the United States president once described India as the "World's most fascinating democracy", not republic. There is a difference and thus we shouldn't go by OR and stick to the sources. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 22:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Republicanism vs Democracy 

message: I am a doctor in India .Anyone claiming that medical services in India are of first world standard is either ignorant of medicine or ignorant of Indian medical facilities. In indian public hospitals patients sleep in the hospital floors hospitals dont have basic medical equipments .Most people die of Preventable diseases .India has a third world standard of health care system .
Medical Tourism in India is due to few Private hospitals in India . Those Rich hospitals have good and modern facilities no doubt but they are in no way equivalent to first world facilities. Even those Hospitals lack many advanced facilities available in the west .Moreover the state of  hygine is very poor in those hospitals compared to the first world.
So medical outsourceing may be good for India. But I disagree with the term [b]"First world treatment at third world prices "[/b] neither the treatment is of first world standard and the prices are far far higher thaan being of third world standard.
:I have removed the changes made by two anons yesterday if that is what you are talking about. I agree with you largely, there are some world class hospitals in India but they are not widespread enough. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 04:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MEDICAL SERVICES of india are not of first world standard . 

message: ::emerging superpower want to solve the problem of Kashmir.
:::vkvora 18:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  emerging superpower want to solve the problem of Kashmir.