Talk:India/Archive 10

message: would someone like adding [] this Survey_of_India based map to the page. well this India according to india's "official" survey of India map. hence it does distort the areas that are really under india's possession But I think it also need to find a place in the wiki.--Iamg 04:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would strongly oppose this image. It is India's "official" version, and thus heavily biased on border disputes. There are many other issues as well. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 10:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: See the /FAQ/FAQ. The map of India on the page is much more data rich than the official Indian version. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: If you think such an image would be clearly visible even in thumbnail (which I am skeptical of), make one and link from this page. If found good, it will find its way to the article. You shouldn't expect us to say yes to an image we haven't seen. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 18:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Map of India

message: How about a photoshopped picture of one person from each state/province/territory in India, like a collage or a frame with an Indian flag as a backdrop? Just throwing this out there.Bakaman 01:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think such an image would be clearly visible even in thumbnail (which I am skeptical of), make one and link from this page. If found good, it will find its way to the article. You shouldn't expect us to say yes to an image we haven't seen. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 18:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Photoshop

message: I noticed that there have been regular reverts of the page over interwiki links. One thing we should keep in mind that, these interwiki links are placed in 100+ wikipedias, and any bot working on those wikipedias is always going to come and reinsert these interwiki links. So, the problem needs to be addressed in a different manner rather than daily cycles of bot inserts and manual reverts. Thanks. --Ragib 21:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverts over Interwiki links 

message: Seriously, some of the discussions that have taken place in the recent months have been so trivial.  I see so much energy being spent on minute little details.  I humbly request that some of you guys take a "chill pill" and go work on some of the more needy India related articles.  --Blacksun 10:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.--Indianstar 12:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spread the love?

message: Hi.  There are a lot of Indian editors here, and I couldn't figure out the Indian Wikipedians' Noticeboard last time I tried to, so I figure I'll make my call here.  The Kashmiri people article has for quite some time now been in need of help.  I NPOV-ized it a while back, added refs & some information for a fringe theory about them being a 'Lost Tribe of Israel'.  The problem is that the article doesn't have much real information about Kashmiri people.  If some of you Indians more knowledgeable or well-read on the topic can head over there & add some real content, coverage of Indian topics would be improved.  Thanks for any help.  The Behnam 03:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are very few Wikipedians from Kashmir. Personally I don't know any. But you can try contacting User:Deeptrivia. He did good work in making the Ladakh article featured. He should be able to help. The Indian noticeboard can be found here. If you have problems searching for it, just type 'India notice board wikipedia' on Google (actually even 'India notice board' would do), and you can reach there anytime. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 05:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know two Kashmiri Wikipedians, one of which who contributes a substantial amount to Kashmiri articles - User:Saiva suj (the other who doesn't being User:Aupmanyav. Saiva might provide some help so I recommend asking him. GizzaChat © 07:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll probably contact User:Saiva suj since you said he is more active.  Based on User:Aupmanyav's page, he may not be exactly neutral either, though of course, it depends on his edits in the end.  The Behnam 01:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am thankful to Gizza for mentioning me here and Abecedare for pointing this out to me. I have actually been meaning to work on the Kashmiri people article, and am very happy that a more motivated editor is taking the initiative that I should have. I will get started right away. ॐ नमःशिवाय Śaiva Sujīt सुजीत ॐ 08:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks a lot.  Yeah, I had hadn't yet gotten around to contacting you, but fortunately you noticed this anyway.  The Behnam 08:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Kashmiri people]] 

message: In the history section one of the first things that should be mentioned is how India is home to the Aryan people (Along with the region of Iran & Afghanistan)....And there should also be a mention of yoga & the concept of meditation coming from India in the history section....I swear every other country on wikipedia gets all the good info but when it comes to an actual country like  India that has alot to represent, it doesnt get its deserved credit 71.119.248.15 07:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: hm, how are Indo-Aryans any more "representative" than, say, Armenians, Maya people , English (people) or Inuit? dab (𒁳) 07:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Please read the FAQ section =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of Aryans? 

message: There appears to be an attachment to using featured pictures in the article.  While featured pictures are generally good pictures, this does not make them the best choice for the article.  According to WP:FP, featured pictures are chosen because "the Wikipedia community finds beautiful, shocking, impressive, and/or informative."  In other words, they are featured for their quality as pictures, not necessarily because they are the most relevant to the articles.  According to Wikipedia:Images#Pertinence and encyclopedicity, the choice of image should be guided by relevance to the article content.  Hence, we should stop taking FP status into consideration, and judge the images in terms of their relevance instead.  I am not saying that we shouldn't take into account picture quality; it is completely appropriate to replace a fuzzy or otherwise low-quality relevant picture with a higher-quality relevant picture.  But our guiding principle should be relevance, not FP status, because the FP favoritism lacks a strong WP policy/guideline basis, while relevance is explicitly advocated in the documentation.  The Behnam 06:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Behnam for pointing out the guideline.  This point has also been made earlier but that still has not stopped some people from plumping for FPs.  Hope they see the light atleast now.  Sarvagnya 06:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think there is an attachment to featured pictures.  In fact many of the pictures on the India page are not featured pictures: Ajanta, Gandhi-Nehru, Missile, Bombay Stock Exchange, The Golden Langur (until it was displaced in a hurry) and the various maps, none of them are featured.  There are two FP maps (roads in India) which are not on the India page, because they weren't deemed relevant.  I think the decision on what is not relevant is often easier to make.  However, how does one decide (among myriad candidates) to pick two images for the Culture section, especially when they all seem to satisfy the requirements of "Pertinence and encyclopedicity."  It is especially in those situations that a featured picture that is also relevant gets more weight than another that is relevant, but not featured.  The question of whether a picture should be there at all in the demographics section is separate; that has nothing to do with featured pictures, but with any pictures.  As I said somewhere else on this page, I am not against the idea of charts or graphs for demographics, but that issue is separate.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The purpose of my argument here was to demonstrate that supporting a picture simply because it was featured is not good logic.  I saw that defense being made here and there, and as Ragib's post below may suggest, that line of thought is still out there amongst the editors of this page.  I do not claim that the article has a general prevalence in using featured pictures, but rather that there is a problem of people supporting pictures simply because they were featured.  The Behnam 02:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I can't see what other logic is needed. See the first statement on top of the page. If there are no representative images, get a good reprentative picture, get it featured. End of story. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please respond to a my argument using official WP documentation, not simply your own non sequitur claim "If there are no representative images, get a good reprentative picture, get it featured."  Definitely not the "End of story."  Thanks.  The Behnam 18:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no official documentation on the same. What I'm trying to state is that what prevents an anon from changing an image on the page (A to B), and it being reverted (B to A) by someone the next day, only to be changed (A to C) by a third party on the following day. Each person will say that the image is too boring/not relevent to the section. At the end of the day what are the minimum guidelines we should keep to ensure quality and prevent edit wars? Please see my proposal above. Could you answer this? =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what you mean by "on the same."  In any case, I definitely cited pertinent sections to make my case.  And as far as the frequent changes go, I think it is important to see where this comes from.  Right now we are using a picture of people for the demographics section, and the correctness or relevance of the picture is contested.  I believe this conflict derives from the fundamental incorrectness of trying to use pictures of people for the demographics section.  Demographics are usually embodied in charts & other representations of demographic data, not by arbitrarily chosen pictures of people.  I don't think anyone here would contest the relevance of a demographic chart to demographics; it is the very representation of demographic information.  However, people can't agree on pictures of people, and this is because pictures of people aren't about demographics.  This, of course, doesn't affect the invalidity, based on the WP rules I cited above, of using FP status to determine picture use in the article.  While it may be helpful to you, it is not grounded in policy/guideline, so the relevance of the pictures used should be addressed instead.  Just trying to clear this up so that you know where I am coming from and why I m so persistent on this matter.  Thanks.  The Behnam 19:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 'On the same' meant official documentation. You have a valid point on the demographics, I don't deny that. But you havn't answered how to address the macro issue at hand, the issue on subjectivity (not necessary for demographics). The issue on the images keeps cropping up on the page, and its high time it gets resolved. Not long ago someone objected to the Ajanta painting because it contained umm... 'nudity'.  =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, obviously, determining relevance can be somewhat subjective, but the main point of this section is to establish that there is no reason to rule by FP status.  I will probably start a new thread for this topic so as to prevent tangling up this section.  The Behnam 05:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think your responses need to be more mature. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The attachment to "Featured pictures" 

message: Considering this  edit by User:Fowler&fowler, there is a need for Fowler&fowler to understand the difference between policies and essays on Wikipedia.  According to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#The differences between policies, guidelines, essays, etc., a policy is, like a guideline, actionable and authorized by consensus, while an essay is "not actionable or instructive, regardless of whether it's authorized by consensus".  In this case, the  policy cited in favor of removal of the Apatani image is WP:CON, being that, as listed on this talk page, there are at least 11 users in favor of removal, while apparently 2 or 3 who would like it to be kept in the article.  Fowler&fowler undid the WP:CON based edit, citing WP:Recentism, an essay, as his reason.  Noting the difference between policy and essay on 'actionable', he was mistaken in his revert.  I have, consequently, undid his revert.  Just explaining my reasoning, thanks.  The Behnam 07:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear The Behnam: I agree with your remarks about essays vs. guidelines.  I was in a hurry and I erred.  However, I am confused how you managed to see this "consensus" as 11 to 2 or 3.  I'm afraid you are merely quoting user Nikkul's arithmetic, which I think is faulty.  I am addressing that in a separate post below. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I was merely quoting him on the approximate dozen, though the 2 or 3 apparent against was based on what I was seeing with the reverts, since there was no explicit list of "for Apatani image" on the talk page at the time.  I'll respond to your new post further down.  I anticipate that my response will call for a re-focus on applying WP principles to image selection.  More soon.  The Behnam 01:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy versus essay 

message: Many people have  expressed that Toda Hut image also does not align with article content. I suggest it can be removed based on our discussions. Culture section already has 1 picture, so we don't have to discuss about replacement now. Some may think that south will be unrepresented with images. I will prefer south to remain unrepresented rather than getting represented wrongly. I will also consider Mahatma Gandhi or Agni missile or Peacock as representing South. We can consider South picture when we seek replacement for other pictures. --Indianstar 19:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Toda Hut image is perhaps my favorite image on the page and I especially like its juxtaposition with Taj Mahal. The Taj Mahal represents architecture at the grandest imperial scale (built for kings as a mausoleum; made of everlasting imported-to-the-region materials; built as a monument by efforts of 1000s of hired labour), while Toda Hut shows it at the smallest personal level (built by  and for tribesman, with a population of <1000 out of local degradable material for personal residential purposes). Yet both are lovingly decorated, which shows that the end-product is a matter of pride, and not just functionality, for their owners/constructors. Thus the two images together best illustrate the rich diversity of Indian culture. Additionally the Toda hut image is a beautiful, high quality picture with intriguing features (noticed the small entrance? I often wondered about the scale of the hut till I read the note on the Toda page). Finally, now that the Apatani image has been removed, one cannot argue that tribal India is over-represented on the India page. So before the image is deleted, I would like to hear cogent arguments for its removal. Regards. Abecedare 23:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Beautifully spoken!  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Abecedare's arguments makes sense.--Indianstar 01:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toda Hut Image 

message: First of all i would like to congratulate every one on the Wikipedia Team you have done a great job by putting on such a useful encyclopdia which anyone can edit to correct errors. I would also like to report an error which i sighted in the article of India which was its map The mistake is:
That you have also included the state of Jammu and Kashmir with India, i know its currently a disputed state between Pakistan and India. But still Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) sided with Pakistan in the Boundary Commission or Radcliffe Award and J&K being a Muslim dominated state but having a Hindu prince who wanted to side with India at first but was forced to side with Pakistan. So when India captured the state of J&K and demanded as thier property it bcame disputed until now. So you should have labelled it a disputed state but you have combined it with india which is very wrong indeed. Pls correct this error or if u dont then pls give me a reason for not correcting it. Pls email me on this topic and its progressions on this email address muhammad_931@hotmail.com. Thanks and i hope u correct this error.  Bye —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.154.247.236 (talk) 13:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see the  FAQ page =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Map of India 

message: I've come to the conclusion that Nikkul and Indianhilbilly are the same person. I wouldn't put up personal information about him on wikipedia to protect his privacy. To confirm this a checkuser would be necessary. Use of sockpuppets for influencing an outcome is prohibited, and Nikkul could be banned. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A checkuser has already been filed. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Nikkul --Ragib 15:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, I've added a note there. If interested, the checkuser group can contact me for the proof. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per the checkuser evidence, I've blocked five of Nikkul's votestacking socks (see :Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Nikkul). I'm leaving it to someone else to decide what should be done with Nikkul. Saravask 04:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to cross out their contributions to the consensus forming thing above.  Thanks for checking it out.  The Behnam 04:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cross out their votes, block all socks like you've already done.  But leave Nikkul alone.  He's a new user and should learn from this experience.  Sarvagnya 04:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've crossed them out.  Indeed, most of the "yeller" users are rather new, though I still don't know if your mercy is appropriate.  The Behnam 04:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no (yeller) users.  There's just one.  Thats Nikkul.  And I'm sure he wouldnt have known beforehand how easy it is to do a CU or he wouldnt have bothered creating so many almost obvious socks.  If he does it again, I'd vote for 'indefinite block'.  Not this time.  Sarvagnya 04:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And most importantly, Nikkul's socks werent abusive.  Vote stacking is one thing, but vandalism and abuse is another.  And in any case, socks or no socks, I dont think anything can/could have save the apatani image nor would that other image they were pushing for have found its way into the article.  Sarvagnya 04:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I referred to "yeller" users in general being new, not that specific set.  But anyway its your call, and of course he's out of here if he does it again.  But I don't think he was ignorant of the reasons his sockpuppet use was abusive; rather, I think he was unaware of the power or existence of CU.  Considering that he asked Nichalp "Whats your proof?" he seemed to think that he couldn't be detected.  If he 'innocently' used sockpuppets abusively, he'd be more likely to just apologize & say he was unaware that his usage was not right.  Of course, its rather obvious to understand the abusive aspect of 'votestacking', so I think we are giving him way too much benefit of the doubt.  Being unaware of CU's powers shouldn't let him off the hook for his deliberate abusive sockpuppetry.  The Behnam 04:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Votestacking is definitely abusive.  It's actually one of the main abuses that sockpuppets are used for.  See WP:SOCK#Voting and other shows of support; it is the first listing.  The Behnam 04:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reported him to WP:AN. The community can decide on his fate. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good.  The Behnam 05:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  Well I smelled meatpuppetry, but not this. Am surprised and disappointed. Abecedare 05:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  ... and I cannot see how his/her actions can be interpreted as "innocent", especially given the self-righteous indignation he/she expressed in these posts , . The abuse of our assumption of good faith was as bad as the blatant vote stacking. Abecedare 05:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, very surprising but definitely not innocent.  First of all, consider that he didn't list them as 'alternate accounts', he listed them as 'friends'.  If he was innocent, he would have listed them as alternate accounts, though I can't imagine what sort of 'innocent' reasoning he would put ("My votestacking sockpuppets on WP are ...  Nothing wrong with that, right?").  It's rather amusing that he even 'talked' to the other users.  Maybe his sockpuppets are his friends! :)  The Behnam 05:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When I said that his socks werent abusive, I didnt mean that votestacking was not 'abusive'.  I also didnt mean that he was acting in good faith.  There is no denying that he was acting in bad faith, but he was also acting stupid.  He wasnt 'innocent' but he was ignorant.  Sockpuppetry is the first thing that will occur to any newbie when they want to act in bad faith.  Unfortunately for him, he didnt know that it was also ridiculously easy for someone to call his bluff.  Especially when he made it so obvious to his opponents.  The brazenness with which he made multiple socks shows that he knew zilch about rfcu.  This is possible only with newbies.  The way I see it, indef blocking a newbie for a first time offence commited days after he registered is a little harsh and might even border on biting.  On the flip side, I see a user who has already learnt the ropes of editing on wikipedia(believe me, it took me a couple of weeks to even notice that there was a 'talk page'), who has in this process been educated about quite a few basic policies and who now knows that it really isnt a 'free for all' out here.  Aing GF, I see a potentially useful contributor to WP.  At the same time, I will be the first one to ask for a indef block if he tries his hand at puppetry again.  Sarvagnya 06:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The malicious intent seems indicative of an editor who will just try to be more clever in going against WP policies.  He has already tried to deceive us in clever ways, and simply failed out of ignorance.  But the point is, he was very deliberately trying to deceive us.  Anyway, the ANI is up, so hopefully the community will decide whether or not action should be taken.  The Behnam 06:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  Sarvagnya, making an error becuase one doesn't realize that it is an error is excusable and should be excused. Making an error deliberately and repeatedly because one didn't realize that they'd get caught is inexcusable IMO. Because in the latter case the lesson the person takes away is not that action X is wrong, but rather that they can continue to do X, but in a less detectable manner. Abecedare 07:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well said.  The Behnam 10:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  He knew what he was doing was wrong and yet, he did it.  That is what I meant by saying that he acted in 'bad faith'.  And imo, this is the case with almost every vandal or sockpuppet on wiki.  I am sure every vandal knows that what he is doing is wrong.  So does every sockpuppet.  The reason they do it is because they arent aware of what the consequences might be.  Once they learn it(if necessary the hard way), I'd expect that they'd mend.  That is what laws are about right?  Anyway, I just felt that banning him straightaway for having done something(which in the end analysis, hasnt counted for much anyway) just once, is a little too harsh.  I still feel that way.  I just felt like saying it.  So I said it.  Thats all.  Sarvagnya 10:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nikkul and Hillbillie are the same 

message: The second paragraph starts off with "Home to the Indus Valley Civilization..." 
I thought the Indus Valley Civilization was situated in what is now Pakistan and India. Doesn't "home to" suggest it was native to the region of India and India alone? ~~contrinewb
:OK.  Will fix my mentioning that they share it.  The Behnam 00:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, its still locked because of the silly insistence upon using the random Apatani picture.  The Behnam 00:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've unlocked it. --Ragib 03:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  It should be noted that it does say the Indian Subcontinent, but the fact that it starts with "Home ..." makes it seem more like India is the topic.  I'm going to change it to start with the subcontinent then describe it.  The Behnam 03:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I need to go now so if someone else could do it that'd be great.  Thanks.  The Behnam 03:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Obviously it happened in one case.  The only reason I agreed was because it reminded me of this .  Of course, that is a slightly different issue but I felt a similarity.  It might be better to mention the Indian Subcontinent first.  The Behnam 06:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you sort of have a weak point.  I can't say I really agree with it, but I see the implication.  One possibility would be to change the sentence to: "The Indian subcontinent, home to the Indus Valley Civilization and a region of historic trade routes and vast empires, was identified with its commercial and cultural wealth for much of its long history."  The prose, however, begins to get clunky and I (personally) would be reluctant to change to it.  Maybe others should weigh in on this.  The point is that the goal of an introduction is not to be completely literal and sound like a lab report.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I was afraid of clunkiness as well.  We've only had one complaint, so I suggest that people just read the entire sentence and not read too much into it.  If it seems to be a consistent problem then we can address it.  The Behnam 14:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually Fowler&fowler, "home to" does imply the modern state of India is more closely tied to the Indus Valley Civilization than Pakistan. Here's the relevant definition from dictionary.com: 5. the place or region where something is native or most common. The implication of "native or most common" is clear and unambiguous. I just wanted to point out the inaccuracy for the good of the article. Whether you guys change it or not is your decision. Contrinewb 14:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No quibbles with your definition of "home."  It's just that the word ("home") is applied to the Indian subcontinent and not to India.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence, as it stands, is a garden path sentence. Within the context of its discourse, 'home' is initially attached to India, not the subcontinent. While some will be able to correct their initial parsing error after finishing the sentence, it will go unnoticed by others, given that the surface structures of 'India' and 'Indian subcontinent' are so similar. Some might even think they're synonymic. Since the purpose of the article is to provide information, shouldn't we attempt to make it as unambiguous as possible? Contrinewb 16:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, that's a good point (that "home" is initially attached to India, i.e. Republic of India, since the first paragraph is about the borders of RoI).  Let me think about how best to rephrase it.  Meanwhile others might want to pitch in.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that the statement relating the Indus Valley Civilization could be made into more than one sentence for clarity.  Or we could simply mention that it shares this heritage with other nations of the subcontinent, perhaps with a statement like, "Along with other nations of the Indian Subcontinent..."  I'll keep thinking about it.  Tell me if any of this gives you new ideas.  The Behnam 21:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indus Valley Civilization 

message: Think it is time for semi-protection?  The Behnam 17:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: The infobox says Mumbai is the biggest city yet in the New Delhi article it states New Delhi has more than 13 million while the Mumbai article states that this city has something over 11 million. This cant be right, SqueakBox 19:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: New Delhi article is incorrect. The population of New Delhi is small. Delhi is larger. Will fix. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Which is the biggest city

message: the CIA WFB has 2006 updated estimates for GDP. Updated that!!! Also updated population est to July 2006 levels!!!
Pizzadeliveryboy 18:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2006 est figs 

message: Instead of a map for the geography section, use a satellite picture of an important geographical feature, such as the Ganges.  This will allow a demographic map to be used in the Demographics section without getting too 'mappy'.  The Behnam 02:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, we are going to get the arguement that how representative a satellite image is of a river. I've seen satellite imagery of north India (Geography of India), and the river is barely discernable. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then how about using a chart?  The Behnam 04:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not just use a chart to resolve the dispute? You can never argue facts, and they always represent India and its demographics. the religion pie chart is great! Its the ultimate solution. 24.149.198.116 15:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure why a chart hasn't been used yet.  People have agreed to it in principle but have not shown willingness to have it executed.  I get the feeling there is a strange attachment to the Apatani picture being there, but in any case, I'd still like a real demographics image to be used.  The Behnam 18:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Idea to resolve demographics section irrelevant imagery 

message: As per March statistics, this article is the 7th most popular country article with (~13,500 hits) in a 21-day period. It is 13th overall. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great! So it is 'tied' in popularity with: New York City, George W. Bush and List of male performers in gay porn films. :-) Abecedare 05:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Woah, those statistics reveal a different side of Wikipedia, in particular one area :) GizzaChat © 05:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Another noteworthy point: While the India page gets ~14000 views per day, barely 10-20 of those readers choose to vandalize it even when the page is not semi-protected. That, to me, is a positive news. Abecedare 05:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistics 

message: Does India support Capital punishment? Is there a place where I can get data regarding that? (how many people were executed per year, and what methods are used etc.)--Scheibenzahl 19:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Capital punishment in India has some information. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks--Scheibenzahl 08:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Capital Punishment

message: Since I was 7, I thought India was part of the Middle East. Is this true? Mewtwowimmer 23:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. India is considered to be part of Indian subcontinent or South Asia. Also see Subregions of Asia for the United Nations geoscheme; and Middle East and South East Asia for adjoining regions. Abecedare 23:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is India in the Middle East? 

message: According to the Times of India, India's Nominal GDP is now past the $1 Trillion USD mark. 
142.151.169.245 03:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Trillion Dollar Econony

message: This is a follow up of the topic Edit in "History" section which has now been archived (Talk:India/Archive 23). The mention of revolutionary organisations in the Indian independence movement in "History" section was the point of discussion. Citing respectable mainstream historians was demanded. So far, no such citation could be provided. So, as an interim measure, the mention of revolutionary organisations is being hidden (blanked out), with a citation needed tag (that would appear only in the edit mode). 
Since I do not have any mainstream or equally significant books/historical reviews, it will take some more time for searching proper reference. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Follow up of ''Edit in "History" section''

message: Hi guys
Well, while reading the last paragraph, I noticed it mentions " India has made rapid progress in the last decade, especially in information technology". Now, this may have been a fair reflection 3-4 years back, when companies like Infosys & Wipro represented the new face of Indian economy. They still do. But the past couple of years of so, have exhibited in abundance the growth in almost every sector, be it Automotive or steel. The recent global take-overs, be it the 12 Billion USD take over of Corus (formerly British Steel), or the take over of Daewoo's truck divisions, are a couple of examples. And this trend continues.
Given this fact, I personally feel, we should rephrase that line to be true to the present state, where IT isnt the only shining gem anymore.AJ-India 13:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have removed the "especially in information technology" bit.  Thanks.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Last Paragraph in the Lead

message: If you feel better pictures can represent this page, please add them here
Image:Agasthiyamalai range and Tirunelveli rainshadow.jpg|Geography -This is a featured picture
Image:Indian Army T-90.jpg|Military
Image:Dal Lake.jpg|Dal Lake
Sure! Great pics why don't you add them? 
--59.182.23.178 12:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Chanakyathegreat, I agree with you that the Jaguar image is visually more pleasing than the Agni II picture. However, I believe that the latter image of the indigenously developed Agni missile is of greater encyclopedic value for this page, than that of the the Anglo-French SEPECAT Jaguar. Note that :Image:IAF_Jaguar.JPEG even carries the French flag and is recognizable as belonging to the IAF only by the roundel. Of course, if and when a better photograph of Agni III is available the image can be replaced. Abecedare 03:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, on closer inspection I am not certain if those are the IAF roundel or the French flag, since the colours seem to be Green-White-Red and not Green-White-Saffron or Blue-White-Red as I would expect. Hmmm. Abecedare 04:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better Pictures 

message: as   an   visual  interpretor   i  would  like  to  know  more   about  urbanization   and   its  effects   in  india.  because   this  country  has   its  own  growth   with  lot  of   factors   so  do   we    really  need  to  change  our  cities  like   any other   european/  ameriacn   cities   if  it  is   then  why    and  what  are   the  possibilities   make  it  its  own  way  where   middle  class  can  be   acommodate   very  well.   because  that  is    one  huge   area   which  cant  deny . ==
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 122.163.214.21 (talk) 02:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  confirming european standard   [ce] 

message: Have placed a new image in Demographics. Quality is somewhat inferior. However, license is acceptable. Please see. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: a thumbnail of thumbnails is utterly pointless: should be replaced with a link "click here for a gallery". dab (𒁳) 12:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks but we should really try putting an actual visual of demographic information like most other country's articles do, rather than arbitrarily chosen pictures of people that aren't exactly relevant to demographics.  The Behnam 14:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like the growth pattern?--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, or a pie, or a map, stuff of that sort.  That is actual demographic information, and a number of users agreed to its appropriateness in principle.  You should probably look at the previous discussions in the archives for more background.  The problem was that we couldn't agree on a sufficiently information-rich form, and people weren't receptive to adding a new map.  However it is undoubtedly the most appropriate type of visual for the demographics section so it remains a concern to be addressed.  The Behnam 14:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Collages are unencyclopedic. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the collage seems not be justified in the "Demographics" section, I have re-inserted the Apatani tribal woman image. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image in demographics

message: The parliament pic needs a more close-up.
--59.163.2.161 07:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sansad bhavan pic not good 

message: I know that there are abundant accurate references in this article, but perhaps, in order to make it even better and even more trustworthy, there need to be some more accurate ones.Johnsmithcba 14:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: John, can you point out any specific instance that you think can/should be improved ? Thanks. Abecedare 15:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Note that as per WP:ATT, "Any user should be able to verify that material added to Wikipedia is attributable a reliable published source. Precise attribution is required for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged." Undisputed facts such as India is in Asia, or New Delhi is its capital are easily verified by, for example, the "General References" listed in the External Links section and thus IMO do not need a separate inline citations. (Incidentally, Mumbai's status as India's largest city has been challenged in the past and therefore it does need to be referenced). Also note that this article is written in Summary Style which has different citation guidelines than an article on the sub-topics (see this). That said, I think references in this article can and should be improved. For example I just went through the Demography section of the article and uphauled many of the references and corrected some of the data, which was simply incorrect! If you have suggestions about specific statements of the article that you feel need to be referenced, please do list them here. Thanks.Abecedare 19:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Did you even bother to click on any of the wiki-linked rank statistics in the infobox? Those list/rank articles have full reference for each of these facts. --Ragib 17:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I must be looking at a different version of Wikipedia, because mine DOES provide references for those list articles!!! Also, I don't understand your comments about pictures, what do you mean by reference for pictures? Every picture's description page clearly provides the source and the licensing information. Thank you. --Ragib 19:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More References Required 

message: More culture information about India, such as way of life, popular foods, popular past times, etc is badly, repeat badly, needed. Some culture expert, please add information on the topic (with references cited, of course). Johnsmithcba 18:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you seen the main article on the topic, Culture of India (which certainly needs improvement) ? Note again that the India article is written in Summary Style and is intended to give only a brief overview of this vast subject. Abecedare 19:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: No, that is unnecessary. We are an online encyclopedia, not print, and having main articles in dedicated pages makes optimial use of content by tightly focussing on core content here and dedicated content in daughter articles. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Then why don't you enhance those "bad quality main articles"? See Summary style. --Ragib 17:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: That is what wikipedia is all about. See the logo on the top left. It shows an incomplete jigsaw puzzle. When trying to build an encyclopedia, we are building from top outwards. So if India is featured, we've got core articles such as Geography of India, Mumbai, Economy of India featured. We are building a core India-related encyclopedia. See Wikiproject India for details. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: We already have one. See WP:INDIA =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  ... because there already is one. Incidentally there are more than 20,000 India related articles on wikipedia, so there is and always will be more to be said on the topic than can be contained in a 40-50Kbyte article, and that is perfectly fine. The wonder of wikipedia in particular and the web in general is the way it organizes and interlinks the information, rather than dump it in one place in a linear fashion. I request that you click on the links included in this post along with the ones provided by Nichalp and Ragib, since they address most of the points you have raised on the page.  Abecedare 18:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Culture Needed 

message: The coordinates in infobx are displayed as shown below:
2) 28°34′N, 77°12′E
I didn't understand why 2) was being displayed? Can someone clarify this?--(Sumanth|Talk) 03:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the superscripts were causing a problem. I have removed it and cleaned the infobox. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinates in infobox 

message: As science, technology and communication media are making a huge impact on our economy,
there should be a section highlighting the scientists and engineers from past and the 
number we are producing now. Highlighting our achievements in satellite technology can also 
be a good idea. Achievements in communication media is also an important aspect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.34.20.19 (talk) 07:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would definitely agree with that. In addition to that, perhaps more emphasis can also be given to other positive achievements of India. Johnsmithcba 14:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, this is governed by the countries wikiproject. Secondly, the article should be neutrally written, not written to just highlight achievements. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: That is agreeable, but perhaps adding a science and technology and space section would be important, not to highlight positive achievements of India, but because this is a rising part of India's economy. Johnsmithcba 17:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science and Technology section needed 

message: I think that the external links of the article need to be presented in a more orderly fashion and should be divided into an "official" and "unofficial" section. Johnsmithcba 14:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links Need to Be Organized 

message: I think that this article should be given a higher degree of protection in order to shield it from recent vandalism. Johnsmithcba 14:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection for the Article 

message: Although there are adequate pictures in this article, I think that there need to be a few more, especially a nature map in the "flora and fauna" section, in order to make this article visual-friendly. Johnsmithcba 14:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See the previous archives for a discussion on images. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Additional maps have been turned down. Please see the recent archives. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Pictures Required 

message: I think that a separate "sports" section should be added to this article, since sports are given a major emphasis in India. Also, more emphasis should be put on the climate of India in the "geography" section, perhaps even change the name of the section to "geography and climate." Johnsmithcba 15:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not needed. We have quality subarticles on both. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have started this discussion on Village pump.  Sarvagnya 16:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: See Summary style. --Ragib 17:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: According to? --Ragib 17:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Even that page, in the main index  doesn't list sports as a separate topic, rather just like this article, clusters Sports, culture, arts together. If you have a problem with the structure, please raise the issue at Wikiproject on countries. Thanks. --Ragib 18:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Sections Needed 

message: I would like to add a link to one of our webcasts/web reports of Chindia. It contains a lot of general demographic, financial and economic information, and I think will be of interest to Wikipedia users. It is freely accessible, without fees or registration.
Here is the link:
Chindia and Its Global Impact, http://www.usfunds.com/article.asp?id=1207
Please let me know if you deem it worthy to be added to the page. Thanks! -Jtkachuk
:The URL does not have any encyclopedic value other than being a webcast. Thanks for asking btw. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I looked through the linked presentation on "Chindia" and while it is interesting to specialists in the field, it is not suitable for the main India article and perhaps not even appropriate for sub-articles on the Indian economy since it represents one expert's view of the topic in an non-peer-reviewed medium (see guideleines on exsternal links and reliable sources). That said, perhaps cited information included in the presentation can be used to add content to Economy of India article or another article in the cetegory. Abecedare 18:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link

message: Someone, please reply to the comments "External Links Need to be Organized" and "Protection for the Article." Thank You, Johnsmithcba 19:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: John, my guess is that no one replied to those two points because your comments are hard to make sense of. For example the  External Links are already organized and it is not clear what change you are proposing and (more importantly) why. Also the article is already semi-protected and any residual vandalism is (usually) quickly reverted. Please familiarize yoursself with wikipedia policies, guidelines and manual of style (you'll find links in the  welcome template on your user talk page) as well as talk page guidelines, so that your wikipedia edits are not (mis)interpreted as trolling. Thanks. Abecedare 20:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User Johnsmithcba, please elaborate on what you propose, and we can work on it. Remember, by definition, Wikipedia is a open source, so you are entitled to edit just as much as anyone of us out here. But to ensure your edit survives over time, would help if you discuss it out here, thus satisfying other editors as well. AJ-India 04:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: External links needs to be reorganised it what form? We do not split EL into subsections. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please Reply 

message: Dear ,  You seem to have a lot of ideas about various India-related topics—improve this, protect that, add references to this, create another section for that—yet you haven't made a single edit on any Wikipedia page, other than some talk pages.  Your enthusiasm is of course very welcome, but you might consider cutting your editorial teeth on some article to both improve the article and your own credibility.  Why don't you edit the Culture of India article and effect there the kinds of improvements you are so eloquently advocating on this page?  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason which I have mentioned before is that this article is protected, and I am not allowed to edit any of this article, perhaps because I am a new user. So, I am suggesting changes to other, and when I will be given permission to edit the article, I shall do so, but not things that, for example, are disagreed upon by others, because perhaps they would ruin the article. Johnsmithcba 17:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Culture of India article is not only not protected, but also in much need of a clean-up.  Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and improve that?  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree, you can sign up in WP:INDIA and check adopt one article for improvement. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: User Johnsmithcba