Talk:India/Archive 7

message: If you notice, the last paragraph of the introduction is poorly structured and not well organized. 
"With the world's fourth largest economy in purchasing power and the second fastest growing large economy, India has made rapid progress in the last decade, especially in information technology. Although India's standard of living is projected to rise sharply in the next half-century, it currently battles high levels of poverty, persistent malnutrition, and environmental degradation. A multi-lingual, multi-ethnic society, India is also home to a diversity of wildlife in a variety of protected habitats."
What does India's multi-lingual, multi-ethnic society have to do with India's emergence as a developed nation? I think the last sentence should be moved to the second paragraph as it talks about India's diversity. I would really suggest that people dont just slap sentences here and there because they feel like it. This page has earned FA status, lets not lose it please.
142.151.169.245 22:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to introduction 

message: I have reverted recent image additions to the article. Please discuss here before adding them back. I personally find them cluttering. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 17:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope you will agree that contents of image is OK. If your grievance is regarding image quality and size, then please let me know what is the problem with images.Let me see how it can be corrected .Chanakya has offered few suggestions and images have been modified as per his suggestions.Image was also appreciated by few editors. Good quality images will create more interest among readers.Images added also does not require much bandwidth, since image size is less than 50Kb.(Though it is colourful,colours have been chosen in such a way that file size does not go beyond 50Kb).Wikitable format takes little more time to load,so wide image format has been chosen. --Indianstar 02:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I have not seen the images in the article but they seem to be extremely useful if handled properly.  --Blacksun 13:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was inserted yesterday.You can find it here.It was removed to develop consensus before reinsertion.--Indianstar 14:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh, I actually dont like them the way they fit in with the article.  They need to be more subtle.  --Blacksun 10:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi,I think you are pointing out about Demography picture.(Looks large!!)Chanakya also suggested improvements in that pictures and told other 2 pictures are OK.We can withhold insertion of that picture.Let me develop smaller version of that picture then we can decide.I hope we can insert other 2 pictures. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Indianstar --Indianstar 15:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: These images really added to value of the article. I do not see a reason why we should not have them. I strongly adovocate them. I have really noticed on wikipedia that in picyure on india realted articles is generally not upto the mark. Also on topics which are general for whole world we hardly have any pictures from India. Guys, pictures always help to communicate in more effective way when used approriately. apurv1980 16:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Svg images require plug in for viewing in Internet Explorer which is the most commonly used browser. You can check here.Most of the images in this article and other featured articles are JPG images.Other frequently used format in wikipedia is .png.But .png increases file size by 2 to 3 times and may be recommended for small images (Like Indian flag in this article).--Indianstar 05:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mediawiki automatically rasterizes the svg to png which is then displayed on the page. Most of the maps and diagrams on the India page are svg-based. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have uploaded new images of Economic forecast/Indian Political parties in SVG file format for review as per Nichalp's suggestions. I have modified background and text colour to avoid smudginess of text.I have removed Unity in diversity image and will submit later after improvement. I hope these images can be uploaded into articles as there is a consensus. --Indianstar 08:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: At the picture where it says "Indian developed Agni-II ballistic missile on a mobile launcher platform during the Republic day parade 2004."
It should say "Indian-developed Agni-II ballistic missile on a mobile launcher platform during the Republic day parade 2004.", with "-" between "Indian" and "developed"
70.144.216.211 01:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually neither version is correct.  If you insist on a hyphenated construction, it should read, "India-developed Agni-II ballistic missile on a ...."  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  caption 

message: ::Almost all Holidays in India are based on Religion and Karma Theory which support attrocities on Poors, Women and Children. Is it India Republic and Democratic?
:::vkvora 04:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a blog, or a place to pen incoherent personal musings.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Article talk pages are meant to discuss about contents of the article or to discuss about how to improve article contents. This should not be used like blog or social networking site.--Indianstar 07:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious Holidays 

message: Bharat was never a country. It was another name used by South Asians, for the subcontinent before 1947. Modern Indians call RoI Bharat. But this name doesnt have any place in an Encyclopaedia since this will lead to another huge misunderstanding, for example, someone saying India used to be South Asia.
Please consider this and remove Bharat from the page.
Unre4L 00:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might be right about Bharat's history, but the reason it is mentioned in the Wikipedia India lead has nothing to do with history, but simply that it is the official Hindi name designated by the Government of India.  If tomorrow, the Government of India decides to change the official Hindi name to Gondwana, Bharat will be out (and we'll have a bigger problem on our hands).  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The Constitution of India labels India as Bharat. India is an anglicized name given by the British. India is more Bharat than India because the Indian people (mostly) call it Bharat and foreign people call it India. Nobleeagle  [TALK] [C] 03:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: We have a name section, keep Bharat in that to avoid redundancy and bad planning of prose. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PS I have clarified what I meant above.  Didn't realize there was a Wikipedia Bharat page.  Fowler&fowler«Talk»
Fowler, again you are using your own version that shows your contempt towards others and you are trying to hide the truth below a bunch of lies. Bharath existed. That's what Maha Bharath (The Great Bharath) tells us. Modern Indians call Republic of India or Bharat meaning the same nation. Just because the boundaries of the nation changed slightly, one cannot change the name itself.
Chanakyathegreat 05:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: All Unre4L is saying is that Bharat was not one country but a mini-continent.  In the Mahabharat, there were many tribes and at least sixteen Kingdoms—recall, from the first chapter of the Gita: Drupad was the King of Panchala, Dhristaketu of the Chedis, and Somadatta of the Bahikas, not to mention the valiant King of Kashi.  I'm not agreeing with Unre4L's conclusion; just saying that the reason why "Bharat" is mentioned along with "India" (right off the bat in the lead) is that it is the official Hindi name of the Republic of India.  As for Gondwana, I was trying to be light-hearted, not contemptuous. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PS. This recently added map doesn't prove anything.  It is a map based on Indian epics.  The epics also say that human beings were created on the banks of the River Saraswati when Aryan gods, mounted on white horses, arrived from Mount Meru on the North Pole.  And in fact (using that kind of "epic" evidence) there were even people who had been trying to prove the Indian origin of humanity ... that is, until the DNA evidence for humanity's African origin became overwhelming.  We need real historical evidence  to show that Emperor Bharata ruled over the lands shown in the map.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fowler, see Talk:History of India, what Unre4L is trying to prove is that India has no ownership over parts of the subcontinent now in control of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, including prominently the Indus Valley Civilization, which is apparently part of Ancient Pakistan. Nobleeagle  [TALK] [C] 00:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Most of Unre4L's arguments across all these talk pages are based on assuming that nation = state. deeptrivia (talk) 03:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: India as in "Ancient India" is neither a nation nor a state but a region. Obviously the Republic of India has no ownership of the Pakistani territory, or the bulk of IVC sites there. Which doesn't change their being in India, since the RoI doesn't control all of India, most notably it doesn't control most of the Indus itself. Which makes the whole naming business a bit of a paradoxon. Unre4L is mistaken about the term "India", not about nations or states. Which means he is still in error, of course. dab (𒁳) 13:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bharat? 

message: This article is a bit confusing to me. My understanding is that this is not a very common usage compared to North American and possibly other usage which define East Indians as people who are from India as opposed to West Indians from the Carribean or Indians, which can mean either the indigenous peoples of central North America (or I suppose anyplace in the Americas except for the Arctic) OR people from India. Plus it does not have much in the way of references. Comments? Suggestions?--Filll 04:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: East Indian is not used at all in Britain, in my experience: people from the Caribbean are described as West Indians, those from the subcontinent simply as Indians.  East Indian would merely have vague and archaic connotations of Indonesia to a (well-educated) British reader.--Stonemad GB 22:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not saying the article is incorrect, just that the topic of the article is a secondary meaning of the term "East Indian," which is widely used in the west to refer to people from the Subcontinent generally.  Certainly in North America. john k 17:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dispute the statement that it is a secondary meaning; it may be so only in NA. Anyways East Indian points to a disambig page which is more than sufficient. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[East Indians (ethnic group)]]

message: I have written substantially about the reasons justififying the use of 'occupation', while maintaining that colonialism is equal (in meaning) and thus acceptable (if it Satisfies a certain colonial editor).
However, I would like to move away from the narrow point of discussion on a word, to the lead in general. While there is no doubt (and disagreement thus) about the existance of British rule in India, and therefore has to be mentioned, the lead may not be the appropriate place. We already have the history section for it. The reasons for this (in my opinion) are
1. The article is about India, with a 3000 year history, and the British era (rule, not as traders) was at most 190 years (as rulers, begining from bengal, to their Zenith post 1857).
2. If we mention people who ruled a part of India (as we know it today) for 190 years, we would have to mention others, (like the Mughals) who ruled a larger part of India (territorially) and for a longer period (spanning 300 years approx. begining from Emperor Babur to its Zenith with Aurangzeb, to the decline). And they are not the only examples of Pan Indian rulers.
The argument (probably) in favour of mentioning the colonial occupation might be its current relevance and the visible infulence. But even there, the immediate predecessors, the Mughals, too have a far greater infulence on present India, be it in administration, language, or culture (the colonial editor here mentioned British occupation having produced 'culture' and 'heritage', if it really did, such 'culture' and 'heritage' is far greater in magnitude, viz a viz the Mughals, or any other longer ruling enitity in India)
To conclude (what I wish to convey)
1. I do not wish to "wish away" the British infulence, or its existance. I disagree, however, with the sneaky attempt by an obviously biased editor to accord any sense of acceptability, or legitimacy to the British rule.
2. Would therefore like to have the lead worked on, to be more inclusive and less specific to a particular era. Mention the British, just like any other ruler, in the history section, in accordance with their duration (with respect to the 3000 year history of India).
AJ-India 18:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead

message: Great Britain directly administered from mid 19th century???? british rule ended in india by mid 19th century and britain took control of india after the 1856 sepoy mutiny(first freedom struggle), it's very strange that people didn't notice it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Muralichoudry (talk • contribs) 00:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 1857 was in 19th century; 1947 in the 20th; we are now in the 21st.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  british administration in india started in mid 19th century??? 

message: The history section of this page says: "As a consequence, India came under the direct control of the British Crown as a colony of the British Empire."  In a general sense this is true, (although it should really say either "colony of Great Britain" or "a part of the British Empire,") however, India always had special status from 1858 onwards.  For example, India was never a British crown colony as Ceylon was; nor was it a self-governing colony (or later a Dominion) like Australia or Canada were; nor yet a protectorate like Kenya and other countries in Africa.  There was a Cabinet minister, the Secretary of State for India, as well as the India Office which directly ruled India.  (The Viceroy of India was the head of the British administration in India; however, he reported to the Secretary of State for India, and through him to the Cabinet.)  For all the other colonies, there was another  Cabinet minister, called the Secretary of State for the Colonies.  See for example,  Conservative Government 1895-1905, or Liberal Government 1905-1915.  So, in a technical sense India was never a colony; it was the Indian Empire.  This was evident in the grandiloquent title of the British monarch in those days, e.g. George V: 
Perhaps a more accurate rewording of the sentence in the history section would be: "As a consequence, India came under the direct control of the British Crown as the Indian Empire." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a "British viewpoint."  It's the way the place was administered by the British.  India was a British colony, but it was not a British Colony, if that makes any sense.  It was part of a separate system, and we should try to be clear about things like that. Note also that India was a member of the League of Nations, and so forth, unlike direct colonies like Ceylon. john k 22:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: British Empire, the Colonies, and India

message: We can improve this article contents for better readability.(Like United States article) and I offer following suggestions. 
Geography section should have two sub sections called 1) Terrain 2) Climate
History section should have subsections called 1)Pre Historic 2) Old civilizations 3) Indian 
Empires(or some other appropriate sub title)4)Foreign empires
Demographics section should have subsections called 1) Languages 2) Religion 3)Education 4)
Health.(I don't know whether 3 & 4 needs to fall under demographics but United states article has it under demographics)
Culture section should also have many appropriate sub titles.
Having sub section and directing users to relevant main articles.(Like Education in India) will increase viewership for other India related articles also.
Each main section should have some interesting image to create more interest to read article contents.--Indianstar 04:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, please don't change it. India is a featured article, and the basis for many more. The US never has managed to gain this status. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions for improving article contents

message: The infobox says that the GDP of India is the 3rd largest in the world but in every three lists avaible on Wikipedia show India as the 4th (after US, China and Japan). I can't fix it because the article is protected from editing. With respect, 13:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you, the 2006 GDP figures do indeed say that India is 4th ranked in purchasing power GDP.  However, various nationalistic editors replaced it with the "projected ranking for 2007" which is 3rd.  The projected figures are not actual figures.  I changed it back to 4th, but they managed to revert it just before the page was locked down.  The GDP sentence should really say: "12th largest economy (nominal GDP) and the 4th largest economy in purchasing power," until such time as IMF and the World Bank come out with the actual figures for 2007.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Originally India was estimated as 4th largest economy behind Japan for the year 2006. Gap between India and Japan was meagre for the year 2006.(India 3.942 Trillion,Japan 4.066 Trillion).Since India's growth rate was more than original projection,It is likely to cross Japan in the year 2006 itself.See here for US economist's prediction for year 2006. Actual 2006 growth figures are likely to be released by April 2007, we will come to know by then. But I agree with you that till actual growth rates are released we will have to say that India is the 4th largest economy in terms of Purchasing power parity.(I liked your adjective "Nationalistic editors")--Indianstar 18:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  3rd or 4th? 

message: The line:
"The President is the his role in governance is largely ceremonial."
Appears early in the government section. I suggest replacement with:
"The President's role in governance is largely ceremonial."
: I think that the sentence is not really true either.  The president of India has powers that are well beyond the scope of what "largely ceremonial" implies, especially in certain circumstances.  Significantly, this powers have been used often enough, including in 2006. --129.125.105.51 21:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Grammar

message: Any body may tell me about Madrash? Is it a city  or village in India?--134.159.150.75 05:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are looking for Madras, it is a metropolis in southern India. Some years ago, it was renamed Chennai. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 06:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, I think that what exactly I want to know--134.159.150.75 23:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Madrash

message: "The Indian constitution recognises 23 official languages." - however the source given for this statement says 22.  --Zerotalk 07:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  how many official languages? 

message: So, erm, are you guys done duelling over occupation vs. colonialism vs. gradual annexation vs. direct administrative control :P  Would be nice to unprotect it.--Blacksun 09:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree 100%. Effer 03:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotect?

message: Can someone please delete the following interwikis: aa:, ab:, ak:, av:, ay:, bi:, bm:, bo:, bh:, bug:, ce:, ch:, cho:, chy:, cr:, cv:, dz:, ee:, fj:, gn:, ha:, ho:, ig:, ki:, kj:, lo:, mg:, mh:, mus:, my:, ng:, nv:, ny:, sn:, tum:, za:, dz:, ee:, iu:, xh:, zu:, ie:, xal:, rn:, kv:, pih:, or:, pi:, pap:, sg:.
And a WARNING TO ALL INDIAN NATIONALIST VANDALS: DO NOT CREATE PAGES IN WIKIPEDIAS WHERE YOU DON'T KNOW THE LANGUAGE. THEY WILL BE DELETED, THEIR INTERWIKIS REMOVED, AND YOU WILL BE BLOCKED. Whoever has been doing this, creating all these pages "India" on wikis and then just writing in English everywhere... DO you have any idea how much work you have created for us? It took me half an hour to remove your spam on wikis from aa to nv, and that's still not the end. I will clean the rest of your junk later. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.251.68.181 (talk) 00:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For one, writing pages in English can hardly be called vandalism. Secondly there are a set of articles listed on meta that should be present on all wikipedias, and this is one of them. So a well meaning editor may have created these articles with the intention that it gets translated to a stub. Calling it "vandalism" and "nationalistic" is way too harsh, and only reflects the attitude of editors on smaller wikis that are unwilling to improve major topics on their wikis. So please, lay off the name calling. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No -- it is, quite simply, vandalism. It is litter. The purpose of having multiple wikipedias is, quite simply, to have content in MULTIPLE LANGUAGES. It is not okay to post content in the wrong language to random Wikis and hope it gets translated. It is spam. It does not matter that they're part of the "list of articles all wikis should have" -- that means that that Wiki should have that article in its own language. What you have done is vandalism. It is deleted every time now, and if you continue, there is a chance of banning. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.251.68.181 (talk) 12:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then call it spam, not vandalism. The English wikipedia too gets articles written in vernacular languages. But, these articles are not deleted on sight but rather listed on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English for two weeks before deleting. The purpose of any wikipedia is to grow, and m:List of articles every Wikipedia should have defines the basic articles that any wikipedia should have. The very act of threating a user with a ban, and an unwillingness to improve or create an article with the importance of this one only goes to show how myopic and power hungry some of the administrators and editors of smaller language wikis are. Please do not justify such an attitude. I suggest you take this back to some of the editors of smaller wikis and as them to assume good faith instead of threating bans et. al. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's spam and vandalism. Now, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to grow. It is to give free information, in the user's native language. Most of the Wikis you spammed and vandalized do not have administrators who can speak those languages, nor do they have any users. This is an ongoing issue; obviously when people who are competent in these languages arrive, at some point they will create an article on India. However, until that time, your articles serve nobody. They only clutter a Wikipedias which we try to keep empty except of content in proper language, and hope that they grow (example tajik wikipedia was like this before, we kept it clean of english spam vandalism pages like yours, and soon it grew). Now, you are badly representing your country, should we believe that all Indian people are like you, overassuming the importance of their country, being provincial and assuming everyone should speak English, and trying to impose their selfs on others? You help nobody with your arrogant attitude. These wikis are not your playground for you to just write articles in any language. Do not worry, when Wikipedias are growing, people will write about India of course, it is large country with large population. But have patience, do not try and force it, wait until they write themselves it. --67.42.34.237 02:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And why are you singling me for writing all those articles in English? =Nichalp «Talk»= 03:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: You seem to have forgotten the meaning of Vandalism. The copy/pasting of en:India in any of these wikis was: 1) not added to existing article in other language, 2) was not incorrect data, 3) no existing data was removed. I don't understand why is this a matter unless the wikipedia is running out of disk space. overassuming the importance of their country What is wrong with creating an article, which is about 1) some thing real 2) some thing important 3) some thing important enough? ...arrogant attitude Seems like you understand english. Read this thread again and decide again who is being arrogant. give free information, in the user's native language And the users are the editors. We and everyone is an editor. Are you suggesting those who don't know english should not use en:Wikipedia at all? I beg to differ and I think everyone does.--æn↓þæµß¶-ŧ-¢ 14:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're twisting things a bit. Shall I go now and post lots of new articles in English at the Hindi Wikipedia? Even if they are all "important enough"? You must not understand what is going on here, to think that I suggest people who do not know English whould not use Wikipedia. On the contrary, I believe it is their right to use Wikipedia, in their native language! And that is why you guys are doing wrong, you are interfering with that right by spamming their Wikipedias with content they are not able to understand. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.251.68.181 (talk) 00:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the CAPITAL LETTERS with BOLD FONT.  Your arrogant and hostile nature has been noted and you have been dismissed to my list of people to ignore (which should not be so hard considering you do not login).  Good bye.--Blacksun 11:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure why you think that is really relevant to the discussion -- if you ignore me, then ignore me. Why do you feel the need to tell me about it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.251.68.181 (talk) 23:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwikis 

message: The page is protected again as the debate is not yet over and to prevent further edit warring. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected again 

message: what is this Interwikis?Neechalp 18:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  what is this Interwikis? 

message: Following Major information about India is missing in this article
Military and Foreign relations: It should state about recent Indo-US nuclear deal,sanctions against India after nuclear test,gradual reversal of sanctions after Sep 11,2001,Improvement of foreign ties with US and recent Peace efforts with pakistan.It should also state that "India along with Germany,Japan,Brazil is requesting for UN security council permanent membership which was supported by many countries.
Economy:.It should have major export/import commodities,export/import trade values.Current Foreign reserves(which is considered as one of the important positive points of Indian economy),FII growth in recent years.
Politics: Statement which says that Indian states are dominated by Regional parties is wrong. Except Tamilnadu and some north eastern states,other states are mostly dominated by national parties. Even now, around 20 states are either ruled directly by Congress/BJP/Communists or one of these parties is a major alliance partner in the state.If you include other recognised national parties like Samajwadi party,this figure may be more.--Indianstar 09:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Modification of contents