![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | → | Archive 25 |
For the past few months I've only seen this page used to debate on the appropriateness of the pictures. This is never going to end and no consensus is ever going to be reached. The images on the page are sufficient for the moment. Those actively pushing for images to be changed could invest their time in sourcing images for articles that do not have images. =Nichalp «Talk»= 02:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
The Rich hockey tradition in Coorg ( Kodagu), Karnataka (see Kodava Hockey Festival) and no doubt Punjab and a few other states needs to be mentioned just as soccer in Bengal, Goa and Kerela finds particualr mention in the below sentence, at the bottom of the article.
India's national sport is field hockey, though cricket is the most popular Indian sport. In some states, particularly those in the northeast and the states of West Bengal, Goa, and Kerala, football (soccer) is also a popular sport.
thanks Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 04:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I've semi-protected this article due to the repeat disruption by anon and new users over the last few days. —— Eagle101 Need help? 17:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
In the cultural column why that Toda hut of Tamil Nadu had been replaced by lotus temple of Delhi.More over I poste d the Pic of the The Big Temple Of Thanjavur.why was it deleted though it is master piece in Native indian art and declared as a world heritage sit —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arun1paladin ( talk • contribs) 15:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
[arun1paladin] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arun1paladin ( talk • contribs) 15:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
If it is cultural rotation why Taj Mahal pic is not removed.It is not superior to the temple of Thanjavur jus tbecause it is famous [arun1paladin] —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
122.164.229.168 (
talk)
16:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Taj mahal was built during moghal empire. 3 images
These 3 images would portray history of India in a graphical way. If not Taj, some other moghal architecture image would suit for history section. Also im unable to fathom how Taj belongs to culture?? :( Vital brick 1 ( talk) 04:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Awesome article.....I am impressed ...I just stopped by to congratulate the guys over this work.....nice ...really impressive...Keep up the good work Yourdeadin ( talk) 09:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Yourdeadin
The national animal is Tiger. It is not specifically the Royal Bengal Tiger, though the adjective "Royal Bengal" sounds good, its not correct to be talking of the Indian National Animal. Please correct the National animal to "Tiger". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srinivasbt ( talk • contribs) 07:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
User Otolemur crassicaudatus insists on adding an image [3] of people living in absolute poverty. I think mentioning poverty in india in the text is enough and placing a link at the top of the economy section for "poverty in india" is enough and I certainly dont think that an image needs to be used.
Nikkul ( talk) 22:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a propaganda website nor a website of the tourism department of a country trying to attract foreign tourists. Wikipedia is general encyclopedia should be written from a neutral point of view. Poverty exists in India, exits despite significant economic progress. It is not neutral to try to illustrate only the attractive sides of a country. A country page in wikipedia should not be written in a way depicting the country a utopia, a country page should be written with verificable, relevant and necessary true facts.
Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 21:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Nikkul ( talk) 21:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
If you put this image in the economy section, I will be justified in putting an image of the Mukesh Ambani family sitting in their skyscraper under the caption "Shown here is the world's richest family in their skyscraper" Nikkul ( talk) 22:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Images of poverty to be used in articles is right. But it must be uptodate information. And the policy cannot be applicable to one particular article about India. It must be there in the article of all nations. Since this picture was taken three years before, I wish I could know about the people. Are they still beggers or they have found a better life. Chanakyathegreat ( talk) 06:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
The image caption should be "The result of 400 years of colonialism. 60 years is not enough to better everyone's life." Chanakyathegreat ( talk) 06:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
The poverty picture can stay in a separate page depicting Poverty of India. But not in this page. I would also remind other patrons/editors that such scene does exist in India as I have travelled from Bangalore to Delhi covering 7 states, 4 National Highways and what I have seen is immense poverty which you guys sitting in air-conditioned room can never even imagine off. I have worked with the slum children and construction workers children in NCR. I have seen them eating only a roti in entire day.
We can have a separate page for poverty in India or ECONOMIC Re-surgence of India.
Regarding the TAJ photo it is one of the 7 new wonders of world and represents a traditional, design rich architecture form India. It marks the history of this great country who witnessed so many historic events from Mughal invasion to British rule to modern India.
Guys lets adhere to Wiki polocies and be more judgemental in editing. At the end of the day none of you will want your editing rights to be revoked. Isnt'it.
AB ( talk) 12:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
dab (𒁳) 14:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
The Taj Mahal, an FP, is a long-term (permanent) image in the culture section and has not been a part of the daily rotation template. Some users have included it now in the images to be voted on. I wanted to clarify that there first needs to be a consensus that the Taj image should be removed from its long-term place.
Im sorry, I think that little tab up top that says "edit this page" means that nothing is permanent and that Wikipedia is always changing for the better. I'm not sure if it was you, but someone earlier on had proposed that we stop editing the India page since it was a featured article. This goes against wiki policy.
There is no hurry. I dont see why you feel rushed. There is no deadline. We will wait and see what users think about each image. But for users to discuss images, they must be added in a place where they can discuss them. That is what has happened today. I hope i've caught you up with todays events. Dont worry we will wait and see the comments we get about the images from users and once we have consensus on images, we will add them to the rotation. Nikkul 09:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Let me read this out to you fowler since you think everything is permanent on wikipedia:
"The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold when updating pages. Wikis like ours develop faster when everybody helps to fix problems, correct grammar, add facts, make sure the wording is accurate, etc. We expect everyone to be bold and help make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia"
"Don't be afraid to edit — anyone can edit almost any page, and we encourage you to be bold! Find something that can be improved, whether content, grammar or formatting, and make it better. You can't break Wikipedia. Anything can be fixed or improved later. So go ahead, edit an article and help make Wikipedia the best information source on the Internet!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikkul ( talk • contribs) 09:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Can those saying Taj should be hardcoded into the page give some reasons why you think that way? No 'COZILIKEITs please. Sarvagnya 19:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
oops, you denied it right before I was going to put it. Exactly it is. Staue of Liberty-USA, Pyramid-Egypt, Eiffel Tower-France; so is Taj-India. I am not talking about historical sigificance. Am talking about the association (that has developed for maybe some weird reason, but the association has developed). -- Dwaipayan ( talk) 21:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
One particular image cannot be there for ever. I support including Taj in the rotation policy. Chanakyathegreat ( talk) 15:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Dwaipayanc, there are certain reason for giving the Taj the importance whereas neglecting other historical important, beautiful architectural marvels. It's the western way of looking at things. Especially from a religious perspective. [6]. Chanakyathegreat ( talk) 15:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
The Taj Should be added to the rotation list and should not be used as a permanent image ( Arun1paladin ( talk) 10:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)arun1paladin)
We have at present the text: -
Bounded by the Indian Ocean on the south, the Arabian Sea on the west, and the Bay of Bengal on the east, India has a coastline of 7,517 kilometers (4,671 mi).[12] It borders...
Can we rewrite it as: -
India's lower half, a triangular peninsula, is bounded by the Indian Ocean on the south, the Arabian Sea on the west, and the Bay of Bengal on the east, creating a coastline of 7,517 kilometers (4,671 mi).[12] Her vast, northern, upper half borders ...
I am rather new here and do not know how a protected article receives edits. Please look at the proposed emendation and incorporate it if acceptable. Thanks.
Wiki dr mahmad
16:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Fowler. Incredible; how fast it works here ! I saw the USA article. Now, will it be proper to improve the sentence strucure (it is not conveying the country's coast line and borders info in accurate language), or drop from the lead this somewhat inaccurate geographical boundries sentence altogether? Your decision and further action please. Thanks again for the message. Wiki dr mahmad —Preceding comment was added at 18:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I close this topic. Have a nice day. Wiki dr mahmad —Preceding comment was added at 19:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
The Ganges River is the most important river in India. It is not only a cultural and religious landmark, but also a huge geographical structure that has made India, for it provides water, sanitation, and agriculture to millions of Indians. How can we not have an image of the Ganges? Nikkul ( talk) 20:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Nikkul ( talk) 20:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
The picture (Ganges) is not informative enough as it is. We may substitute another picture which shows the river and includes a Kumbh-mela scene, or the cremations, on its ghats; it could appear in another section e.g. on Religions or cultures of India. Wiki dr mahmad ( talk) 17:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I have replaced the current illustrations (one too high-res with little annotation, the other anonymous with little information) in the Geography section with two maps from the Geography of India page. These maps illustrate the text perfectly. I hope these edits will be acceptable. Regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 19:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Why dont we just make the whole page just maps? In the history section, we can show the british raj in a map and Gandhi's Salt March route in a map. For the government section, we can show where New Delhi is. For the flora section we can show in which regions the animals live and for the culture section, we can show the culural divide in india. Infact, why have text when you can have maps? Lets just have a series of maps or just one giant map!!! Nikkul 20:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
“ | Major Himalayan-origin rivers that substantially flow through India include the Ganges and the Brahmaputra, both of which drain into the Bay of Bengal. [1] Important tributaries of the Ganges include the Yamuna and the Kosi, nicknamed "Bihar's Sorrow", whose extremely low gradient causes disastrous floods every year. Major peninsular rivers–whose steeper gradients prevent their waters from flooding–include the Godavari, the Mahanadi, the Kaveri, and the Krishna, which also drain into the Bay of Bengal, [2] and the Narmada and the Tapti, which drain into the Arabian Sea. [3] | ” |
It really is a nobrainer as to which of the two illustrations is more informative, especially when the "Ganges" image is about as unencylopedic as an image can get. There is nothing in the image that gives us any information about the Ganges. The body of water displayed could be a lake, or the ocean, or any other river like the Brahmaputra, Nile, Amazon, ... Please re-read Mikaul's comments on your Qutub Minar FPC image. The same applies here. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 20:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
How about adding the names of the mountains and the rivers to the original map instead of replacing the original with two new maps. This page is not supposed to be all maps. We have maps in demographics and subdivisions already. Nikkul 21:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Why dont we add names of mountains and rivers to the original topo map? This can be done instead of having two maps.
Nikkul (
talk)
06:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Topographic map shown here is valuable in itself. I wish it were not lost due to this discussion and finds a place somewhere; with manageable zooming and labeling as suggested separately by Users F&F and Nikkul. That map would aid specific groups in understanding the role of topology in quite a few areas of interest, e.g. the pathways of evolution of ancient civilizations and subsequent largescale political/religio-cultural events in this part of South Asia, (not to mention prehistoric Vedic/Poranic accounts); adding more maps may be considered. Thanks.
Wiki dr mahmad (
talk)
18:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
We know India is bigger than many countries of Western Europe put together. And so, expectedly, perceptions on monuments and cultures are so different in its four corners. Can we resolve the Taj issue by adding more pictures permanently, as follows?
1. If, in addition to Taj monument, we accommodate at appropriately chosen locations in the article more permanent pictures, e.g. of Minakshi temple, Madurai (with an additional photo of its great interior architecture)/ Konark temple, Khajuraho (and an example of its famous exterior iconography)/ Gomteshwara statue, Karnataka/ Golden temple, Amritsar and Ashoka’s pillar, Delhi (or one important stupa), we might overcome various objections put forth by other Users.
2. Cultures may better be represented by show casing Durga puga/procession (Bengal), Ganpati pendal/procession (Maharashtra), Diwali illumination (North India), Onam (or Ayyappam) celeberation (Kerala), Kumbh Mela scene etc.
Please consider. Thanks. Wiki dr mahmad 18:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I have been stating this forever. Finally, someone who understands! Nikkul ( talk) 06:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
why don't you take the Brihadeeshwara temple of Thanjavur.It is several times better than the Madurai Meenakashi temple .Brihadeeshwara temple is an architectural and engineering wonder.It is a WORLD HERITAGE SITE.The shadow of the capstone of the temple's tower never falls on ground !! [user talk:arun1paladin|talk] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.226.158 ( talk) 15:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC) ( talk Arun1paladin ( talk) 15:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC))
I don't really understand why there is no link to the caste system. It's one of the most distinguished key-terms, that is, it's significantly related to India and its people but is not indexed in this article. Is there any reason for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.157.215.108 ( talk) 21:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone know why Archive 37, 38 and 39 don't show up in the display? Also, why is Archive 28 displayed as Archive 18? (I think these problems may have begun with the automated archiving, but I'm not sure.) Fowler&fowler «Talk» 14:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
This:
was edited into the India (disambiguation) page by Wiki dr mahmad. I think it inappropriate there as - well - its a disambiguation page for quick access to the various uses of the word and not for the discussion of the word. I experienced first hand some of the difficulties of this topic when I attempted to standardize the dab page, so I know there is at least some truth to this statement. I would suggest a some mention of this difficulty on this page - or a short mention and further details on a referenced page.
I don't have the citations to create such content and, frankly, am far enough removed from the issues that I prefer not to get in the middle of any discussion that might ensue - but I think it is clearly a topic that should be addressed in Wikipedia. (John User:Jwy talk) 09:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
hello —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.63.28 ( talk) 23:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Why was
Hindustan (), which is the Persian word for “ Land of the Hindus” and historically referred to northern India, is also occasionally used as a synonym for all of India.
changed to
Hindustan (), is also occasionally used as a synonym for all of India
59.182.42.143 ( talk) 18:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
The ICP [7] released data for the year 2005, containing measured data from China (for the first time) and India (first time since 1985), as against EXTRAPOLATED data we had come to rely on (through CIA et. al.) over the last decade. The news item that compelled me to have a fresh look is here. Articles on Economy of India and others need to be updated.
I am looking forward to discussion/criticism, but please vet the data on the WB web site before refuting or undoing changes. The report (with individual tables, region wise data) is available here.
Pizzadeliveryboy ( talk) 12:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Nikkul. Either we list the CIA or the International Monetary Fund estimates (since their estimates are almost identical) or we put all 3. I've seen it on other countries page so I know it's an acceptable compromise. Cosmos416 23:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, maybe I'm missing something. If an institution lends money out for a specific period of time and charges interest on it, does it not make it a bank? Hence the World BANK is literally a bank, else it would not be called a bank, Fowler. The CIA and IMF, both credible sources, say that India is third for 07 and fourth for 06. These two, reliable sources together contradict and overpower the World Bank's opinion. And the fact that you think the CIA book is fluff is your opinion. It is considered very reliable and most country articles use it as a reference. Understand that when you have two equally reliable sources that contradict a third equally reliable source, the two overpower the one. Nikkul ( talk) 05:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Many major country articles have a sentence about foreign relations. India should have the same. I have added the sentence 'India is a founding member of the United Nations, Non-Aligned Movement and SAARC as well as an active member in the WTO, G8+5, and G20; India is also a nuclear power." to the intro, but Fowler keeps deleting it. Here are my reasons why this is important:
Nikkul ( talk) 05:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
It makes sense for small nations like Cambodia, Cameroon, etc. not to mention foreign relations because they dont have much power and are not major players. India on the other hand is a global player with 1/6 of humanity. The India page should have the same foreign relations info that other major countries have. India is one of the few nuclear powers. India is one of the few major developing countries. We have to look at articles like USA, UK, Italy, Pakistan, Malaysia, etc. Not poor, under developed countries like Chad, Camerroon, Libya which have no influence on global politics.
If the Pakistan article can say 'Pakistan was a founding member of the OIC, SAARC, D8 and ECO. It is also a member of the UN, WTO, G33, G77 and is a nuclear power.' Why cant India??? Both are featured articles.
Even the Bangladesh article has a sentence on foreign relations. Why can't India??? Nikkul ( talk) 15:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
My edits are backed with evidence that this has been done before.
This article is about India not Indians. Hence when you look at the economy, you should look at the overall economy. The per capita economy is more appropriate for the page describing an Indian. Similarly, when we look at culture, we look at overall Indian culture not each individuals culture. It's rediculious to look at per capita income because it will never measure up even if the country's economy grows to double of the US's. Nikkul ( talk) 14:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
These countries all mention foreign relations in the intro:
If all these countries mention Foreign Relations, India must. This is after all an encyclopedia, which means we must maintain uniformity. If we have country infoboxes and uniform layouts, we must also have uniform intros. Nikkul ( talk) 17:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
According to the latest list released by IMF for 2007, India is now 3rd largest economy in PPP terms ahead of Japan. Please update. -- 74.140.120.11 ( talk) 04:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Someone please change the fact that BSE is India's oldest stock exchange. The Calcutta stock exchange is the oldest stock exchange in India (maybe in Asia too). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.77.169 ( talk) 00:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
user:Nikkul has stated above that the Wikipedia pages of the majority of the world's nations mention foreign (and/or military) relations in their leads. On the basis of this statement, he has seen fit to add the sentence, "India is a founding member of the United Nations, Non-Aligned Movement and SAARC as well as an active member in the WTO, G8+5, and G20; India is also a nuclear power." It turns out, however, that user:Nikkul's statistics are grossly inaccurate. A majority of the country pages do not make any such mention in their leads. In fact, 135 out of 184 country pages do not mention foreign relations, G-8, NATO, WTO, G20, UN, nuclear power etc. in their leads. This list of these nations is given below. (In it, a handful of European nations mention EU in the context of having no border controls (under the Schengen agreement) and a common currency; two CIS countries mention the UN in the context of their former soviet republic's history; a handful of ex-British colonies mention independence under the Commonwealth in describing their history.) In any case, the total number of such countries in 11 and indicated in parentheses below. Even without them, a substantial majority of the country pages do not have any mention of foreign relations.
Canada, Spain (mentions EU/Schengen), Brazil, India, Australia, Turkey, Sweden (hosts Red Cross and WTO), Taiwan, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Norway, South Africa, Ireland, Argentina, Thailand, Venezuala, United Arab Emirates, Chile, Israel, Colombia, Singapore, Philippines, Nigeria, Egypt, Ukraine (Ukrainian SSR founding member of UN in history), New Zealand, Kuwait, Peru, Kazhakstan, Vietnam, Qatar, Libya, Angola, Ecuador, Sudan, Belarus (Bylorussian SSR founding member of UN, in history), Oman, Syria, Serbia, Dominican Republic, Tunisia, Guatemala, Lithuania (EU/Schengen), Sri Lanka, Kenya, Lebanon, Turkmenistan, Costa Rica, Latvia (EU/Schengen), Yemen, Uruguay, El Salvador, Cameroon, Cyprus (EU/Schengen; independence within Commonwealth), Zimbabwe, Madagascar, Nicaragua, Benin, Niger, Laos, Barbados, Fiji, Malawi, Mongolia, Guinea, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Mauritania, Swaziland, Rwanda (independence within Commonwealth), Togo, Suriname, Lesotho, Central African Republic, Sierra Leone, Eritrea, Cape Verde, Antigua and Barbuda, Bhutan, Gabon, Paraguay, Uganda, Senegal, Honduras, Nepal, Equitorial Guinea, Afghanistan, Mozambique, Republic of Congo, Cambodia, Chad, Mauritius, The Bahamas, Mali, Burkina Faso, Papua New Guinea, Trinidad and Tobago (Port of Spain candidate for ...), Ivory Coast, Panama, Uzbekistan, Bahrain, Jordan, Myanmar, Ghana, Tanzania, Brunei, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bolivia, Zambia, Botswana (independence within Commonwealth), Jamaica, Saint Lucia (independence within Commonwealth), Burundi, Maldives, Guyana, Seychelles, Djibuti, Liberia, Grenada, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Vanuatu, East Timor, The Gambia, Solomon Islands, Guinea Bissau, Dominica, Tonga, São Tomé and Príncipe, Kiribati, Somalia, Cuba, North Korea, and Iraq.
This list does not included small states in Europe ( Andorra, Monaco, San Marino, Liechtenstein, Vatican City) and the Pacific ( Palau, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru and Tuvalu) or dependencies ( Greenland, none of which mention foreign relations, etc. in their respective leads. If those are included as well, then 146 out of 195 national pages do not mention foreign relations in their leads.
Given such a overwhelming majority, and given the many previous consensuses on this page against any such mention, I am reverting user:Nikkul's edit. I would urge him not to keep pushing these edits and needlessly waste everyone's time. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I too feel that foreign relations and other trivia need not be added in the lead Binarymoron ( talk) 16:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Since user:Nikkul has persisted in making edits without first discussing them on the talk page (and has thus flagrantly disregarded the long-standing consensus on this page), and since he has chosen to ignore my warning in the section above, I have now asked for admin help. For the record, user:Nikkul first tried to add sentences about foreign relations in the lead (without prior discussion). As he was prevented from doing so, he has now attempted to remove, again without prior discussion, mention of poverty, illiteracy and malnutrition from the lead, a sentence that have been a part of the stable article for more than a year. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 19:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh Fowler, let me just say that what ever I do is based on other entries. I added a sentence on India's economic growth because it has brought tremendous change in India's social, cultural, demographic and economical sectors. I added a section on foreign relations because 60 other nation articles have it. If Pakistan, China and Bangladesh can have foreign relations,why can't India? I have taken away the sentence about social problems in India because no other featured article has such a section, even for poor nations which are featured.
You keep looking at featured articles to try to defend yourself, so look at the facts: Australia, Belarus, Belgium, Canada, Germany, Israel, Japan have no mention of social or other problems faced by the nation in their intro. Of the poorer countries, Chad, Indonesia, Libya, Nauru, Pakistan, Peru, South Africa, Turkey do not discuss social problems in their intros. All of them are featured. Why then should India? cameroon and bangladesh have one small sentence about poverty but nothing about environmental degradation, malnutrition, illiteracy, etc.
Now that you dont have any support, you have tried reporting me to an admin! And specifically an admin that you have spent much time pampering in the past [8]
You have persistently kept reverting my good faith edits Wikipedia encourages everyone to be bold. Why then do you consistently keep reverting all my edits? At one point, you have even supported a claim to stop edits on the India page. This just goes to show that your opinions and actions are misguided. Please think before reverting.
In the past, Fowler has told me I should be ashamed of myself [9]. What kind of user says this to others? He always criticizes images for not being good quality and being too purple or too small yet, he has himself added pictures that he knows do not show India correctly and are not good quality images [10]. Fowler is a rude, self-contradicting editor who keeps reverting any good faith edits anyone makes. Nikkul ( talk) 19:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
In the subsection 'History', no mention is made of the large Nanda Empire, which predates the Mauryan Empire. Nanda Dynasty could come as the second para of this subsection. Authorised editors of this protected article may please see what is needed to be done. Thanks Wiki dr mahmad ( talk) 13:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be good to add this in 'Ancient India'.There has been Hundereds of kingdoms in India, with many great kings. Also the article fails to mention that India was a Buddhist country under the Maurays. and Vedis hinduism originated after the Mauryas. Ajjay ( talk) 04:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I suggest the first sentence in demographics be shortened. Repeating that India is the world's largest democracy three times in the article (once at the top, once in government, and once in demographics) is quite enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.11.97.146 ( talk) 19:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- River Yamuna is misspelled as Yamunda - River Mahanadi is misspelled as Manahadi - River Godavari is misspelled as Godavara - River Krishna (south of Godavari) is wrongly named as Tapati - River Kaaveri is misspelled as Kasveri - River Bramhaputra is misspelled as Bahramputra
These are just a few I could find in 2 minutes. Pleas replace this map with a better one, or remove it until we can find a better one.
Thanks Balu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.145.54.15 ( talk) 19:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Military image has been updated with the AAD missile image.-- Chanakyathegreat ( talk) 06:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
O.K. The missile image is there for a long time and it's that of a Agni-II. Since India has tested the Agni-III, I wish to see one there. Now I am replacing it with another beautiful image of the INS Tarangini taken by Cruadin. Chanakyathegreat ( talk) 11:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Lets discuss the images and see them here before implementing them on the page. Nikkul ( talk) 11:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Nikkul, how many years it will take to make the change after discussion in this article. Anyway please start the discussion now and decide as fast as possible. Chanakyathegreat ( talk) 10:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I also think that foreign relations should be its own section. To tell you the truth, I like the tank image here. Nikkul ( talk) 19:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I will prefer something Made in India rather than showcase an imported one. There is no good quality images of the Arjun MBT in Wikipedia. Anyway there are many images of Indigenous weapons systems. Try to find a favorite among those images. Chanakyathegreat ( talk) 12:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
This vehicle is actually made in India. It is the most advanced tank in the army. Whats wrong with this image? It doesnt show anyone getting blown up or anything. Nikkul ( talk) 12:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
No, Regarding T-90, its technology transfer and producing it here. I will prefer a good image of Arjun MBT over the T-90. But I think the most appropriate image for this section is the image of INS Tarangini which supports foreign relation and military. Chanakyathegreat ( talk) 05:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
O.K, Since you are against it's addition I have choosen another image. It's that of the PAD missile. This missile is the latest technology that was tested successfully. Only limited nations have succeeded in acquiring this BMD capability (only 3 nations). So I hope that you will not have any objection to it. Also this is the latest in the series of technological advancement India has made in the defense field. Chanakyathegreat ( talk) 10:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I cannot make it stand vertical. And why are you tilting your head and looking at it. Just look at it as it is. Anyway if you still have objection here is another image of AAD missile in a vertical position. [11] Is this O.K or need another change. Regarding T-90, I will prefer the image of Arjun MBT over it. If you can find a good image of Arjun MBT, that will be better. Chanakyathegreat ( talk) 04:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
It's O.K to have the Su-30MKI image at the moment. But I will add a beautiful image of the Tejas when I get it. Chanakyathegreat ( talk) 03:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
It is quite old. Can someone with clear English pronunciation read the article and create a new spoken version? 198.62.10.11 ( talk) 11:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
It has now also deviated from the article. But otherwise the rendition is barely OK. I would have volunteered myself had I been confident about my own diction.
nirax (
talk)
18:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll do it, if someone provides me instructions Nikkul ( talk) 12:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Knowledge Hegemony 15:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
THe image is on Sukhoi Su-30MKI and NOT Sukhoi Su-30. PLease make the correction. -- 74.140.120.11 ( talk) 18:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
We can add in Geography section one more picture of most important river of India i.e Ganaga/Ganges representing its strong relations with culture of millions of people in India. We can add Kumbh mela picture organized around this river which also represents largest religious/non-religious gathering anywhere on the face of humanity. Such a picture will speak 1000 words at once, which ofcourse we need in this article that represents huge nation like India. This will also show strong relation between geography and culture of masses of this nation.
Waiting for what others think! Thank You - Holy Ganga talk 14:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
India the only country that has bright in couleurs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.78.66.6 ( talk) 09:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
should I propose here to add this picture to the "culture" chapter? Is it Ok? what do you think? HornK ( talk) 19:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The Vedic period is the Aryan period of India which isn't mentioned in the history but it's an important part of the history of India and should be noticed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.10.173.29 ( talk) 21:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Why is Ayurveda mentioned under the sports section? I believe it should be moved to a more appropriate section. Rajamouly ( talk) 09:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Lot of sections deleted since I visited the last time!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.18.104.1 ( talk) 08:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
See WP:SUMMARY. -- Ragib ( talk) 09:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The article has become too large to qualify under WP:SUMMARY style and also WP:FACr. Since the last time I looked at it, it has grown at least 30%. If this trend continues (i.e. addition of material here rather than topic specific pages), soon we will have to nominate it for WP:FAR. Right now, it fails several FA criteria badly. -- Ragib ( talk) 09:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The Article is mainly written in Indian Standard English, but there is some use of American Standard English. Since the page is about India, it is evident to use Indian Standard English, very similar to British Standard English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.152.147 ( talk) 17:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
F&f, "Home to the Indus Valley Civilization and a region of historic trade routes and vast empires, the Indian subcontinent..." isn't outright false, but it is positively pathetic just in terms of tone. It shouldn't grace a FA for a day, let alone two years(!?). That's just style ("home to"? "vast"?). In terms of WP:DUE, how is it defensible to name a prehistoric culture in para 2 of the lead to India, but subsume historical items of tremendous notability (Maurya, Gupta, Mughal empires) under a cheesy "vast"? I'm sorry. This isn't the worst bit of prose on Wikipedia, of course, but what is it doing in the lead to a Featured Article? This should be a no-brainer, fix and move on. dab (𒁳) 13:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
To add to the list
Among Indian writers of the modern era active in Indian languages or English, Rabindranath Tagore won the Nobel Prize in 1913. (In Culture section)
"modern era active"?? Knowledge Hegemony 14:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
It's fine grammatically. Read it again, this time taking the few seconds to stop at 'era' and think that maybe active isn't connected to it as a phrase. 172.143.154.84 ( talk) 19:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
My edit was reverted last time but I really think its a needed constructive edit. As things stood before it leaned towards a rather simplistic and erroneous view of history that the British 'owned' India for 200 years. That it was a part of the UK but denied the vote and all that. Of course it didn't directly say that but that's the way it read to me. It wasn't the main focus of my edits though
That would be that I really think it needs mentioning that there were at least two different periods in European domination of India- first was all the informal stuff with the EIC dominating at the end and second was the actual British empire. Quite different periods of history and 1858 is a pretty significant year in Indian history which needs mentioning just as much as 1947 does. It was afterall when 'India' was founded. --
Him and a
dog
11:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Please revert this user's actions. If I remember correctly, India is in Asia, and has been for the past 5 million years. The last time it was in South Africa was 100 million years ago. I have already reverted this user twice, reverting twice more will result in 3RR, so please revert this edit. It has stated it is in south Asia for a long time. Seriously, if someone moved India to Africa, the global climate will be in big trouble. Please help. Thanks. ~ A H 1( T C U) 23:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
this site is extremely good and well thought out it has every thing thatb anyone needs i am doing an english talk and this is the best site ever it has a lot of interstinbg facts on it and it has encouraged me to look into more detail for india thank you if you are wanting to talk back to me i go to fortrise academy in Scotland the UK my address is jackzp22@hotmail.co.uk write back soon thankyou once more —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.63.101 ( talk) 18:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Just like to point out that India's GDP(PPP) per capita information has changed on the List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita page. IMF estimated data published in April 2008, ranks India differently. The information on the India page should be updated to reflect new data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.161.138.200 ( talk) 20:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Surely India declared independence from the United Kingdom? Speedboy Salesman ( talk) 20:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
No. The about statement is correct if Republic of India is used. India is far greater in all aspects. Chanakyathegreat ( talk) 12:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
First of all, India was not a republic at the time of Independence. It became republic on Jan26, 1951. And yes Independence was granted to India, it was not a run-away territory of the British Raj. gppande «talk» 10:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Can more editors please watchlist the Template:Indian image rotation, which for the past three months has seen (AFAIK) unilatreral and undiscussed changes by User:Nikkul, many of which I think were inappropriate ( list of changes). For example:
So what can we do ? I don't wish to go back to the days when each image change on the India page, required mega-bytes of heated discussion; but I think there should be some minimal attempt to invite input before adding/replacing content (perhaps following the
WP:DYK/
WP:PINSPC model of inviting comments rather than trying to build wide consensus in each case).
Secondly, I see that several editors have raised concern about Nikkul's adding/removing pictures from
India,
Mumbai,
Kolkata,
Bangalore etc: for instance
Nichalp,
Dwaipayanc,
Gppande,
thunderboltz,
Arejay and now, me. I wonder if we can have a consolidated discussion about this issue (perhaps at
WT:INB), instead of dealing with it piecemeal. Note that I am not seeking any sanctions/probation against Nikkul, who I think does some exemplary work in getting images onto wikipedia from flickr; however it would be useful to reach some general consensus on the number and quality of images that is thought appropriate on India and India city pages.
Comments and suggestions are invited!.
Abecedare (
talk)
21:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
But still as a fellow Wikipedian and a friend, who is also associated with WP:IND I would like to request Nikkul to abstain from 'glorifying' (not the apt word I guess) India on Wikipedia, which we as nation loving Indians tend to do, at times unintentionally, influenced by the "India shining" wave sweeping the world media. I have noticed that you have tried removing the 'negative' aspects of India from the lead related to poverty, illiteracy, malnutrition etc. However these are facts, which can't and should'nt be hidden.
Like Abecedare, I too admire your efforts in getting quality pictures from flickr to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Thanks, KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 ( talk) 17:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Since when was the toda hut part of the image rotation? I have tried to make some images better, but if there is a problem i understand and I have not insisted all my edits be reverted. Fowler has added his own images under the cover of replacing mine
And by the way, next time you have a discussion, it might be a nice idea to alert me by leaving me a message rather than waiting for me to somehow find all the pages things are discussed.
Please keep in mind that I am trying my hardest to improve the page. I am not trying to make it harder for everyone. So if there is a problem, do leave me a message. I feel that my edits were beneficial and in total agreement with the consensus that had been established for the culture rotation. Nikkul ( talk) 18:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
CULTURE ROTATION VOTE COUNT CLICK TO SEE
WHAT LIES? The most recent vote proved that you were the only one for the Toda Hut. Stop making your own unilateral edits, Fowler. 9 people against 1 (you) means the Toda Hut shouldnt be part of the rotation. Nikkul ( talk) 00:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
It's time to change the Su-30MKI image with a new one. What about this image. Since the missiles and Air force section is covered, let the selection be from the IN section. Chanakyathegreat ( talk) 05:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
This image doesnt show much. I prefer the su image Nikkul ( talk) 17:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The image has been updated with the Arjun MBT image. Chanakyathegreat ( talk) 10:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Opinion on using the Arjun MBT Image. [13]
Support
1.
Oppose
1.Nikkul.
Chanakyathegreat ( talk) 09:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
"Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam arrived in the first millennium CE". From what I know, Christianity arrived (by St Thomas) 20 years after Jesus' death. -- RaviC ( talk) 13:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
population of Navi Mumbai is currently 2mil —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.201.41.134 ( talk) 10:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I've been measuring the readability of different articles, and among the FA's the readability of this article is quite awful. The Flesch Reading Ease score is only 32.3 (out of 100, lower value means less readable), and the Flesch-Kincaid Readability Test score is 13.97. What do these numbers mean? The second one means that on average, you'll need 14 years of education to understand this article properly. In other words, this article, as it stands now, is written for people at least 19 years in age, in 2nd or 3rd year of university.
Readability is not an accurate measure, but gives more or less a rough idea of how effective is a given piece of text in expressing the ideas. The metrics I quoted above are well established statistical measures for English language text.
This implies that, the text needs to be improved. We need to cut the long sentences, use less complex words etc. Indian English constructs (of using long sentences with multiple clauses) might also be an issue. -- Ragib ( talk) 04:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. I don't know if readability is really determined by lengths of sentences. Also, I've never heard that Indian English has on average longer sentences or more complicated sentence structure that other varieties of national English. A quick check in the New York Times, the London Times and the Statesman, in fact, suggests exactly the opposite conclusion:
As the Federal Reserve completes work on rules to root out abuses by lenders, its plan has run into a buzz saw of criticism from bankers, mortgage brokers and other parts of the housing industry. One common industry criticism is that at a time of tight credit, tighter rules could make many mortgages more expensive by creating more paperwork and potentially exposing lenders to more lawsuits. To the chagrin of consumer groups that have complained that the proposed rules are not strong enough, the industry’s criticism has already prompted the Fed to consider narrowing the scope of the plan so it applies to fewer loans. (New York Times, 28 April 2008)
The bitterness surrounding Chelsea’s 2-1 win over Manchester United continued on a day of claim and counterclaim that threatened to sour relations between two of the country’s biggest clubs. Allegations that the postmatch flare-up between groundstaff and the United substitutes was sparked by abuse directed at Patrice Evra, initially encouraged by some at Old Trafford, were strenuously denied by Chelsea. Chelsea reacted strongly to the allegations, particularly as they were not made immediately after the incident at Stamford Bridge on Saturday, leading to talks last night between Peter Kenyon and David Gill, the respective chief executives. (The Times, London, 28 April 2008)
PRESIDENT Ahmadinejad arrives in Delhi on Tuesday. During his brief stopover he will confer with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Recently a statement from official US sources advised New Delhi to persuade Iran to stop its uranium enrichment programme. New Delhi rebuffed the USA. It said India was capable of conducting its foreign policy without foreign advice. The government reiterated its close historic ties with Iran. Earlier, India had voted against Iran for ignoring, as a signatory to Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), its commitments to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). India was justified in doing this. Russia and China did the same. The West’s concerns about nuclear proliferation are valid. (The Statesman, Kolkata, 28 April 2008
Certainly if I compare an author like R. K. Narayan, who self-consciously wrote in Indian English, with someone like Doris Lessing, I can't help making the same (opposite) conclusion. Neither am I sure that other encyclopedias follow such readability guidelines. Certainly Britannica doesn't. Consider the two sentences from its "India" article's lead:
From that period on, India functioned as a virtually self-contained political and cultural arena, which gave rise to a distinctive tradition that was associated primarily with Hinduism, the roots of which can largely be traced to the Indus civilization. Other religions, notably Buddhism and Jainism, originated in India—though their presence there is now quite small—and throughout the centuries residents of the subcontinent developed a rich intellectual life in such fields as mathematics, astronomy, and architecture.
I agree that uniformly long sentences can be tedious to read, that the long should be mixed in with the short, but that applies to other aspects of syntactical structure as well: variation is key to holding a readers interest. But I don't see why a sentence that is, say, 35 words long, should be automatically disqualified. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 10:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
With respect to readability, I think the phrase "do the needful" needs to be used somewhere :-) Then please replace please with pls. pls is even starting to get popular in US now. Desione ( talk) 10:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
This article has been effectively orgainsed and detailed BUT I don't see ANY section on Indian science or technology. India has made many great contirbution to the world in the field of science ,maths,inventions,philosophy etc Even in this modern ear there are many noteworthy achievements in the fields of sciences,space,nulcear eneergy,IT,communication etc I have also seen the China page in wiki and found that its highlighting its Ancient culture and civilization very well.It also had a good section on Chinese science,inventions and technlogical achievements. So who so ever is maintaining this page can you please take my suggestions and improve/add section on ancient contrubtuions of India to the world,science and technology and other relevant topics in this wonderful article.
John Rambo 20:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the science and tech section is needed. Japan has such a section and is a featured article.
Nikkul (
talk)
06:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Why not
Arabic numerals for a start? --
RaviC (
talk)
13:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a dynamic site that doesn't stay the same. If there is new consensus here, we can def. add it regardless of what happened in the past. Nikkul ( talk) 07:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I like to also work on the Science and Technology topic so that we can provide the link in the main article.Most of the countries in wiki do have this section so it make it pertinent and sensible to have such an important topic included in this one too.
John Rambo 20:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Here are the results of the majority view from six-months ago:
Definition: A Large paragraph is approximately 250 to 300 words; a small paragraph is 125 to 150 words. Those are the approximate upper limits.
I have wonderful pictures of India (really nice) and I dont know how to put upload them or if i have permission to do so....can someoen tell me simply how to put them up and if i have permission to do so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.82.152 ( talk) 01:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey,
To load images to wiki, you need to make your own account. Then click upload file on the left. Then click "my own work". You can then select the license of your choice and upload the image. If you dont want to create an account, I can upload the images for you if you declare "I am the creator of this image and I license it under {license of your choice}" Let me know if you need me to do so. Thanks!
Nikkul (
talk)
06:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I think we need to have a science and technology section (or a paragraph in the economy section) to show India's achievements in the field because they are important to the country. apan]], a featured article, has such a section. Germany, a featured article, also has a science section. Beligium and Israel are also featured article with this section. South Korea has a Science and Technology section, as does China, UK, USA, Brazil, Argentina, Greece, Finland, Portugal, Bulgaria, Poland, Austria, and many other countries which I do not have time to look up. Other countries, like Chad, may not have this section because they are much smaller and do not have the money and resources to launch satellites (like ISRO does) or have nuclear technology like India does. Hence, science and technology is not a big part of their country. Still, Science and Technology in India is a vital part of the country's Electronics, Space, Defence, Nuclear, Biomolecular, Medical, Environmental, Agricultural, etc. needs and this page needs to address this just like the countries listed above.
I know there was a straw poll before, but if there is consensus to add a science and technology section now, we can add it now. Let's discuss this here. Cheers Nikkul ( talk) 17:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
here are the true facts ->
* India won icc cricket t20 championship,South africa,2007
* India runners up in cricket in worldcup 2003
* india won world cup in 1983
The Indian Squad that won the 1983 World Cup comprised:
* Mohinder Amarnath
* Kirti Azad
* Roger Binny
* Kapil Dev (captain)
* Sunil Gavaskar
* Syed Kirmani (wicketkeeper)
* Madan Lal
* Sandeep Patil
* Balwinder Sandhu
* Yashpal Sharma
* Ravi Shastri
* Kris Srikkanth
* Sunil Valson
* Dilip Vengsarkar
Raunakroy --
Raunakroy (
talk)
11:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
There is sufficient evidence to prove that Hindi is just not "the" official language of India and its one of the official languages of India, nevertheless its the largest spoken one. By using it as the official language of India, we are slighting other facts and thereby presenting a biased picture of the demographics of this nation. Refer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_languages_of_India
Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Showmethedoor ( talk • contribs) 21:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Its better to use - 'one of the' instead of 'the official' or else - use 'Hindi is the official language of the Union government' and there are several other official languages at each state and link it to the wikipage on "official languages of India". I prefer to phrase a sentence that encompasses all the facts in one go rather than breaking it up into several sentences. I hope we are addressing what is the current status of official languages of India rather than how it evolved and changed over the decades. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Showmethedoor (
talk •
contribs)
21:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Make sure you use ~~~~ to sign. In the US, Spanish is widely spoken but not officially recognized as an official language. I myself am Gukarati and consder Gujarati and other languages officila, but t's not recognized by the government Juthani1
I guess comparing India to US is not a reasonable. We are here to represent what India is on date as a fact, rather than by comparisons. Hindi is the official language of the Union govt. Quoting from the wikipage on the official languages of India - "As a large and linguistically diverse country, India does not have a single official language. Instead, the Constitution of India envisages a situation where each state has its own official language(s), in addition to the official languages to be used by the Union government. The section of the Constitution of India dealing with official languages therefore includes detailed provisions[1] which deal not just with the languages used for the official purposes of the union,[2] but also with the languages that are to be used for the official purposes of each state and union territory in the country,[3] and the languages that are to be used for communication between the union and the states inter se.[4]". In the current wikipage for India - it says - Hindi is the official language of India, which is very misleading. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Showmethedoor (
talk •
contribs)
15:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Hindi is the
national language of India and I have updated the same in article. In hindi we call it Rashtra bhasha. --
gppande
«talk»
15:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Again, we are digressing from the point that I posted first - i feel its more than highly reasonable to rephrase the sentence - Hindi is the primary official language advocated by the Union government, with English as the subsidiary language. However, there are plenty of other languages that are afforded official language status at the state level. Hence, the demographics does not present a neutral picture. Is it okay to rephrase the sentences in the intro section of official languages of India?
Showmethedoor (
talk)
21:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Expand to see 15 focused secondary sources, including 1) Encyclopaedia Britannica, "India—Linguistic Composition." 2) Encyclopedia Encarta, "India: Official Languages". 3) Encyclopedia Encarta, "Indian Languages: Official Languages" 4) Indo-Aryan Languages. 6) United Kingdom, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, "India—Country Profile." 7) United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 8) UNESCO, "Education for all—The Nine Largest Countries." 9) US Library of Congress, "Country Profile: India." 10) US Department of State, "Background Note: India." 11) UN High Commissioner for Refugees, "Country Profile: India." 12) Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Languages of India. 13) Mallikarjun, B. 2004. "Fifty Years of Language Planning for Modern Hindi-The Official Language of India.", Language in India. 14) Mallikarjun, B. 2004. "Indian Multilingualism, Language Policy, and the Digital Divide" Language in India. 15) Laitin, David. 1989. "Language policy and political strategy in India." Policy Sciences. 22:415-436. | ||
---|---|---|
|
Fowler&fowler «Talk» 20:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
F&F, its solely the view of the GOI and not of the people. The people's viewpoint is that all the 24 languages are their national languages and no language is given any special status. Now when you say the otherway, you are spreading misinformation. I again say that the viewpoint is that of the GOI's only. Chanakyathegreat ( talk) 07:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
No, I wouldn't categorize quotations sourced from the Indian Constitution and the Official Languages Act as cherry-picking. They are authentic sources and are fairly lucid in their language. Article 343(1) very clearly states, "The official language of the Union shall be Hindi in Devanagari script". No further interpretation required. Our job is to state facts, and not to reinterpret interpretations of official texts (which is really all the authors in that gargantuan list above are doing). Similarly, nowhere does the Official Languages Act [14] provide for the hypothetical relationship between Hindi and English that this article seems to imply. AreJay ( talk) 14:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Going by the official languages act that AreJay has quoted, if I understand it right, it says Hindi is the official language of the Union (which I guess shall encompass Central Govt. offices/parliament/courts etc.) and also it advocates to use English as an another official language. And it recognizes the usage of 21 other regional languages for official purposes. Though, its hard to interpret and present the linguistic diversity of India in just a couple of sentences, atleast, we can abstain from presenting a biased picture. My point again is - just rephrase the sentence that Hindi is the official language of the Union Government and English is considered as a subsidiary. By writing Hindi is the official language of India, we are ignoring the importance of the 21 other languages, relegating it to a lower position, which is not true. 129.186.68.138 ( talk) 15:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This is fine - Official language is fine. But not 'subsidiary official language.' Is this term used anywhere in the constitution? Is this an official government term? Looks like a derogative term to me. -- gppande «talk» 16:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the issue of the national language, I support the viewpoint of F&F since it is reality and I feel that's the only think F&F did correctly. But we must be looking into whether the GOI's version must be taken into account or the people's viewpoint on the issue must be given importance. Even though India is a democratic nation, in this issue no opinion of the people were asked. Even no one knows who made those changes and when. It will get changes within few years time and all languages will be elevated to equal status by GOI itself. Until then either allow the GOI's viewpoint to exist or the article must reflect the common perception and belief (which is a good one) among the populace. Chanakyathegreat ( talk) 07:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | → | Archive 25 |
For the past few months I've only seen this page used to debate on the appropriateness of the pictures. This is never going to end and no consensus is ever going to be reached. The images on the page are sufficient for the moment. Those actively pushing for images to be changed could invest their time in sourcing images for articles that do not have images. =Nichalp «Talk»= 02:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
The Rich hockey tradition in Coorg ( Kodagu), Karnataka (see Kodava Hockey Festival) and no doubt Punjab and a few other states needs to be mentioned just as soccer in Bengal, Goa and Kerela finds particualr mention in the below sentence, at the bottom of the article.
India's national sport is field hockey, though cricket is the most popular Indian sport. In some states, particularly those in the northeast and the states of West Bengal, Goa, and Kerala, football (soccer) is also a popular sport.
thanks Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 04:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I've semi-protected this article due to the repeat disruption by anon and new users over the last few days. —— Eagle101 Need help? 17:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
In the cultural column why that Toda hut of Tamil Nadu had been replaced by lotus temple of Delhi.More over I poste d the Pic of the The Big Temple Of Thanjavur.why was it deleted though it is master piece in Native indian art and declared as a world heritage sit —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arun1paladin ( talk • contribs) 15:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
[arun1paladin] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arun1paladin ( talk • contribs) 15:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
If it is cultural rotation why Taj Mahal pic is not removed.It is not superior to the temple of Thanjavur jus tbecause it is famous [arun1paladin] —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
122.164.229.168 (
talk)
16:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Taj mahal was built during moghal empire. 3 images
These 3 images would portray history of India in a graphical way. If not Taj, some other moghal architecture image would suit for history section. Also im unable to fathom how Taj belongs to culture?? :( Vital brick 1 ( talk) 04:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Awesome article.....I am impressed ...I just stopped by to congratulate the guys over this work.....nice ...really impressive...Keep up the good work Yourdeadin ( talk) 09:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Yourdeadin
The national animal is Tiger. It is not specifically the Royal Bengal Tiger, though the adjective "Royal Bengal" sounds good, its not correct to be talking of the Indian National Animal. Please correct the National animal to "Tiger". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srinivasbt ( talk • contribs) 07:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
User Otolemur crassicaudatus insists on adding an image [3] of people living in absolute poverty. I think mentioning poverty in india in the text is enough and placing a link at the top of the economy section for "poverty in india" is enough and I certainly dont think that an image needs to be used.
Nikkul ( talk) 22:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a propaganda website nor a website of the tourism department of a country trying to attract foreign tourists. Wikipedia is general encyclopedia should be written from a neutral point of view. Poverty exists in India, exits despite significant economic progress. It is not neutral to try to illustrate only the attractive sides of a country. A country page in wikipedia should not be written in a way depicting the country a utopia, a country page should be written with verificable, relevant and necessary true facts.
Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 21:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Nikkul ( talk) 21:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
If you put this image in the economy section, I will be justified in putting an image of the Mukesh Ambani family sitting in their skyscraper under the caption "Shown here is the world's richest family in their skyscraper" Nikkul ( talk) 22:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Images of poverty to be used in articles is right. But it must be uptodate information. And the policy cannot be applicable to one particular article about India. It must be there in the article of all nations. Since this picture was taken three years before, I wish I could know about the people. Are they still beggers or they have found a better life. Chanakyathegreat ( talk) 06:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
The image caption should be "The result of 400 years of colonialism. 60 years is not enough to better everyone's life." Chanakyathegreat ( talk) 06:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
The poverty picture can stay in a separate page depicting Poverty of India. But not in this page. I would also remind other patrons/editors that such scene does exist in India as I have travelled from Bangalore to Delhi covering 7 states, 4 National Highways and what I have seen is immense poverty which you guys sitting in air-conditioned room can never even imagine off. I have worked with the slum children and construction workers children in NCR. I have seen them eating only a roti in entire day.
We can have a separate page for poverty in India or ECONOMIC Re-surgence of India.
Regarding the TAJ photo it is one of the 7 new wonders of world and represents a traditional, design rich architecture form India. It marks the history of this great country who witnessed so many historic events from Mughal invasion to British rule to modern India.
Guys lets adhere to Wiki polocies and be more judgemental in editing. At the end of the day none of you will want your editing rights to be revoked. Isnt'it.
AB ( talk) 12:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
dab (𒁳) 14:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
The Taj Mahal, an FP, is a long-term (permanent) image in the culture section and has not been a part of the daily rotation template. Some users have included it now in the images to be voted on. I wanted to clarify that there first needs to be a consensus that the Taj image should be removed from its long-term place.
Im sorry, I think that little tab up top that says "edit this page" means that nothing is permanent and that Wikipedia is always changing for the better. I'm not sure if it was you, but someone earlier on had proposed that we stop editing the India page since it was a featured article. This goes against wiki policy.
There is no hurry. I dont see why you feel rushed. There is no deadline. We will wait and see what users think about each image. But for users to discuss images, they must be added in a place where they can discuss them. That is what has happened today. I hope i've caught you up with todays events. Dont worry we will wait and see the comments we get about the images from users and once we have consensus on images, we will add them to the rotation. Nikkul 09:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Let me read this out to you fowler since you think everything is permanent on wikipedia:
"The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold when updating pages. Wikis like ours develop faster when everybody helps to fix problems, correct grammar, add facts, make sure the wording is accurate, etc. We expect everyone to be bold and help make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia"
"Don't be afraid to edit — anyone can edit almost any page, and we encourage you to be bold! Find something that can be improved, whether content, grammar or formatting, and make it better. You can't break Wikipedia. Anything can be fixed or improved later. So go ahead, edit an article and help make Wikipedia the best information source on the Internet!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikkul ( talk • contribs) 09:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Can those saying Taj should be hardcoded into the page give some reasons why you think that way? No 'COZILIKEITs please. Sarvagnya 19:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
oops, you denied it right before I was going to put it. Exactly it is. Staue of Liberty-USA, Pyramid-Egypt, Eiffel Tower-France; so is Taj-India. I am not talking about historical sigificance. Am talking about the association (that has developed for maybe some weird reason, but the association has developed). -- Dwaipayan ( talk) 21:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
One particular image cannot be there for ever. I support including Taj in the rotation policy. Chanakyathegreat ( talk) 15:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Dwaipayanc, there are certain reason for giving the Taj the importance whereas neglecting other historical important, beautiful architectural marvels. It's the western way of looking at things. Especially from a religious perspective. [6]. Chanakyathegreat ( talk) 15:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
The Taj Should be added to the rotation list and should not be used as a permanent image ( Arun1paladin ( talk) 10:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)arun1paladin)
We have at present the text: -
Bounded by the Indian Ocean on the south, the Arabian Sea on the west, and the Bay of Bengal on the east, India has a coastline of 7,517 kilometers (4,671 mi).[12] It borders...
Can we rewrite it as: -
India's lower half, a triangular peninsula, is bounded by the Indian Ocean on the south, the Arabian Sea on the west, and the Bay of Bengal on the east, creating a coastline of 7,517 kilometers (4,671 mi).[12] Her vast, northern, upper half borders ...
I am rather new here and do not know how a protected article receives edits. Please look at the proposed emendation and incorporate it if acceptable. Thanks.
Wiki dr mahmad
16:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Fowler. Incredible; how fast it works here ! I saw the USA article. Now, will it be proper to improve the sentence strucure (it is not conveying the country's coast line and borders info in accurate language), or drop from the lead this somewhat inaccurate geographical boundries sentence altogether? Your decision and further action please. Thanks again for the message. Wiki dr mahmad —Preceding comment was added at 18:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I close this topic. Have a nice day. Wiki dr mahmad —Preceding comment was added at 19:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
The Ganges River is the most important river in India. It is not only a cultural and religious landmark, but also a huge geographical structure that has made India, for it provides water, sanitation, and agriculture to millions of Indians. How can we not have an image of the Ganges? Nikkul ( talk) 20:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Nikkul ( talk) 20:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
The picture (Ganges) is not informative enough as it is. We may substitute another picture which shows the river and includes a Kumbh-mela scene, or the cremations, on its ghats; it could appear in another section e.g. on Religions or cultures of India. Wiki dr mahmad ( talk) 17:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I have replaced the current illustrations (one too high-res with little annotation, the other anonymous with little information) in the Geography section with two maps from the Geography of India page. These maps illustrate the text perfectly. I hope these edits will be acceptable. Regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 19:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Why dont we just make the whole page just maps? In the history section, we can show the british raj in a map and Gandhi's Salt March route in a map. For the government section, we can show where New Delhi is. For the flora section we can show in which regions the animals live and for the culture section, we can show the culural divide in india. Infact, why have text when you can have maps? Lets just have a series of maps or just one giant map!!! Nikkul 20:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
“ | Major Himalayan-origin rivers that substantially flow through India include the Ganges and the Brahmaputra, both of which drain into the Bay of Bengal. [1] Important tributaries of the Ganges include the Yamuna and the Kosi, nicknamed "Bihar's Sorrow", whose extremely low gradient causes disastrous floods every year. Major peninsular rivers–whose steeper gradients prevent their waters from flooding–include the Godavari, the Mahanadi, the Kaveri, and the Krishna, which also drain into the Bay of Bengal, [2] and the Narmada and the Tapti, which drain into the Arabian Sea. [3] | ” |
It really is a nobrainer as to which of the two illustrations is more informative, especially when the "Ganges" image is about as unencylopedic as an image can get. There is nothing in the image that gives us any information about the Ganges. The body of water displayed could be a lake, or the ocean, or any other river like the Brahmaputra, Nile, Amazon, ... Please re-read Mikaul's comments on your Qutub Minar FPC image. The same applies here. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 20:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
How about adding the names of the mountains and the rivers to the original map instead of replacing the original with two new maps. This page is not supposed to be all maps. We have maps in demographics and subdivisions already. Nikkul 21:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Why dont we add names of mountains and rivers to the original topo map? This can be done instead of having two maps.
Nikkul (
talk)
06:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Topographic map shown here is valuable in itself. I wish it were not lost due to this discussion and finds a place somewhere; with manageable zooming and labeling as suggested separately by Users F&F and Nikkul. That map would aid specific groups in understanding the role of topology in quite a few areas of interest, e.g. the pathways of evolution of ancient civilizations and subsequent largescale political/religio-cultural events in this part of South Asia, (not to mention prehistoric Vedic/Poranic accounts); adding more maps may be considered. Thanks.
Wiki dr mahmad (
talk)
18:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
We know India is bigger than many countries of Western Europe put together. And so, expectedly, perceptions on monuments and cultures are so different in its four corners. Can we resolve the Taj issue by adding more pictures permanently, as follows?
1. If, in addition to Taj monument, we accommodate at appropriately chosen locations in the article more permanent pictures, e.g. of Minakshi temple, Madurai (with an additional photo of its great interior architecture)/ Konark temple, Khajuraho (and an example of its famous exterior iconography)/ Gomteshwara statue, Karnataka/ Golden temple, Amritsar and Ashoka’s pillar, Delhi (or one important stupa), we might overcome various objections put forth by other Users.
2. Cultures may better be represented by show casing Durga puga/procession (Bengal), Ganpati pendal/procession (Maharashtra), Diwali illumination (North India), Onam (or Ayyappam) celeberation (Kerala), Kumbh Mela scene etc.
Please consider. Thanks. Wiki dr mahmad 18:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I have been stating this forever. Finally, someone who understands! Nikkul ( talk) 06:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
why don't you take the Brihadeeshwara temple of Thanjavur.It is several times better than the Madurai Meenakashi temple .Brihadeeshwara temple is an architectural and engineering wonder.It is a WORLD HERITAGE SITE.The shadow of the capstone of the temple's tower never falls on ground !! [user talk:arun1paladin|talk] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.226.158 ( talk) 15:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC) ( talk Arun1paladin ( talk) 15:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC))
I don't really understand why there is no link to the caste system. It's one of the most distinguished key-terms, that is, it's significantly related to India and its people but is not indexed in this article. Is there any reason for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.157.215.108 ( talk) 21:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone know why Archive 37, 38 and 39 don't show up in the display? Also, why is Archive 28 displayed as Archive 18? (I think these problems may have begun with the automated archiving, but I'm not sure.) Fowler&fowler «Talk» 14:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
This:
was edited into the India (disambiguation) page by Wiki dr mahmad. I think it inappropriate there as - well - its a disambiguation page for quick access to the various uses of the word and not for the discussion of the word. I experienced first hand some of the difficulties of this topic when I attempted to standardize the dab page, so I know there is at least some truth to this statement. I would suggest a some mention of this difficulty on this page - or a short mention and further details on a referenced page.
I don't have the citations to create such content and, frankly, am far enough removed from the issues that I prefer not to get in the middle of any discussion that might ensue - but I think it is clearly a topic that should be addressed in Wikipedia. (John User:Jwy talk) 09:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
hello —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.63.28 ( talk) 23:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Why was
Hindustan (), which is the Persian word for “ Land of the Hindus” and historically referred to northern India, is also occasionally used as a synonym for all of India.
changed to
Hindustan (), is also occasionally used as a synonym for all of India
59.182.42.143 ( talk) 18:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
The ICP [7] released data for the year 2005, containing measured data from China (for the first time) and India (first time since 1985), as against EXTRAPOLATED data we had come to rely on (through CIA et. al.) over the last decade. The news item that compelled me to have a fresh look is here. Articles on Economy of India and others need to be updated.
I am looking forward to discussion/criticism, but please vet the data on the WB web site before refuting or undoing changes. The report (with individual tables, region wise data) is available here.
Pizzadeliveryboy ( talk) 12:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Nikkul. Either we list the CIA or the International Monetary Fund estimates (since their estimates are almost identical) or we put all 3. I've seen it on other countries page so I know it's an acceptable compromise. Cosmos416 23:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, maybe I'm missing something. If an institution lends money out for a specific period of time and charges interest on it, does it not make it a bank? Hence the World BANK is literally a bank, else it would not be called a bank, Fowler. The CIA and IMF, both credible sources, say that India is third for 07 and fourth for 06. These two, reliable sources together contradict and overpower the World Bank's opinion. And the fact that you think the CIA book is fluff is your opinion. It is considered very reliable and most country articles use it as a reference. Understand that when you have two equally reliable sources that contradict a third equally reliable source, the two overpower the one. Nikkul ( talk) 05:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Many major country articles have a sentence about foreign relations. India should have the same. I have added the sentence 'India is a founding member of the United Nations, Non-Aligned Movement and SAARC as well as an active member in the WTO, G8+5, and G20; India is also a nuclear power." to the intro, but Fowler keeps deleting it. Here are my reasons why this is important:
Nikkul ( talk) 05:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
It makes sense for small nations like Cambodia, Cameroon, etc. not to mention foreign relations because they dont have much power and are not major players. India on the other hand is a global player with 1/6 of humanity. The India page should have the same foreign relations info that other major countries have. India is one of the few nuclear powers. India is one of the few major developing countries. We have to look at articles like USA, UK, Italy, Pakistan, Malaysia, etc. Not poor, under developed countries like Chad, Camerroon, Libya which have no influence on global politics.
If the Pakistan article can say 'Pakistan was a founding member of the OIC, SAARC, D8 and ECO. It is also a member of the UN, WTO, G33, G77 and is a nuclear power.' Why cant India??? Both are featured articles.
Even the Bangladesh article has a sentence on foreign relations. Why can't India??? Nikkul ( talk) 15:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
My edits are backed with evidence that this has been done before.
This article is about India not Indians. Hence when you look at the economy, you should look at the overall economy. The per capita economy is more appropriate for the page describing an Indian. Similarly, when we look at culture, we look at overall Indian culture not each individuals culture. It's rediculious to look at per capita income because it will never measure up even if the country's economy grows to double of the US's. Nikkul ( talk) 14:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
These countries all mention foreign relations in the intro:
If all these countries mention Foreign Relations, India must. This is after all an encyclopedia, which means we must maintain uniformity. If we have country infoboxes and uniform layouts, we must also have uniform intros. Nikkul ( talk) 17:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
According to the latest list released by IMF for 2007, India is now 3rd largest economy in PPP terms ahead of Japan. Please update. -- 74.140.120.11 ( talk) 04:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Someone please change the fact that BSE is India's oldest stock exchange. The Calcutta stock exchange is the oldest stock exchange in India (maybe in Asia too). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.77.169 ( talk) 00:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
user:Nikkul has stated above that the Wikipedia pages of the majority of the world's nations mention foreign (and/or military) relations in their leads. On the basis of this statement, he has seen fit to add the sentence, "India is a founding member of the United Nations, Non-Aligned Movement and SAARC as well as an active member in the WTO, G8+5, and G20; India is also a nuclear power." It turns out, however, that user:Nikkul's statistics are grossly inaccurate. A majority of the country pages do not make any such mention in their leads. In fact, 135 out of 184 country pages do not mention foreign relations, G-8, NATO, WTO, G20, UN, nuclear power etc. in their leads. This list of these nations is given below. (In it, a handful of European nations mention EU in the context of having no border controls (under the Schengen agreement) and a common currency; two CIS countries mention the UN in the context of their former soviet republic's history; a handful of ex-British colonies mention independence under the Commonwealth in describing their history.) In any case, the total number of such countries in 11 and indicated in parentheses below. Even without them, a substantial majority of the country pages do not have any mention of foreign relations.
Canada, Spain (mentions EU/Schengen), Brazil, India, Australia, Turkey, Sweden (hosts Red Cross and WTO), Taiwan, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Norway, South Africa, Ireland, Argentina, Thailand, Venezuala, United Arab Emirates, Chile, Israel, Colombia, Singapore, Philippines, Nigeria, Egypt, Ukraine (Ukrainian SSR founding member of UN in history), New Zealand, Kuwait, Peru, Kazhakstan, Vietnam, Qatar, Libya, Angola, Ecuador, Sudan, Belarus (Bylorussian SSR founding member of UN, in history), Oman, Syria, Serbia, Dominican Republic, Tunisia, Guatemala, Lithuania (EU/Schengen), Sri Lanka, Kenya, Lebanon, Turkmenistan, Costa Rica, Latvia (EU/Schengen), Yemen, Uruguay, El Salvador, Cameroon, Cyprus (EU/Schengen; independence within Commonwealth), Zimbabwe, Madagascar, Nicaragua, Benin, Niger, Laos, Barbados, Fiji, Malawi, Mongolia, Guinea, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Mauritania, Swaziland, Rwanda (independence within Commonwealth), Togo, Suriname, Lesotho, Central African Republic, Sierra Leone, Eritrea, Cape Verde, Antigua and Barbuda, Bhutan, Gabon, Paraguay, Uganda, Senegal, Honduras, Nepal, Equitorial Guinea, Afghanistan, Mozambique, Republic of Congo, Cambodia, Chad, Mauritius, The Bahamas, Mali, Burkina Faso, Papua New Guinea, Trinidad and Tobago (Port of Spain candidate for ...), Ivory Coast, Panama, Uzbekistan, Bahrain, Jordan, Myanmar, Ghana, Tanzania, Brunei, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bolivia, Zambia, Botswana (independence within Commonwealth), Jamaica, Saint Lucia (independence within Commonwealth), Burundi, Maldives, Guyana, Seychelles, Djibuti, Liberia, Grenada, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Vanuatu, East Timor, The Gambia, Solomon Islands, Guinea Bissau, Dominica, Tonga, São Tomé and Príncipe, Kiribati, Somalia, Cuba, North Korea, and Iraq.
This list does not included small states in Europe ( Andorra, Monaco, San Marino, Liechtenstein, Vatican City) and the Pacific ( Palau, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru and Tuvalu) or dependencies ( Greenland, none of which mention foreign relations, etc. in their respective leads. If those are included as well, then 146 out of 195 national pages do not mention foreign relations in their leads.
Given such a overwhelming majority, and given the many previous consensuses on this page against any such mention, I am reverting user:Nikkul's edit. I would urge him not to keep pushing these edits and needlessly waste everyone's time. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I too feel that foreign relations and other trivia need not be added in the lead Binarymoron ( talk) 16:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Since user:Nikkul has persisted in making edits without first discussing them on the talk page (and has thus flagrantly disregarded the long-standing consensus on this page), and since he has chosen to ignore my warning in the section above, I have now asked for admin help. For the record, user:Nikkul first tried to add sentences about foreign relations in the lead (without prior discussion). As he was prevented from doing so, he has now attempted to remove, again without prior discussion, mention of poverty, illiteracy and malnutrition from the lead, a sentence that have been a part of the stable article for more than a year. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 19:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh Fowler, let me just say that what ever I do is based on other entries. I added a sentence on India's economic growth because it has brought tremendous change in India's social, cultural, demographic and economical sectors. I added a section on foreign relations because 60 other nation articles have it. If Pakistan, China and Bangladesh can have foreign relations,why can't India? I have taken away the sentence about social problems in India because no other featured article has such a section, even for poor nations which are featured.
You keep looking at featured articles to try to defend yourself, so look at the facts: Australia, Belarus, Belgium, Canada, Germany, Israel, Japan have no mention of social or other problems faced by the nation in their intro. Of the poorer countries, Chad, Indonesia, Libya, Nauru, Pakistan, Peru, South Africa, Turkey do not discuss social problems in their intros. All of them are featured. Why then should India? cameroon and bangladesh have one small sentence about poverty but nothing about environmental degradation, malnutrition, illiteracy, etc.
Now that you dont have any support, you have tried reporting me to an admin! And specifically an admin that you have spent much time pampering in the past [8]
You have persistently kept reverting my good faith edits Wikipedia encourages everyone to be bold. Why then do you consistently keep reverting all my edits? At one point, you have even supported a claim to stop edits on the India page. This just goes to show that your opinions and actions are misguided. Please think before reverting.
In the past, Fowler has told me I should be ashamed of myself [9]. What kind of user says this to others? He always criticizes images for not being good quality and being too purple or too small yet, he has himself added pictures that he knows do not show India correctly and are not good quality images [10]. Fowler is a rude, self-contradicting editor who keeps reverting any good faith edits anyone makes. Nikkul ( talk) 19:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
In the subsection 'History', no mention is made of the large Nanda Empire, which predates the Mauryan Empire. Nanda Dynasty could come as the second para of this subsection. Authorised editors of this protected article may please see what is needed to be done. Thanks Wiki dr mahmad ( talk) 13:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be good to add this in 'Ancient India'.There has been Hundereds of kingdoms in India, with many great kings. Also the article fails to mention that India was a Buddhist country under the Maurays. and Vedis hinduism originated after the Mauryas. Ajjay ( talk) 04:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I suggest the first sentence in demographics be shortened. Repeating that India is the world's largest democracy three times in the article (once at the top, once in government, and once in demographics) is quite enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.11.97.146 ( talk) 19:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- River Yamuna is misspelled as Yamunda - River Mahanadi is misspelled as Manahadi - River Godavari is misspelled as Godavara - River Krishna (south of Godavari) is wrongly named as Tapati - River Kaaveri is misspelled as Kasveri - River Bramhaputra is misspelled as Bahramputra
These are just a few I could find in 2 minutes. Pleas replace this map with a better one, or remove it until we can find a better one.
Thanks Balu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.145.54.15 ( talk) 19:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Military image has been updated with the AAD missile image.-- Chanakyathegreat ( talk) 06:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
O.K. The missile image is there for a long time and it's that of a Agni-II. Since India has tested the Agni-III, I wish to see one there. Now I am replacing it with another beautiful image of the INS Tarangini taken by Cruadin. Chanakyathegreat ( talk) 11:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Lets discuss the images and see them here before implementing them on the page. Nikkul ( talk) 11:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Nikkul, how many years it will take to make the change after discussion in this article. Anyway please start the discussion now and decide as fast as possible. Chanakyathegreat ( talk) 10:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I also think that foreign relations should be its own section. To tell you the truth, I like the tank image here. Nikkul ( talk) 19:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I will prefer something Made in India rather than showcase an imported one. There is no good quality images of the Arjun MBT in Wikipedia. Anyway there are many images of Indigenous weapons systems. Try to find a favorite among those images. Chanakyathegreat ( talk) 12:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
This vehicle is actually made in India. It is the most advanced tank in the army. Whats wrong with this image? It doesnt show anyone getting blown up or anything. Nikkul ( talk) 12:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
No, Regarding T-90, its technology transfer and producing it here. I will prefer a good image of Arjun MBT over the T-90. But I think the most appropriate image for this section is the image of INS Tarangini which supports foreign relation and military. Chanakyathegreat ( talk) 05:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
O.K, Since you are against it's addition I have choosen another image. It's that of the PAD missile. This missile is the latest technology that was tested successfully. Only limited nations have succeeded in acquiring this BMD capability (only 3 nations). So I hope that you will not have any objection to it. Also this is the latest in the series of technological advancement India has made in the defense field. Chanakyathegreat ( talk) 10:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I cannot make it stand vertical. And why are you tilting your head and looking at it. Just look at it as it is. Anyway if you still have objection here is another image of AAD missile in a vertical position. [11] Is this O.K or need another change. Regarding T-90, I will prefer the image of Arjun MBT over it. If you can find a good image of Arjun MBT, that will be better. Chanakyathegreat ( talk) 04:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
It's O.K to have the Su-30MKI image at the moment. But I will add a beautiful image of the Tejas when I get it. Chanakyathegreat ( talk) 03:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
It is quite old. Can someone with clear English pronunciation read the article and create a new spoken version? 198.62.10.11 ( talk) 11:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
It has now also deviated from the article. But otherwise the rendition is barely OK. I would have volunteered myself had I been confident about my own diction.
nirax (
talk)
18:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll do it, if someone provides me instructions Nikkul ( talk) 12:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Knowledge Hegemony 15:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
THe image is on Sukhoi Su-30MKI and NOT Sukhoi Su-30. PLease make the correction. -- 74.140.120.11 ( talk) 18:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
We can add in Geography section one more picture of most important river of India i.e Ganaga/Ganges representing its strong relations with culture of millions of people in India. We can add Kumbh mela picture organized around this river which also represents largest religious/non-religious gathering anywhere on the face of humanity. Such a picture will speak 1000 words at once, which ofcourse we need in this article that represents huge nation like India. This will also show strong relation between geography and culture of masses of this nation.
Waiting for what others think! Thank You - Holy Ganga talk 14:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
India the only country that has bright in couleurs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.78.66.6 ( talk) 09:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
should I propose here to add this picture to the "culture" chapter? Is it Ok? what do you think? HornK ( talk) 19:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The Vedic period is the Aryan period of India which isn't mentioned in the history but it's an important part of the history of India and should be noticed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.10.173.29 ( talk) 21:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Why is Ayurveda mentioned under the sports section? I believe it should be moved to a more appropriate section. Rajamouly ( talk) 09:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Lot of sections deleted since I visited the last time!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.18.104.1 ( talk) 08:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
See WP:SUMMARY. -- Ragib ( talk) 09:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The article has become too large to qualify under WP:SUMMARY style and also WP:FACr. Since the last time I looked at it, it has grown at least 30%. If this trend continues (i.e. addition of material here rather than topic specific pages), soon we will have to nominate it for WP:FAR. Right now, it fails several FA criteria badly. -- Ragib ( talk) 09:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The Article is mainly written in Indian Standard English, but there is some use of American Standard English. Since the page is about India, it is evident to use Indian Standard English, very similar to British Standard English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.152.147 ( talk) 17:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
F&f, "Home to the Indus Valley Civilization and a region of historic trade routes and vast empires, the Indian subcontinent..." isn't outright false, but it is positively pathetic just in terms of tone. It shouldn't grace a FA for a day, let alone two years(!?). That's just style ("home to"? "vast"?). In terms of WP:DUE, how is it defensible to name a prehistoric culture in para 2 of the lead to India, but subsume historical items of tremendous notability (Maurya, Gupta, Mughal empires) under a cheesy "vast"? I'm sorry. This isn't the worst bit of prose on Wikipedia, of course, but what is it doing in the lead to a Featured Article? This should be a no-brainer, fix and move on. dab (𒁳) 13:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
To add to the list
Among Indian writers of the modern era active in Indian languages or English, Rabindranath Tagore won the Nobel Prize in 1913. (In Culture section)
"modern era active"?? Knowledge Hegemony 14:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
It's fine grammatically. Read it again, this time taking the few seconds to stop at 'era' and think that maybe active isn't connected to it as a phrase. 172.143.154.84 ( talk) 19:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
My edit was reverted last time but I really think its a needed constructive edit. As things stood before it leaned towards a rather simplistic and erroneous view of history that the British 'owned' India for 200 years. That it was a part of the UK but denied the vote and all that. Of course it didn't directly say that but that's the way it read to me. It wasn't the main focus of my edits though
That would be that I really think it needs mentioning that there were at least two different periods in European domination of India- first was all the informal stuff with the EIC dominating at the end and second was the actual British empire. Quite different periods of history and 1858 is a pretty significant year in Indian history which needs mentioning just as much as 1947 does. It was afterall when 'India' was founded. --
Him and a
dog
11:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Please revert this user's actions. If I remember correctly, India is in Asia, and has been for the past 5 million years. The last time it was in South Africa was 100 million years ago. I have already reverted this user twice, reverting twice more will result in 3RR, so please revert this edit. It has stated it is in south Asia for a long time. Seriously, if someone moved India to Africa, the global climate will be in big trouble. Please help. Thanks. ~ A H 1( T C U) 23:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
this site is extremely good and well thought out it has every thing thatb anyone needs i am doing an english talk and this is the best site ever it has a lot of interstinbg facts on it and it has encouraged me to look into more detail for india thank you if you are wanting to talk back to me i go to fortrise academy in Scotland the UK my address is jackzp22@hotmail.co.uk write back soon thankyou once more —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.63.101 ( talk) 18:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Just like to point out that India's GDP(PPP) per capita information has changed on the List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita page. IMF estimated data published in April 2008, ranks India differently. The information on the India page should be updated to reflect new data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.161.138.200 ( talk) 20:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Surely India declared independence from the United Kingdom? Speedboy Salesman ( talk) 20:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
No. The about statement is correct if Republic of India is used. India is far greater in all aspects. Chanakyathegreat ( talk) 12:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
First of all, India was not a republic at the time of Independence. It became republic on Jan26, 1951. And yes Independence was granted to India, it was not a run-away territory of the British Raj. gppande «talk» 10:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Can more editors please watchlist the Template:Indian image rotation, which for the past three months has seen (AFAIK) unilatreral and undiscussed changes by User:Nikkul, many of which I think were inappropriate ( list of changes). For example:
So what can we do ? I don't wish to go back to the days when each image change on the India page, required mega-bytes of heated discussion; but I think there should be some minimal attempt to invite input before adding/replacing content (perhaps following the
WP:DYK/
WP:PINSPC model of inviting comments rather than trying to build wide consensus in each case).
Secondly, I see that several editors have raised concern about Nikkul's adding/removing pictures from
India,
Mumbai,
Kolkata,
Bangalore etc: for instance
Nichalp,
Dwaipayanc,
Gppande,
thunderboltz,
Arejay and now, me. I wonder if we can have a consolidated discussion about this issue (perhaps at
WT:INB), instead of dealing with it piecemeal. Note that I am not seeking any sanctions/probation against Nikkul, who I think does some exemplary work in getting images onto wikipedia from flickr; however it would be useful to reach some general consensus on the number and quality of images that is thought appropriate on India and India city pages.
Comments and suggestions are invited!.
Abecedare (
talk)
21:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
But still as a fellow Wikipedian and a friend, who is also associated with WP:IND I would like to request Nikkul to abstain from 'glorifying' (not the apt word I guess) India on Wikipedia, which we as nation loving Indians tend to do, at times unintentionally, influenced by the "India shining" wave sweeping the world media. I have noticed that you have tried removing the 'negative' aspects of India from the lead related to poverty, illiteracy, malnutrition etc. However these are facts, which can't and should'nt be hidden.
Like Abecedare, I too admire your efforts in getting quality pictures from flickr to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Thanks, KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 ( talk) 17:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Since when was the toda hut part of the image rotation? I have tried to make some images better, but if there is a problem i understand and I have not insisted all my edits be reverted. Fowler has added his own images under the cover of replacing mine
And by the way, next time you have a discussion, it might be a nice idea to alert me by leaving me a message rather than waiting for me to somehow find all the pages things are discussed.
Please keep in mind that I am trying my hardest to improve the page. I am not trying to make it harder for everyone. So if there is a problem, do leave me a message. I feel that my edits were beneficial and in total agreement with the consensus that had been established for the culture rotation. Nikkul ( talk) 18:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
CULTURE ROTATION VOTE COUNT CLICK TO SEE
WHAT LIES? The most recent vote proved that you were the only one for the Toda Hut. Stop making your own unilateral edits, Fowler. 9 people against 1 (you) means the Toda Hut shouldnt be part of the rotation. Nikkul ( talk) 00:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
It's time to change the Su-30MKI image with a new one. What about this image. Since the missiles and Air force section is covered, let the selection be from the IN section. Chanakyathegreat ( talk) 05:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
This image doesnt show much. I prefer the su image Nikkul ( talk) 17:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The image has been updated with the Arjun MBT image. Chanakyathegreat ( talk) 10:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Opinion on using the Arjun MBT Image. [13]
Support
1.
Oppose
1.Nikkul.
Chanakyathegreat ( talk) 09:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
"Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam arrived in the first millennium CE". From what I know, Christianity arrived (by St Thomas) 20 years after Jesus' death. -- RaviC ( talk) 13:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
population of Navi Mumbai is currently 2mil —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.201.41.134 ( talk) 10:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I've been measuring the readability of different articles, and among the FA's the readability of this article is quite awful. The Flesch Reading Ease score is only 32.3 (out of 100, lower value means less readable), and the Flesch-Kincaid Readability Test score is 13.97. What do these numbers mean? The second one means that on average, you'll need 14 years of education to understand this article properly. In other words, this article, as it stands now, is written for people at least 19 years in age, in 2nd or 3rd year of university.
Readability is not an accurate measure, but gives more or less a rough idea of how effective is a given piece of text in expressing the ideas. The metrics I quoted above are well established statistical measures for English language text.
This implies that, the text needs to be improved. We need to cut the long sentences, use less complex words etc. Indian English constructs (of using long sentences with multiple clauses) might also be an issue. -- Ragib ( talk) 04:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. I don't know if readability is really determined by lengths of sentences. Also, I've never heard that Indian English has on average longer sentences or more complicated sentence structure that other varieties of national English. A quick check in the New York Times, the London Times and the Statesman, in fact, suggests exactly the opposite conclusion:
As the Federal Reserve completes work on rules to root out abuses by lenders, its plan has run into a buzz saw of criticism from bankers, mortgage brokers and other parts of the housing industry. One common industry criticism is that at a time of tight credit, tighter rules could make many mortgages more expensive by creating more paperwork and potentially exposing lenders to more lawsuits. To the chagrin of consumer groups that have complained that the proposed rules are not strong enough, the industry’s criticism has already prompted the Fed to consider narrowing the scope of the plan so it applies to fewer loans. (New York Times, 28 April 2008)
The bitterness surrounding Chelsea’s 2-1 win over Manchester United continued on a day of claim and counterclaim that threatened to sour relations between two of the country’s biggest clubs. Allegations that the postmatch flare-up between groundstaff and the United substitutes was sparked by abuse directed at Patrice Evra, initially encouraged by some at Old Trafford, were strenuously denied by Chelsea. Chelsea reacted strongly to the allegations, particularly as they were not made immediately after the incident at Stamford Bridge on Saturday, leading to talks last night between Peter Kenyon and David Gill, the respective chief executives. (The Times, London, 28 April 2008)
PRESIDENT Ahmadinejad arrives in Delhi on Tuesday. During his brief stopover he will confer with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Recently a statement from official US sources advised New Delhi to persuade Iran to stop its uranium enrichment programme. New Delhi rebuffed the USA. It said India was capable of conducting its foreign policy without foreign advice. The government reiterated its close historic ties with Iran. Earlier, India had voted against Iran for ignoring, as a signatory to Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), its commitments to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). India was justified in doing this. Russia and China did the same. The West’s concerns about nuclear proliferation are valid. (The Statesman, Kolkata, 28 April 2008
Certainly if I compare an author like R. K. Narayan, who self-consciously wrote in Indian English, with someone like Doris Lessing, I can't help making the same (opposite) conclusion. Neither am I sure that other encyclopedias follow such readability guidelines. Certainly Britannica doesn't. Consider the two sentences from its "India" article's lead:
From that period on, India functioned as a virtually self-contained political and cultural arena, which gave rise to a distinctive tradition that was associated primarily with Hinduism, the roots of which can largely be traced to the Indus civilization. Other religions, notably Buddhism and Jainism, originated in India—though their presence there is now quite small—and throughout the centuries residents of the subcontinent developed a rich intellectual life in such fields as mathematics, astronomy, and architecture.
I agree that uniformly long sentences can be tedious to read, that the long should be mixed in with the short, but that applies to other aspects of syntactical structure as well: variation is key to holding a readers interest. But I don't see why a sentence that is, say, 35 words long, should be automatically disqualified. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 10:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
With respect to readability, I think the phrase "do the needful" needs to be used somewhere :-) Then please replace please with pls. pls is even starting to get popular in US now. Desione ( talk) 10:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
This article has been effectively orgainsed and detailed BUT I don't see ANY section on Indian science or technology. India has made many great contirbution to the world in the field of science ,maths,inventions,philosophy etc Even in this modern ear there are many noteworthy achievements in the fields of sciences,space,nulcear eneergy,IT,communication etc I have also seen the China page in wiki and found that its highlighting its Ancient culture and civilization very well.It also had a good section on Chinese science,inventions and technlogical achievements. So who so ever is maintaining this page can you please take my suggestions and improve/add section on ancient contrubtuions of India to the world,science and technology and other relevant topics in this wonderful article.
John Rambo 20:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the science and tech section is needed. Japan has such a section and is a featured article.
Nikkul (
talk)
06:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Why not
Arabic numerals for a start? --
RaviC (
talk)
13:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a dynamic site that doesn't stay the same. If there is new consensus here, we can def. add it regardless of what happened in the past. Nikkul ( talk) 07:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I like to also work on the Science and Technology topic so that we can provide the link in the main article.Most of the countries in wiki do have this section so it make it pertinent and sensible to have such an important topic included in this one too.
John Rambo 20:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Here are the results of the majority view from six-months ago:
Definition: A Large paragraph is approximately 250 to 300 words; a small paragraph is 125 to 150 words. Those are the approximate upper limits.
I have wonderful pictures of India (really nice) and I dont know how to put upload them or if i have permission to do so....can someoen tell me simply how to put them up and if i have permission to do so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.82.152 ( talk) 01:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey,
To load images to wiki, you need to make your own account. Then click upload file on the left. Then click "my own work". You can then select the license of your choice and upload the image. If you dont want to create an account, I can upload the images for you if you declare "I am the creator of this image and I license it under {license of your choice}" Let me know if you need me to do so. Thanks!
Nikkul (
talk)
06:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I think we need to have a science and technology section (or a paragraph in the economy section) to show India's achievements in the field because they are important to the country. apan]], a featured article, has such a section. Germany, a featured article, also has a science section. Beligium and Israel are also featured article with this section. South Korea has a Science and Technology section, as does China, UK, USA, Brazil, Argentina, Greece, Finland, Portugal, Bulgaria, Poland, Austria, and many other countries which I do not have time to look up. Other countries, like Chad, may not have this section because they are much smaller and do not have the money and resources to launch satellites (like ISRO does) or have nuclear technology like India does. Hence, science and technology is not a big part of their country. Still, Science and Technology in India is a vital part of the country's Electronics, Space, Defence, Nuclear, Biomolecular, Medical, Environmental, Agricultural, etc. needs and this page needs to address this just like the countries listed above.
I know there was a straw poll before, but if there is consensus to add a science and technology section now, we can add it now. Let's discuss this here. Cheers Nikkul ( talk) 17:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
here are the true facts ->
* India won icc cricket t20 championship,South africa,2007
* India runners up in cricket in worldcup 2003
* india won world cup in 1983
The Indian Squad that won the 1983 World Cup comprised:
* Mohinder Amarnath
* Kirti Azad
* Roger Binny
* Kapil Dev (captain)
* Sunil Gavaskar
* Syed Kirmani (wicketkeeper)
* Madan Lal
* Sandeep Patil
* Balwinder Sandhu
* Yashpal Sharma
* Ravi Shastri
* Kris Srikkanth
* Sunil Valson
* Dilip Vengsarkar
Raunakroy --
Raunakroy (
talk)
11:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
There is sufficient evidence to prove that Hindi is just not "the" official language of India and its one of the official languages of India, nevertheless its the largest spoken one. By using it as the official language of India, we are slighting other facts and thereby presenting a biased picture of the demographics of this nation. Refer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_languages_of_India
Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Showmethedoor ( talk • contribs) 21:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Its better to use - 'one of the' instead of 'the official' or else - use 'Hindi is the official language of the Union government' and there are several other official languages at each state and link it to the wikipage on "official languages of India". I prefer to phrase a sentence that encompasses all the facts in one go rather than breaking it up into several sentences. I hope we are addressing what is the current status of official languages of India rather than how it evolved and changed over the decades. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Showmethedoor (
talk •
contribs)
21:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Make sure you use ~~~~ to sign. In the US, Spanish is widely spoken but not officially recognized as an official language. I myself am Gukarati and consder Gujarati and other languages officila, but t's not recognized by the government Juthani1
I guess comparing India to US is not a reasonable. We are here to represent what India is on date as a fact, rather than by comparisons. Hindi is the official language of the Union govt. Quoting from the wikipage on the official languages of India - "As a large and linguistically diverse country, India does not have a single official language. Instead, the Constitution of India envisages a situation where each state has its own official language(s), in addition to the official languages to be used by the Union government. The section of the Constitution of India dealing with official languages therefore includes detailed provisions[1] which deal not just with the languages used for the official purposes of the union,[2] but also with the languages that are to be used for the official purposes of each state and union territory in the country,[3] and the languages that are to be used for communication between the union and the states inter se.[4]". In the current wikipage for India - it says - Hindi is the official language of India, which is very misleading. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Showmethedoor (
talk •
contribs)
15:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Hindi is the
national language of India and I have updated the same in article. In hindi we call it Rashtra bhasha. --
gppande
«talk»
15:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Again, we are digressing from the point that I posted first - i feel its more than highly reasonable to rephrase the sentence - Hindi is the primary official language advocated by the Union government, with English as the subsidiary language. However, there are plenty of other languages that are afforded official language status at the state level. Hence, the demographics does not present a neutral picture. Is it okay to rephrase the sentences in the intro section of official languages of India?
Showmethedoor (
talk)
21:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Expand to see 15 focused secondary sources, including 1) Encyclopaedia Britannica, "India—Linguistic Composition." 2) Encyclopedia Encarta, "India: Official Languages". 3) Encyclopedia Encarta, "Indian Languages: Official Languages" 4) Indo-Aryan Languages. 6) United Kingdom, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, "India—Country Profile." 7) United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 8) UNESCO, "Education for all—The Nine Largest Countries." 9) US Library of Congress, "Country Profile: India." 10) US Department of State, "Background Note: India." 11) UN High Commissioner for Refugees, "Country Profile: India." 12) Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Languages of India. 13) Mallikarjun, B. 2004. "Fifty Years of Language Planning for Modern Hindi-The Official Language of India.", Language in India. 14) Mallikarjun, B. 2004. "Indian Multilingualism, Language Policy, and the Digital Divide" Language in India. 15) Laitin, David. 1989. "Language policy and political strategy in India." Policy Sciences. 22:415-436. | ||
---|---|---|
|
Fowler&fowler «Talk» 20:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
F&F, its solely the view of the GOI and not of the people. The people's viewpoint is that all the 24 languages are their national languages and no language is given any special status. Now when you say the otherway, you are spreading misinformation. I again say that the viewpoint is that of the GOI's only. Chanakyathegreat ( talk) 07:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
No, I wouldn't categorize quotations sourced from the Indian Constitution and the Official Languages Act as cherry-picking. They are authentic sources and are fairly lucid in their language. Article 343(1) very clearly states, "The official language of the Union shall be Hindi in Devanagari script". No further interpretation required. Our job is to state facts, and not to reinterpret interpretations of official texts (which is really all the authors in that gargantuan list above are doing). Similarly, nowhere does the Official Languages Act [14] provide for the hypothetical relationship between Hindi and English that this article seems to imply. AreJay ( talk) 14:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Going by the official languages act that AreJay has quoted, if I understand it right, it says Hindi is the official language of the Union (which I guess shall encompass Central Govt. offices/parliament/courts etc.) and also it advocates to use English as an another official language. And it recognizes the usage of 21 other regional languages for official purposes. Though, its hard to interpret and present the linguistic diversity of India in just a couple of sentences, atleast, we can abstain from presenting a biased picture. My point again is - just rephrase the sentence that Hindi is the official language of the Union Government and English is considered as a subsidiary. By writing Hindi is the official language of India, we are ignoring the importance of the 21 other languages, relegating it to a lower position, which is not true. 129.186.68.138 ( talk) 15:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This is fine - Official language is fine. But not 'subsidiary official language.' Is this term used anywhere in the constitution? Is this an official government term? Looks like a derogative term to me. -- gppande «talk» 16:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the issue of the national language, I support the viewpoint of F&F since it is reality and I feel that's the only think F&F did correctly. But we must be looking into whether the GOI's version must be taken into account or the people's viewpoint on the issue must be given importance. Even though India is a democratic nation, in this issue no opinion of the people were asked. Even no one knows who made those changes and when. It will get changes within few years time and all languages will be elevated to equal status by GOI itself. Until then either allow the GOI's viewpoint to exist or the article must reflect the common perception and belief (which is a good one) among the populace. Chanakyathegreat ( talk) 07:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)