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 20 | ← | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | → | Archive 30 |
The edit war regarding the addition of File:India.Mumbai.01.jpg to this page needs to resolved here. -- KnowledgeHegemony talk 09:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
The picture is most likely adivasis in Mumbai, usually employed in construction and infrastructure projects. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the Stock Exchange image is quite far off the reality of most Indians. How about a farming image? After all, over two thirds of Indians are agricultural workers living in rural villages.
How about some of these images? Lalit Jagannath ( talk) 08:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
In India, 76% of the population lives on less than $2 a day (purchasing power), in nominal terms it is roughly 20 rupees or $0.5. That compares with 73% in Sub-Saharan Africa. 42% earns less than $1.25 (PPP). See [1] [2] [3]. 70% is either illiterate or has not finished primary education. Out of the remaining, only the elite affords to vocation training.
Yet affairs of ordinary Indians are persistently removed from the article.
Anyone else defending the right of ordinary Indians to be mentioned in the economy section?
Lalit Jagannath ( talk) 22:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Ok the economy section is supposed to talk about all economic factors in the country,including infrastructure, economic development, economic history, gdp, imports, exports, etc besides just poverty. There is already one full paragraph on poverty in India. What more do you want? Do you want to erase everything else and make the whole section about poverty in India? Nikkul ( talk) 15:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
When information was added about the occupation and income of ordinary Indians, i.e. most are rural workers living on less than 20 rupees a day, it was removed at least two times.
This seemed inconsistent, given how detailed the section is about elite professionals. Lalit Jagannath ( talk) 16:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Please make a section on education in India. The article should contain comprehensive information about school level and graduate level education, as well as research in various disciplines. Pointers on university system, institutes of engineering, management, science, medicine, etc. are required.
India has prestigious centers of excellence in education and research, and the education system unique in its make. These need to be highlighted with references.
The image of Ajanta caves had Aurangabad, but there are many Aurangabad. So I put in the proper Aurangabad, Maharashtra Dewan S. Ahsan 06:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I prosose to add the image of Ashoka Chakra in the government section in India. It is because it represents the united India historically and presently. It is the symbol of government in India and it deserves to be added in government. Also there should be pictures in the Geography section. Every country in wikipedia has a geography section filled with colorful images but not India. It is very important to show the natural beauty of India. (Dewan S. Ahsan 05:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)) I wish to add these images to the geography section and Ashoka Chakra in government.
I truely believe that there is a need to add more pictures in the India section to make it look better. (Dewan S. Ahsan 06:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC))
(+) Other countries such as China and the U.S. have pictures i their geography sections. (Dewan S. Ahsan 05:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC))
(+)I added these images for now until I find better pictures. These pictures still make the geography section more enjoyable to read and bring people interest to read the geography section. This is because when people see that there are wonderful images of the geography of India it will bring their interest even more to read the articles. Thank you! Please let these images stay in the section for couple of days or week until I find better images. Or if someone can find better images feel free to put them up!!!!thankyou!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dewan357 ( talk • contribs)
Suggestion: I think instead of adding a generic landscape image (such as Velley of flowers, Thar or Western ghats that Dewan added), a good subject for the geography section would be to add a satellite image illustrating the path of the monsoon winds/clouds over India. That certainly is an important and distinctive feature of Indian climate, which has a significant impact on its population and economy - and this can be outlined in the image caption. The only problem is finding a suitable image :) A quick websearch found this, which is of poor quality. We can get realtime images from METEOSAT and INSAT, but the current season is not very interesting and I haven't yet looked at the licensing issues either. Any thoughts or ideas ? Abecedare ( talk) 01:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
the word "independence" in the main box is very wrong as india did not arise overnight. its a 5500 year old continuous civilization and thus should have the words "foundation - indus valley civilization - 3500 bc", then "formation - mauryan empire - 2500 bc", then "independence - ..."
the concept of independc is entirely western and wikipedia must support a NPOV. the indian POV is occupation.........
pls change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.12.217 ( talk) 11:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
There should be some mention of the fact that India has the oldest continuous culture and civilization in the world - quite significant so should be in the lead. 98.234.52.29 ( talk) 09:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
may you make photos of Indian Plated mail and Mirror armour? especially interested in famous sind-armour ( Idot ( talk) 03:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC))
Hi There,
GDP and Per Capita income need to be updated as in Hindi version. The data should not be different whether one is on Hindi Pages or in English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deep1012 ( talk • contribs) 12:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
This is for your kind information that there exist other territories within the territory of Goa. The teritories comprises of village communes called as 'COMMUNES OF GOA'(also called as 'Comunidades' in Portuguese and 'Gaunkaries' in Konkani). There are a total of 223 Communes in Goa. More than two-third of the land of Goa (other than forest)belongs to the Communes and the rest belongs to the Government of Goa. As of today the Govt. Of Goa (India) stands illegally on the Comunidades. A grave error has been committed by not including the same in the 'Administrative Divisions' section. A request has been made to wiki:Goa page too.
Kindly coordinate and edit as follows;
Administrative Divisions
28 states
7 Union territories
223 Communes of Goa
A link on 'Communes of Goa' is desired on the India page.
I request members to be careful before making rude comments especially if ignorant of the facts. Kindly make necessary changes immediately because a comprehensive article on 'The Communes of Goa' is due to be published on wikipedia.
References are given below;
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
For more information;
http://www.geocities.com/newagegoa/Chapter8.html?1146661378765 --
Gaunkars of Goa (
talk) 19:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Bharat Ganarjya is only the term for the "Republic of India".
And why do you delete the region informations? -- Ultramegasuperstar ( talk) 15:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
The edit was reverted for the following reasons:
-- KnowledgeHegemony talk 16:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
after several years of watching this, I am convinced that keeping this article at
India only gives us grief.
"India" may mean several things, depending on context, see
India (disambiguation). The scope of this article is the Republic of India ONLY.
Now this is made plain as plain in the very first line after the page title, but many people seem still to be unable to to read as far as even that before starting to complain or create confusion. Talk about short attention spans!
I suggest that we should move this article to Republic of India. India would still be a redirect, to save us from link piping hell, but the ambiguous title would finally be the {{ redirect}}, while the actual page title will finally be unambiguous. -- dab (𒁳) 22:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Can't we just move this article to Republic of India to avoid all the confusion? -- Rsrikanth05 ( talk) 13:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I have made recent edits to several sections of the India Wiki page. The objective was to present more information and relevant references to enable readers to get a deeper glimpse. This new version was undone with a recession to an older version with the justification that it was a "dramatic" edit and required consensus on the talk page. In view of this, I request active editors/viewers to make suggestions by comparing the current version and older versions and determining whether the new content really needs to be removed. I believe sincerely that the new content adds more detail about the various aspects of India and in addition two sections that had been hitherto ignored - Indian society (as distinct from culture) and Science and technology, which was omitted from previous versions.
Best Regards. -- User:Techraj ( talk) 13:39 ET, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Society section
|
---|
Indian society is characterized by the same pluralism and multiculturalism that defines Indian culture. Most Indians living in the rural areas. Indian cities are characteristically densely populated and are home to all the major cross sections of Indian society, although the compositions of the cities change between different locations. Large Indian metropolitan cities are increasingly cosmopolitan and attract visitors and immigrants from all over India, from other cities and from the villages. The income gap between the poor and the rich in India is vast. It is common to see many contrasting economic faces of India in most Indian cities. The advent of globalization and consumerism is evident in most Indian metropolitan cities, such as
Mumbai,
Delhi,
Bangalore,
Chennai,
Hyderabad and
Kolkata. Large Indian cities have recently recorded increased domestic violence, street gangs and crime.
[1] The Indian media is a vibrant Fourth Estate which has emerged out of the relaxed information policies of the Indian government in recent years. Indian newspapers such as The Telegraph, The Times of India and The Hindu have had a long history of reputed news reporters and journalists who have now taken to the television medium as well. India is served by the All India Radio, a government service with news and entertainment, as well as by Doordarshan, the national television channels. With the increase in television ownership in urban and rural homes across India, there has been a proliferation of Indian news channels such as NDTV, CNN-IBN and Times Now in addition to entertainment channels. The Indian news media has recently been involved in several high profile events such as the Kargil war and December 2008 Mumbai terror attacks and has been severely criticized on occasion on account of being sensationalist. [2] A large number of Indian diaspora are present in countries like the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Germany, UAE and other countries in Europe and the Middle East. Diaspora from Indian states like Punjab, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat are commonly represented amongst Indian disapora abroad, especially in the United States. |
Science and technology
|
---|
Science and technology have always been areas where India has made its mark. Indian metallurgists were responsible for the iron pillar of Delhi built 300 years after the Christian era. Ancient Indian texts such as the Vedanga Jyothisha contain elaborate observations of heavenly objects. The great Indian astronomer and mathematician Aryabhata was responsible for several key breakthroughs in furthering the way humans understood the universe and predated Nicholas Copernicus by nearly 1000 years in proposing the Heliocentric theory. India was the only region in ancient times to have perfected the art of diamond mining. Indian mathematician Srinivasa Ramanujan is generally regarded as one of the greatest mathematicians of all time. Indian physicist C V Raman was awarded a Nobel Prize in physics in 1928. Although India started as a poor country after Independence, over the next five decades, it developed into a formidable technological power in South Asia. The precedents that led to this technological rise were an increase in literacy levels, agricultural productivity and the rise of urban centres. Some of the events that chronicle India's technological progress are the launch of its first satellite Aryabhata in 1975 and its Operation Smiling Buddha the previous year, when it conducted an underground nuclear test. The development of telecommunications and nuclear reactors and research stations like the BARC, led by Homi J Bhabha led to development. [3]. India has developed indigenously a capability to launch satellites into low-earth, polar and geostationary orbits. The ASLV, PSLV and GSLV as well as the INSAT series of satellites stand testimony to its successful space program. It has also developed and manufactured the Advanced Light Helicopter as well as the LCA Tejas as indigenous airpower alternatives. India has also progressed on the realty and infrastructure front with companies like Larsen and Toubro, DLF and others paving the way forward. India's first supercomputer to be listed amongst the fastest computers on earth was the Param Padma in 2003 developed at the Center for Development of Advanced Computing. [4] Economic liberalization and the information technology revolution in the 1990s have both led to India taking a centre stage in the world as one of the leading nations in terms of information technology. Leading technology companies around India and the world such as IBM, Microsoft, Cisco Systems, Infosys, Tata Consultancy Services, Wipro and others have set up offices in Indian cities like Bangalore, Chennai and Hyderabad. |
The newspaper section is definitely undue. YellowMonkey ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 04:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Pakistan does not include Indian administered Kashmir(I.A.K) in its main map. Kindly explain why the main main information box on India has a map including Pakistan Administered Kashmir(P.A.K)? Should the Pakistan wikipedia article add I.A.K in light green as well? Or should the India article remove it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.58.66 ( talk) 23:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Namaskar frieds (hello),this article is very accurate and sublime but,public health and religion in india should be in main page with neat and short information , it will help to readers to know about religion and public life .And like Germany Infrastructure ,Science ,Education content chapters will enfocus the other important aspects if india, aren't they? so i think that will make India very understandable. wqwqwqwq 07:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC) 07:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC) Rajvaddhan
-- Rsrikanth05 ( talk) 11:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
It says in the intro that India is considered a potential superpower. Is this really necessary to put down, as China, Russia, and EU are the other mentioned potential superpowers, and on their pages, that isn't mentioned. So is this really necessary, as it seems like someone is just trying to advertise it or something. Deavenger ( talk) 23:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
States are more than administrative divisions, they are also political divisions, since each state has an elected government which wields law-making powers as per the state list in the Constitution. Please revert the title back to States and Union Territories. 70.112.0.5 ( talk) 02:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
On the pages of Russia, China, US and so many other countries, the size of the military budget and army, n-power is mentioned in the intro. After all, it makes sense to describe both economic and military power. Why remove the military part from India???? Steed Asprey - 171( talk) 7:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I've changed the description of the languages in the Eighth Schedule to "Constitutionally recognised languages". This is more accurate than "official languages" (the languages of the Eighth Schedule aren't " official languages in any standard sense of the word), and is pretty close to the way they're described in other sources, such as the LoC's country profiles. I really hope this wording is acceptable. -- Arvind ( talk) 22:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
This is kinda unimportant, but I was just wondering what the light green area on the globe meant. It doesn't seem to say in the article. 74.33.174.133 ( talk) 19:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Just noticed. All GDP values have , not a . dot. like this $3,288 trillion should be $3.288 trillion. Make first change or Change it to billions from trillion ( Kashifyy ( talk) 05:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC))
I think Science and technology section is not minor for India, being one of the chief programmer exporters and all...
Also, I would like to add that "India also is the top milk producer worldwide, according to 2005 information, producing 91 million tonnes." I don't know if I should add it to economy section, as it was removed, I believe without even mention of it...
It was 100.9 million tonnes 2006-2007.
MEEEEEEEEE! ( talk) 08:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I also think India needs a Science & Technology section, being one of very few developing countries with a space program, nuclear research, huge IT base, etc.
Nikkul (
talk) 05:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
When we can not translate any name. (Its Language Law) Why the Bharat is named as India in English. If you are Bharati then solve it.
By Avinash Bhola mail@atoall.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.62.101.251 ( talk) 11:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Its original name was Aryavart, that page is not as accurate as it could be, one of the kings (his name was Bharat) changes the name to Bharat. When foreigners came to india they couldn't pronounce "sind"(indus river), so they called it the indus. india comes from there. if you are researching ancient india, dont look for india, but instead for bharat, or aryavart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dev000 ( talk • contribs) 04:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Can you tell me why you deleted reference to Vedic civilization from introduction page. I have been college-educated in India and over here, Vedic culture is taught in the same breath as Indus Valley Civilization. Hindu religious beliefs, Sanskrit etc. are a byproduct of this theme. I know you may have had a consensus on this issue before but it was very difficult to find an explanation in the archives as you suggested. So, I'd love to understand the reason behind this change. India id 25% enviromentally friendly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.219.112 ( talk) 08:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Regards -- Tech editor007 ( talk) 21:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Why does the world call this country India while Ghandi called for the British to quit India and the usage of India as the name in stead of Bharat seems illogical -- 82.134.154.25 ( talk) 23:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
In India, people call the country 'India' but with the accent of their own language. In French, it was not called 'Inde' (India) but 'les Indes' (the Indias) and even today people from another generation might say, je vais aux Indes (I am going to the Indias), but they probably mean India, not Pakistan or Bangladesh. OK, so you should try and change the name of the article :-) Trompeta ( talk) 16:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Cars in India are built so that the drivers drive on the right side of the car, which contrasts with how they are built in the United States and many other nations. In America, cars are built so that drivers drive on the left side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.27.217.251 ( talk) 00:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Driving side on the main page has been told as Left but actually we drive on right in India like UK!!!
Nishant.parashar (
talk) 07:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I've been looking for quite a while, but I have no answer yet. Why does the country have a very large exclave to the east, separated by Bangladesh? What caused this? And what is this part of the country called? Elfred ( talk) 02:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
The GDP numbers are too high by a factor of 1000. It should either be in billions, or $1.3 Trillion instead of $1,300 Trillion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Therealgandalf ( talk • contribs) 18:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
therealgandalf ( talk) 18:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
There must be people who do not recognise India as a full democracy in view that its cast system resembles in many respects apartheid. At least the reference to the cast system should be in the opening paragraph and before any reference to the country's apparently democratic credentials. At least that is what seems right to me. Trompeta ( talk) 19:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Good you found it. Racism in the US is not an institution, the cast system in India is very much an institution supported by the main religion of the country, that is why I suggest including it in the first paragraph as well as keeping the fact that India is a democracy. Trompeta ( talk) 18:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
A good many people in India have been condemning the caste (thank you) system, as well as during the latest elections: "India's poorest and most downtrodden people do 'dirty' jobs higher castes regard as 'polluting'." [6]. We cannot compare that with England and I do not think Mayawati would. In any case there are no class murders in England [7]. Thank you for your response. Trompeta ( talk) 16:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Caste sytem is a personal peeve? Perhaps we are communicating over a cultural gap my dear fellow editor. Even though I must accept that your explanation above is very resonable (even if, to paraphrase you, there is no British Institute of Democracy', ergo no democracy in Britain?). Trompeta ( talk) 16:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I want to say that only gandhi ji was not responsible for the freedom of india then why there are no names of other leaders as there is a list of great leaders ? I had tried posting the name of few leaders but it is getting deleted. please help me -- Sandeepsp4u ( talk) 09:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I recall there being an extended debate about this issue some time back. May be worth looking through the archives, so that we don't have to start from scratch. Abecedare ( talk) 17:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
The archive search function is great! Here is the ~400K discussion on the topic:
I think the conclusion last time was to expand and develop the Indian independence movement and add its summary to the History of India page, whose summary would then be added in this article. That way, (1) it would be easier to ensure due weight, and (2) we would end up developing the sub-articles where the reader can go for more detail. I know that the proposed process was started and User:Fowler&fowler and User:Rueben lys especially worked on many articles related to IIM biographies and events; but I am not sure if it was ever "completed". Abecedare ( talk) 17:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I think people hear are insulting Subhas Chandra Bose, Bhagat Singh, Tilak Ji etc. How one can prove that only gandhi Ji was resoponsible for the freedome of india. Its ok he was one among the gr8 but he was not only. I think that atleas few big heros should be given respect by keeping there name on this main page of India. Ther is picture of Gandhi Ji so i think this heroes atlest are eligable to have there name on the page of India ( its ok if we dont put there pic and it is not possible also) Tilak Ji who had initated the struggle of Independence Gandhi Ji had just fallowed it. Bhagat Singh led his life for the freedom and after that people really awaken and started fighting for the freedom. So i think that atleast there name should be there. -- Sandeepsp4u ( talk) 07:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
On the comments on Tilak Ji i would like to say that Gandhi Ji joined Tilak Ji and was influnced by his views. I chalange that Only Gandhi Ji was not responsible for the Freedom of inda as there were many factors for the freedom. I agree on the point that it is difficult to list all the names but there should be some names who are prominent equal to Gandhi Ji the the freedom sturggle. As per the comments wiritten above if the discussion was taken place then why it is still not implemented. My point of view is only that few other names also should be there on the main page of India -- Sandeepsp4u ( talk) 07:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Deepak D'Souza the question is not that one editor is not liking it, i can bring 100 editors hear who wont like this then what will be done. The question hear is what is truth should be fallowed, i am discussing hear not for my linkings or dislinkings but only for provideing equall respect to all the great gems of our country. I just want to know that if the discusion had taken place earlier then why the changes had not beed made or it seems that this India page is owned by few people who only want there editings on the page. -- Sandeepsp4u ( talk) 05:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Deepak D'Souza i am not threaten you i am answering you on your statement " no point on going on a discussin for on editor" that's i used a senttence " i can bring 100 editors hear who will dislike it" Moreover about the archives you had said i had gone through it and i had found in the end that there was no sound result arrived by such a long discussion. The page of India is still as it is after that discussion also and which shows that the changes are not accepted eaisly by few people hear. About democracy i will only say that you are editing the page of worlds largest democratic nation. I am still arguing on my point as after reading your archives i had come to know that there was no change on India page -- Sandeepsp4u ( talk) 05:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
The article India shows that there are 610 districts, The link supporting, the claim shows only 585 districts in India, But the Government of India says thare are only 604 districts, Please check out the below link:-
Please update the portal accordinlying. as all user dosen't have right to update this article.
Hope to see changes soon. -- Makks2010 ( talk) 01:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
All the topics about indian defence forces n systems are vandalised with false information with referance to news sites based in pakistan. How come you take referances from pakistani news networks about indian defence to be neutral and trusted.
I hope wiki-india project users and wiki admistrators got my point and will look into this matter and clean up the topic to neutral standards. ( Sushilkumarmishra ( talk) 11:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC))
I had to make an addendum to the topic mentioning the fact that India is a member of G-20 major economies, WTO, and the United Nations (UN). Svr014 ( talk) 19:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I ask you to reinstate the added line that says that India is a member of the UN, WTO, and G-20 major economies. Look at South Korea (SK) introduction paragraphs. It says the same about SK. Abecedare, please do not vandalize the content posted on wikipedia. I have reported to the Administrator of English Wikipedia about this vandalism. Svr014 ( talk) 15:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
South Korea is a pretty average article to say the least YellowMonkey ( cricket calendar poll!) 01:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I have added {{ International organisation membership of India}} that list all the major organisations India belongs to. However, the template can perhaps be improved (see here) - so feel free to edit and/or expand it. Abecedare ( talk) 01:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
It is very imperative on your part (Abecedare) not to 'negate' important addendums made by others. There is no need for any consensus. Obedience and respect is what is required by you. Look at the introduction paragraphs of the country South Korea. It mentions that South Korea is a member of United Nations, WTO, OECD, and G-20 (major economies). Likewise, I want to mark India which is a country in South Asia. India is member of UN, WTO, and G-20 (major economies). All scholars in the US know that not all information posted on WP can be trusted for obvious reasons. Please don't try to teach me some information. Thanks for your time. Svr014 ( talk) 17:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Chicagoland, Illinois, USA.
I suggest that there should be a gallery at the end of the article. Enthusiast10 ( talk) 13:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
the decimals in the side bar are written as commas. so 3.288 trillion reads as 3,288 trillion which is misleading. i don't know how to edit the sidebar data, can somebody help? Perryizgr8 ( talk) 05:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
The article must include images from all corners of India (as said above), so why was this Image removed? >>
atleast it's of the Indian culture. The Taj Mahal was built by the Turkish (Mughal) dynasty. And talking abt world heritage sites there are many other like the the city of Chandigarh or the Kalka-Shimla Toy train. But there seems no mention to them.
Moreover the Building picture of the "Taj" looks more like a advertisement pic for attracting tourists.
There are NO pic's showing true Indian Architecture (TajMahal's Turkish.. remember?)
02.06.09 HFret ( talk) 07:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Note: I have moved this discussion to the India noticeboard talkpage, since it is off-topic here. Please continue any discussion there. Abecedare ( talk) 17:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I know this isn't the brightest attribute of India (and many other countries), but having the largest sex trade in all of Asia, I think some information regarding that fact should be edited onto the India page. Considering there are nearly 200,000 young and usually underage Nepalese women and girls in India right now being forced into prostitution, I think they deserve a voice. By putting information on this page regarding that we could help them by letting the world know that such suffering exists in India and maybe more people would seek out to help them. I know I have. Perhaps also putting information on those attempting to aid this problem. Non-profit organizations spearheading forced prostitution and brothels for example; as this would give people not only a reason to offer help, but the means as well.
Just my two cents.. Wikipedia spreads all sorts of knowledge but I think it can also be used to help fix the worlds problems by shinning much needed light onto them.
JordenBryer ( talk) 00:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for that great information. JordenBryer ( talk) 01:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I edited about Indian famines in the history section. Since perhaps tens of millions died during the British era famines, I think that is worth mentioning. Editingman ( talk)
I agree that the famines were important and huge but don't think the sentence fits in with the rest of the article. It would go in the British Raj para but, since there is no other detail about the Raj, this one detail stands out as WP:UNDUE. (I reverted Editingman's addition because it would be better to discuss it first here and seek consensus.) -- RegentsPark ( sticks and stones) 23:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey there are many points ablout Bharadhantyam in Tamil epic Chilapadhikaram which predates any written literature in Kannada.Just because Bharathanatyam is the most wide spread Classical dance in India ,it doesn't mean Bharadhantyam is not exclusive to Tamil nadu (arun1paladin Arun1paladin ( talk) 12:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC))
Refer this http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/64017/bharata-natyam —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arun1paladin ( talk • contribs) 12:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
RRRAD ( talk) 18:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)RRRAD. This is probably more suited in the 'History of India' section but is important here nonetheless. I think that Kingdoms and Empires of India should be mentioned here. What i mean to say is that those countries whose roots and civilisations have found origin in India should be included here and should be stated as such. These could include the Philippines, Tibet, Vietnam, Malayasia, Singapore, Burma(Myanmar), Bhutan, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Indonesia and all other countries, particularly from South and Southeast asia and territories, disputed or otherwise that in reality originated from India. For anyone who thinks this is a joke, its not. It is the interpretation of history and influence of other civilisations which have clouded the past and which have played an important role in your judgement against me.
But it seams that India will cut to small states sooner or later due to biased attitude of govt. and cruel Hindus against minorities as already 150 different groups are struggling against govt. for separation therefore no need to mentioned the roots as its size is already reducing (as concluded by facts and figure). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.19.25 ( talk) 18:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
It needs to be updated, most of the information is from 2005 and 2007. I made some changes.(Dewan S. Ahsan 13:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)) Also I made some changes in the beginning of the India section by adding other aspects of the Indian civilization.
Kindly take necessary actions Thanks
85.7% of the population was living on less than $2.50 (PPP) a day in 2005, compared with 80.5% for Sub-Saharan Africa.[108]- This information is wrong, please check and correct. It should be below 40%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bimgeorge ( talk • contribs) 01:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Under the Government type in the front page for India, aren't you just supposed to put the President and Prime Minister. Why would you need the VP and Chief Justice? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.62.224.107 ( talk) 19:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
The entire Jammu and Kashmir belongs to India and no other Country can even touch it. Just draw the map to its original one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.183.242.98 ( talk) 21:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I want to add in the etymology section that the name Bharat was derived from the name Bharata the son of King Dushyanta. The information is already there in wiki under Emperor Bharata category. So if there are no concerns I will make the edit after a day or two. Manohar.sram ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC).
Made the above change. Manohar.sram ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC).
Where is Alexander the Great in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.105.128.38 ( talk) 18:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Wherever I read, Indian history seems to jump from Asoka to Gupta. What was happening from (say) 100 B.C. to 100 A.D.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.42.142.2 ( talk) 04:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Do we need the template {{ Largest cities of India}} in the Demographics section of this article, and if so what version is preferred ?
The template, especially with the images, adds considerable bloat to the article and is almost as large as some other sections. The images are completely decorative, since there is insufficient room in the template to even add a caption explaining what is being shown. Also the
Lotus Temple image in the template is repeated in the cultural section image rotation; consequently on some days we diplay the same image twice in this article.
The template is trsncluded into this article and is not used anywhere else; attempts to reduce or remove images from the template are regularly reverted - most recently by
User:Nikkul. Can other editors comment on what they prefer and consider encyclopedic ?
My opinion is that either the template should not be used at all since we can provide more useful information more compactly through text (eg, "India has X number of cities with population over 10 million, Y number over 1 million ... " The article already says, "India's largest cities are Mumbai, Delhi, Kolkata, Chennai, Bangalore, Hyderabad and Ahmedabad."); and if it is to be used, it should not be bloated with decorative content.
Abecedare (
talk) 13:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the template is hideous and ungainly and shouldn't be in the article. My thoughts:
AreJay ( talk) 17:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
As per the above discussion, I have removed the template and added content about the urban-rural population. Interestingly, despite common perception, the urban share of India's population has not increased dramatically post-independence (it has gone up from ~17% in 1951 to 27% in 2001); however the concentration in the large cities (as opposed to small and medium towns) has increased significantly (see
[12]).
Also, the article stated previously (without any source) that "in recent decades migration to larger cities has led to a dramatic increase in the country's urban population." I thought that too, but that reasoning turns out to be a urban legend (couldn't resist!) - the "natural increase" in the existing population, rather than migration, is the most significant contributor to urban population growth (see
last para on page 116 and Table 6.5; I saw other references about this too). Just another example of why simply including what we think is right is so risky.
Feel free to copyedit, trim or otherwise improve my addition. Cheers.
Abecedare (
talk) 22:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with the Nano immage summary:
Firstly, I totally disagree with this statement :"India's strong engineering base and expertise ". It is a personal opinion. None of the refs say that. And that is true only if you count the number of engineering graduates passing out. Quality wise India's engineering talents are hardly world-beating. Really, think about it: what percentage of your PC is Indian in origin? And what Indian product (apart from Nano) does the world talk about? I dont know any.
For the second part :India as a small-car hub
-- Deepak D'Souza 14:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest to rotate the both image in History section as there are many historical facts about india which are very famous and have lots of images for the same. Moreover i would alos suggest to rotate the image showing Gandhi Ji as there were many gr8 incident in Indian Independence so i think we must show them aslso. -- Sandeepsp4u ( talk) 07:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
what was the outcome of the discussion please let me know and why can't we discusse this again is there any ruel of Wiki stoping this discussion ?.-- Sandeepsp4u ( talk) 06:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I request you to pelase give me the location of that discussion which happened earlier regarding this issue. -- Sandeepsp4u ( talk) 08:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
This photo is very nice.
Nikkul (
talk) 04:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Thnaks for your suggestion and guidence. But how can one say that only M.K.Gandhi and Nehru were responsible for the indian independence. We can't compare any one's secrifice and if yes then please let me know how ? There are lots of people like Bal Ganga Dhar Tilak, Subhash Chandra Bose, Sardar Patel, etc etc.. Even we can think about M.K.Gandhi but Nehru was not grater or more prominent among in compare with the name i had suggested. Please think over it-- Sandeepsp4u ( talk) 06:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Nikkul I agree on Gandhi but not on Nehru Sardar Patel was more then him. How can you compare all with the contribution of Subhahs, Tilak etc do u think that contribution is less then the nehru and if u think that then i think we need to discusses on this -- Sandeepsp4u ( talk) 07:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Deepak That's ur POV about Nehru but its not general thinking about Nehru. I think we must discusses about this if you want.-- Sandeepsp4u ( talk) 07:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Deepak ya i am correct becuase u are only promoting whome u liks and that's nehru but i am promoting all x,y,z. What do u say now ?-- Sandeepsp4u ( talk) 10:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Nice joke my friend then u must put the picture of first president of India, the Constitution writter of india etc etc.. Please read my sentence carefully i am not neglecting him i am just asking that how one can compare the amount of contribution so to justify every secrifice few more pictures must be included.-- Sandeepsp4u ( talk) 07:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Any objections to replacing by in the History section ? The latter picture is of higher image quality and was taken at a specific historic moment (the 1942 Congress session, where the Quit India resolution was adopted, which can be mentioned in the caption). The basic subject matter is the same so there is no POV/UNDUE issue raised by this change. Abecedare ( talk) 23:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I still support the rotation of image in this section. I am opposing this move as its same as was earlier. There must be rotation of image in history section of as indian history is evolved around Nehru Gandhi it is much longer then that. I think we are only showing the 60 yrs history by this picture. If we try to rotate the image with various others then only the history section will be justified.-- Sandeepsp4u ( talk) 10:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Why is there a new image of the Hoysaleshvara temple in the demography section? No context, bleeds into the next section and is in excess of already existing good architectural images. -SpacemanSpiff Calvin‡ Hobbes 21:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
The addition of the National personifications nav bar in the article is absurd. I reverted addition once, but it's been added back. A link to Bharat Mata if there's context is acceptable, but a nav bar with links to every other country's personifications?? -SpacemanSpiff Calvin‡ Hobbes 06:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Please forgive me, editors SpacemanSpiff and Abecedare, as I find both your arguments quite untenable. Even though the names and official symbols of India are covered in the article, there is not one link in the article that points to Bharat Mata, the long-term personification of India, and powerful in the minds of the Indian people. No not one. You want absurd? That's absurd. The addition of the Np Navbar might seem absurd to you, however it is anything but absurd. If you were a citizen of a country, who happened to hold high the symbols of your country, such as the flag, the colossal statue in the harbor, the sculpture in front of the leader's building, whatever the widely recognized symbols may be, you might sing a different tune.
You say that the Np Navbar should be deleted on the grounds that it is "a list masquerading as a navigational template". What is any nav. template but a list of other articles that are related to the subject of the article? If this is your reason for disliking the navbar, then you must dislike ALL navbars for the exact same reason. Are you beginning to see why your reasons for reverting my edits cannot hold up to scrutiny? And the other navboxes you removed, Abecedare, are also very important tools for readers to use, including the Template group you dismiss on a whim. Template grouping is a practice designed to make this encyclopedia appear more like an encyclopedia and less like a circus. If, when readers finish an article and come to the Template group, they want to see what's inside, then viola! a whole new array of choices for further reading open up to them!
Rather than being a "speed bump", this and other Navbars help readers to smoothly make a transition to whatever other related articles they may want to peruse. Moreover, this particular Navbar, which holds the historical personifications of twenty one countries including India, can give readers the important information that other people in other countries also personify their beloved countries, and they get the feeling that we're not so different after all, are we.
In the end, the purpose of all Navboxes is to FOCUS readers on the related articles and subjects under certain headings and titles. Navboxes give people reading choices so that their curiosity may continue to be piqued by the subject that interests them. They serve several important functions in this encyclopedia, and they deserve better than the negatives you have tossed at them. I shall not revert your edits again for a few days to allow some time for you to perhaps rethink your positions. Then, if you still feel the same, there may come a need for some uninvolved editors to come and help us arbitrate this conflict. I say this because I strongly believe that I am right about all this; however, I have been wrong before, so it's always good to seek the opinions of others.
I do respect you and your opinions, and I want to make that very clear to both of you. It's just that your arguments for noninclusion of these important navigational aids to readers make absolutely no sense to me. Please do reconsider.
—
.`^) Paine Ellsworth
diss`cuss (^`. 08:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
So, editors Abecedare and SpacemanSpiff, here we are a few days later, and it's time to go forward on these issues. Let me say first that, even though some of the things said above (like "absurd", "completely undue", "not even worth mentioning", "list masquerading as") might be construed by some editors who have put as much time and work into a template as I have to be uncalled for, even uncivil, I on the other hand will continue to assume good faith on your parts. I see by both your contributions that you have the same end in mind that I have... to improve this article and, ultimately, this encyclopedia.
The reason I assume good faith on your parts and, as well, respect your opinions, is because I'm acutely aware that I am far less involved in this particular article and its related articles than the two of you are. Hopefully, you will understand that I have put a lot of work into the Np Navbar just to get it to hold more than twenty countries. It's entire focus is to show the people of the various countries in the Navbar that they are not alone when it comes to personifying their beloved nations, that they can stretch their imaginations and learn about the historic personifications of other people in other areas of the world. That's the focus. That's the purpose and focus of this {{National personifications}} Navbar.
When we left this, we seemed to be in complete disagreement about the Np Navbar and the other Navbars, as well as the Template group issue. Since none of the Navbars have been reinstated, I take this to mean that neither of you feel differently than you did a few days ago? That would seem to be the prudent conclusion. Is there room in your opinion set for reaching a settlement via compromise? Please let me know your thoughts on these matters, as I am always willing to learn from editors who've been working on the Wikipedia for as long as both of you have.
—
.`^) Paine Ellsworth
diss`cuss (^`. 11:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
(out) Thank you both for your further comments. We seem to be at an impasse as concerns the National personifications template. Abecedare, you did not address the issue of those other templates you removed, which I also oppose. Those templates were in place when I installed the National personifications template, so removing them may go against the information preservation policy. Nor was the issue of the Template group addressed. Do you agree then that those Navbars you removed and the Template group can be reinstated?
On to the next step, then. Since there are just the three of us involved in this discussion, and the two of you appear to be fairly like-minded, I shall ask for a third party opinion as soon as I have some time. Thank you again very much for your welcome participation!
—
.`^) Paine Ellsworth
diss`cuss (^`. 20:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I came here from WP:3O. A navbar on national personifications seems to me completely out of context in this article. A navbar is meant to help people navigate between subjects which are all strictly related with the article, sharing a common theme and/or of the same category of the article itself. This is not the case Therefore, the navbar is properly located to the articles of the national personifications themselves, not on the nation's article. I understand the concern of Paine Ellesworth in wanting a link to the national personification of India, and I agree on such link to be added, but the navbar is not at all the right way. Hope it helps. -- Cyclopia ( talk) 14:05, 26 September 2009 (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 20 | ← | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | → | Archive 30 |
The edit war regarding the addition of File:India.Mumbai.01.jpg to this page needs to resolved here. -- KnowledgeHegemony talk 09:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
The picture is most likely adivasis in Mumbai, usually employed in construction and infrastructure projects. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the Stock Exchange image is quite far off the reality of most Indians. How about a farming image? After all, over two thirds of Indians are agricultural workers living in rural villages.
How about some of these images? Lalit Jagannath ( talk) 08:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
In India, 76% of the population lives on less than $2 a day (purchasing power), in nominal terms it is roughly 20 rupees or $0.5. That compares with 73% in Sub-Saharan Africa. 42% earns less than $1.25 (PPP). See [1] [2] [3]. 70% is either illiterate or has not finished primary education. Out of the remaining, only the elite affords to vocation training.
Yet affairs of ordinary Indians are persistently removed from the article.
Anyone else defending the right of ordinary Indians to be mentioned in the economy section?
Lalit Jagannath ( talk) 22:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Ok the economy section is supposed to talk about all economic factors in the country,including infrastructure, economic development, economic history, gdp, imports, exports, etc besides just poverty. There is already one full paragraph on poverty in India. What more do you want? Do you want to erase everything else and make the whole section about poverty in India? Nikkul ( talk) 15:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
When information was added about the occupation and income of ordinary Indians, i.e. most are rural workers living on less than 20 rupees a day, it was removed at least two times.
This seemed inconsistent, given how detailed the section is about elite professionals. Lalit Jagannath ( talk) 16:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Please make a section on education in India. The article should contain comprehensive information about school level and graduate level education, as well as research in various disciplines. Pointers on university system, institutes of engineering, management, science, medicine, etc. are required.
India has prestigious centers of excellence in education and research, and the education system unique in its make. These need to be highlighted with references.
The image of Ajanta caves had Aurangabad, but there are many Aurangabad. So I put in the proper Aurangabad, Maharashtra Dewan S. Ahsan 06:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I prosose to add the image of Ashoka Chakra in the government section in India. It is because it represents the united India historically and presently. It is the symbol of government in India and it deserves to be added in government. Also there should be pictures in the Geography section. Every country in wikipedia has a geography section filled with colorful images but not India. It is very important to show the natural beauty of India. (Dewan S. Ahsan 05:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)) I wish to add these images to the geography section and Ashoka Chakra in government.
I truely believe that there is a need to add more pictures in the India section to make it look better. (Dewan S. Ahsan 06:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC))
(+) Other countries such as China and the U.S. have pictures i their geography sections. (Dewan S. Ahsan 05:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC))
(+)I added these images for now until I find better pictures. These pictures still make the geography section more enjoyable to read and bring people interest to read the geography section. This is because when people see that there are wonderful images of the geography of India it will bring their interest even more to read the articles. Thank you! Please let these images stay in the section for couple of days or week until I find better images. Or if someone can find better images feel free to put them up!!!!thankyou!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dewan357 ( talk • contribs)
Suggestion: I think instead of adding a generic landscape image (such as Velley of flowers, Thar or Western ghats that Dewan added), a good subject for the geography section would be to add a satellite image illustrating the path of the monsoon winds/clouds over India. That certainly is an important and distinctive feature of Indian climate, which has a significant impact on its population and economy - and this can be outlined in the image caption. The only problem is finding a suitable image :) A quick websearch found this, which is of poor quality. We can get realtime images from METEOSAT and INSAT, but the current season is not very interesting and I haven't yet looked at the licensing issues either. Any thoughts or ideas ? Abecedare ( talk) 01:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
the word "independence" in the main box is very wrong as india did not arise overnight. its a 5500 year old continuous civilization and thus should have the words "foundation - indus valley civilization - 3500 bc", then "formation - mauryan empire - 2500 bc", then "independence - ..."
the concept of independc is entirely western and wikipedia must support a NPOV. the indian POV is occupation.........
pls change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.12.217 ( talk) 11:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
There should be some mention of the fact that India has the oldest continuous culture and civilization in the world - quite significant so should be in the lead. 98.234.52.29 ( talk) 09:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
may you make photos of Indian Plated mail and Mirror armour? especially interested in famous sind-armour ( Idot ( talk) 03:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC))
Hi There,
GDP and Per Capita income need to be updated as in Hindi version. The data should not be different whether one is on Hindi Pages or in English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deep1012 ( talk • contribs) 12:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
This is for your kind information that there exist other territories within the territory of Goa. The teritories comprises of village communes called as 'COMMUNES OF GOA'(also called as 'Comunidades' in Portuguese and 'Gaunkaries' in Konkani). There are a total of 223 Communes in Goa. More than two-third of the land of Goa (other than forest)belongs to the Communes and the rest belongs to the Government of Goa. As of today the Govt. Of Goa (India) stands illegally on the Comunidades. A grave error has been committed by not including the same in the 'Administrative Divisions' section. A request has been made to wiki:Goa page too.
Kindly coordinate and edit as follows;
Administrative Divisions
28 states
7 Union territories
223 Communes of Goa
A link on 'Communes of Goa' is desired on the India page.
I request members to be careful before making rude comments especially if ignorant of the facts. Kindly make necessary changes immediately because a comprehensive article on 'The Communes of Goa' is due to be published on wikipedia.
References are given below;
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
For more information;
http://www.geocities.com/newagegoa/Chapter8.html?1146661378765 --
Gaunkars of Goa (
talk) 19:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Bharat Ganarjya is only the term for the "Republic of India".
And why do you delete the region informations? -- Ultramegasuperstar ( talk) 15:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
The edit was reverted for the following reasons:
-- KnowledgeHegemony talk 16:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
after several years of watching this, I am convinced that keeping this article at
India only gives us grief.
"India" may mean several things, depending on context, see
India (disambiguation). The scope of this article is the Republic of India ONLY.
Now this is made plain as plain in the very first line after the page title, but many people seem still to be unable to to read as far as even that before starting to complain or create confusion. Talk about short attention spans!
I suggest that we should move this article to Republic of India. India would still be a redirect, to save us from link piping hell, but the ambiguous title would finally be the {{ redirect}}, while the actual page title will finally be unambiguous. -- dab (𒁳) 22:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Can't we just move this article to Republic of India to avoid all the confusion? -- Rsrikanth05 ( talk) 13:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I have made recent edits to several sections of the India Wiki page. The objective was to present more information and relevant references to enable readers to get a deeper glimpse. This new version was undone with a recession to an older version with the justification that it was a "dramatic" edit and required consensus on the talk page. In view of this, I request active editors/viewers to make suggestions by comparing the current version and older versions and determining whether the new content really needs to be removed. I believe sincerely that the new content adds more detail about the various aspects of India and in addition two sections that had been hitherto ignored - Indian society (as distinct from culture) and Science and technology, which was omitted from previous versions.
Best Regards. -- User:Techraj ( talk) 13:39 ET, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Society section
|
---|
Indian society is characterized by the same pluralism and multiculturalism that defines Indian culture. Most Indians living in the rural areas. Indian cities are characteristically densely populated and are home to all the major cross sections of Indian society, although the compositions of the cities change between different locations. Large Indian metropolitan cities are increasingly cosmopolitan and attract visitors and immigrants from all over India, from other cities and from the villages. The income gap between the poor and the rich in India is vast. It is common to see many contrasting economic faces of India in most Indian cities. The advent of globalization and consumerism is evident in most Indian metropolitan cities, such as
Mumbai,
Delhi,
Bangalore,
Chennai,
Hyderabad and
Kolkata. Large Indian cities have recently recorded increased domestic violence, street gangs and crime.
[1] The Indian media is a vibrant Fourth Estate which has emerged out of the relaxed information policies of the Indian government in recent years. Indian newspapers such as The Telegraph, The Times of India and The Hindu have had a long history of reputed news reporters and journalists who have now taken to the television medium as well. India is served by the All India Radio, a government service with news and entertainment, as well as by Doordarshan, the national television channels. With the increase in television ownership in urban and rural homes across India, there has been a proliferation of Indian news channels such as NDTV, CNN-IBN and Times Now in addition to entertainment channels. The Indian news media has recently been involved in several high profile events such as the Kargil war and December 2008 Mumbai terror attacks and has been severely criticized on occasion on account of being sensationalist. [2] A large number of Indian diaspora are present in countries like the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Germany, UAE and other countries in Europe and the Middle East. Diaspora from Indian states like Punjab, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat are commonly represented amongst Indian disapora abroad, especially in the United States. |
Science and technology
|
---|
Science and technology have always been areas where India has made its mark. Indian metallurgists were responsible for the iron pillar of Delhi built 300 years after the Christian era. Ancient Indian texts such as the Vedanga Jyothisha contain elaborate observations of heavenly objects. The great Indian astronomer and mathematician Aryabhata was responsible for several key breakthroughs in furthering the way humans understood the universe and predated Nicholas Copernicus by nearly 1000 years in proposing the Heliocentric theory. India was the only region in ancient times to have perfected the art of diamond mining. Indian mathematician Srinivasa Ramanujan is generally regarded as one of the greatest mathematicians of all time. Indian physicist C V Raman was awarded a Nobel Prize in physics in 1928. Although India started as a poor country after Independence, over the next five decades, it developed into a formidable technological power in South Asia. The precedents that led to this technological rise were an increase in literacy levels, agricultural productivity and the rise of urban centres. Some of the events that chronicle India's technological progress are the launch of its first satellite Aryabhata in 1975 and its Operation Smiling Buddha the previous year, when it conducted an underground nuclear test. The development of telecommunications and nuclear reactors and research stations like the BARC, led by Homi J Bhabha led to development. [3]. India has developed indigenously a capability to launch satellites into low-earth, polar and geostationary orbits. The ASLV, PSLV and GSLV as well as the INSAT series of satellites stand testimony to its successful space program. It has also developed and manufactured the Advanced Light Helicopter as well as the LCA Tejas as indigenous airpower alternatives. India has also progressed on the realty and infrastructure front with companies like Larsen and Toubro, DLF and others paving the way forward. India's first supercomputer to be listed amongst the fastest computers on earth was the Param Padma in 2003 developed at the Center for Development of Advanced Computing. [4] Economic liberalization and the information technology revolution in the 1990s have both led to India taking a centre stage in the world as one of the leading nations in terms of information technology. Leading technology companies around India and the world such as IBM, Microsoft, Cisco Systems, Infosys, Tata Consultancy Services, Wipro and others have set up offices in Indian cities like Bangalore, Chennai and Hyderabad. |
The newspaper section is definitely undue. YellowMonkey ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 04:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Pakistan does not include Indian administered Kashmir(I.A.K) in its main map. Kindly explain why the main main information box on India has a map including Pakistan Administered Kashmir(P.A.K)? Should the Pakistan wikipedia article add I.A.K in light green as well? Or should the India article remove it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.58.66 ( talk) 23:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Namaskar frieds (hello),this article is very accurate and sublime but,public health and religion in india should be in main page with neat and short information , it will help to readers to know about religion and public life .And like Germany Infrastructure ,Science ,Education content chapters will enfocus the other important aspects if india, aren't they? so i think that will make India very understandable. wqwqwqwq 07:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC) 07:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC) Rajvaddhan
-- Rsrikanth05 ( talk) 11:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
It says in the intro that India is considered a potential superpower. Is this really necessary to put down, as China, Russia, and EU are the other mentioned potential superpowers, and on their pages, that isn't mentioned. So is this really necessary, as it seems like someone is just trying to advertise it or something. Deavenger ( talk) 23:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
States are more than administrative divisions, they are also political divisions, since each state has an elected government which wields law-making powers as per the state list in the Constitution. Please revert the title back to States and Union Territories. 70.112.0.5 ( talk) 02:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
On the pages of Russia, China, US and so many other countries, the size of the military budget and army, n-power is mentioned in the intro. After all, it makes sense to describe both economic and military power. Why remove the military part from India???? Steed Asprey - 171( talk) 7:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I've changed the description of the languages in the Eighth Schedule to "Constitutionally recognised languages". This is more accurate than "official languages" (the languages of the Eighth Schedule aren't " official languages in any standard sense of the word), and is pretty close to the way they're described in other sources, such as the LoC's country profiles. I really hope this wording is acceptable. -- Arvind ( talk) 22:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
This is kinda unimportant, but I was just wondering what the light green area on the globe meant. It doesn't seem to say in the article. 74.33.174.133 ( talk) 19:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Just noticed. All GDP values have , not a . dot. like this $3,288 trillion should be $3.288 trillion. Make first change or Change it to billions from trillion ( Kashifyy ( talk) 05:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC))
I think Science and technology section is not minor for India, being one of the chief programmer exporters and all...
Also, I would like to add that "India also is the top milk producer worldwide, according to 2005 information, producing 91 million tonnes." I don't know if I should add it to economy section, as it was removed, I believe without even mention of it...
It was 100.9 million tonnes 2006-2007.
MEEEEEEEEE! ( talk) 08:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I also think India needs a Science & Technology section, being one of very few developing countries with a space program, nuclear research, huge IT base, etc.
Nikkul (
talk) 05:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
When we can not translate any name. (Its Language Law) Why the Bharat is named as India in English. If you are Bharati then solve it.
By Avinash Bhola mail@atoall.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.62.101.251 ( talk) 11:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Its original name was Aryavart, that page is not as accurate as it could be, one of the kings (his name was Bharat) changes the name to Bharat. When foreigners came to india they couldn't pronounce "sind"(indus river), so they called it the indus. india comes from there. if you are researching ancient india, dont look for india, but instead for bharat, or aryavart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dev000 ( talk • contribs) 04:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Can you tell me why you deleted reference to Vedic civilization from introduction page. I have been college-educated in India and over here, Vedic culture is taught in the same breath as Indus Valley Civilization. Hindu religious beliefs, Sanskrit etc. are a byproduct of this theme. I know you may have had a consensus on this issue before but it was very difficult to find an explanation in the archives as you suggested. So, I'd love to understand the reason behind this change. India id 25% enviromentally friendly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.219.112 ( talk) 08:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Regards -- Tech editor007 ( talk) 21:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Why does the world call this country India while Ghandi called for the British to quit India and the usage of India as the name in stead of Bharat seems illogical -- 82.134.154.25 ( talk) 23:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
In India, people call the country 'India' but with the accent of their own language. In French, it was not called 'Inde' (India) but 'les Indes' (the Indias) and even today people from another generation might say, je vais aux Indes (I am going to the Indias), but they probably mean India, not Pakistan or Bangladesh. OK, so you should try and change the name of the article :-) Trompeta ( talk) 16:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Cars in India are built so that the drivers drive on the right side of the car, which contrasts with how they are built in the United States and many other nations. In America, cars are built so that drivers drive on the left side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.27.217.251 ( talk) 00:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Driving side on the main page has been told as Left but actually we drive on right in India like UK!!!
Nishant.parashar (
talk) 07:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I've been looking for quite a while, but I have no answer yet. Why does the country have a very large exclave to the east, separated by Bangladesh? What caused this? And what is this part of the country called? Elfred ( talk) 02:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
The GDP numbers are too high by a factor of 1000. It should either be in billions, or $1.3 Trillion instead of $1,300 Trillion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Therealgandalf ( talk • contribs) 18:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
therealgandalf ( talk) 18:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
There must be people who do not recognise India as a full democracy in view that its cast system resembles in many respects apartheid. At least the reference to the cast system should be in the opening paragraph and before any reference to the country's apparently democratic credentials. At least that is what seems right to me. Trompeta ( talk) 19:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Good you found it. Racism in the US is not an institution, the cast system in India is very much an institution supported by the main religion of the country, that is why I suggest including it in the first paragraph as well as keeping the fact that India is a democracy. Trompeta ( talk) 18:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
A good many people in India have been condemning the caste (thank you) system, as well as during the latest elections: "India's poorest and most downtrodden people do 'dirty' jobs higher castes regard as 'polluting'." [6]. We cannot compare that with England and I do not think Mayawati would. In any case there are no class murders in England [7]. Thank you for your response. Trompeta ( talk) 16:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Caste sytem is a personal peeve? Perhaps we are communicating over a cultural gap my dear fellow editor. Even though I must accept that your explanation above is very resonable (even if, to paraphrase you, there is no British Institute of Democracy', ergo no democracy in Britain?). Trompeta ( talk) 16:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I want to say that only gandhi ji was not responsible for the freedom of india then why there are no names of other leaders as there is a list of great leaders ? I had tried posting the name of few leaders but it is getting deleted. please help me -- Sandeepsp4u ( talk) 09:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I recall there being an extended debate about this issue some time back. May be worth looking through the archives, so that we don't have to start from scratch. Abecedare ( talk) 17:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
The archive search function is great! Here is the ~400K discussion on the topic:
I think the conclusion last time was to expand and develop the Indian independence movement and add its summary to the History of India page, whose summary would then be added in this article. That way, (1) it would be easier to ensure due weight, and (2) we would end up developing the sub-articles where the reader can go for more detail. I know that the proposed process was started and User:Fowler&fowler and User:Rueben lys especially worked on many articles related to IIM biographies and events; but I am not sure if it was ever "completed". Abecedare ( talk) 17:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I think people hear are insulting Subhas Chandra Bose, Bhagat Singh, Tilak Ji etc. How one can prove that only gandhi Ji was resoponsible for the freedome of india. Its ok he was one among the gr8 but he was not only. I think that atleas few big heros should be given respect by keeping there name on this main page of India. Ther is picture of Gandhi Ji so i think this heroes atlest are eligable to have there name on the page of India ( its ok if we dont put there pic and it is not possible also) Tilak Ji who had initated the struggle of Independence Gandhi Ji had just fallowed it. Bhagat Singh led his life for the freedom and after that people really awaken and started fighting for the freedom. So i think that atleast there name should be there. -- Sandeepsp4u ( talk) 07:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
On the comments on Tilak Ji i would like to say that Gandhi Ji joined Tilak Ji and was influnced by his views. I chalange that Only Gandhi Ji was not responsible for the Freedom of inda as there were many factors for the freedom. I agree on the point that it is difficult to list all the names but there should be some names who are prominent equal to Gandhi Ji the the freedom sturggle. As per the comments wiritten above if the discussion was taken place then why it is still not implemented. My point of view is only that few other names also should be there on the main page of India -- Sandeepsp4u ( talk) 07:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Deepak D'Souza the question is not that one editor is not liking it, i can bring 100 editors hear who wont like this then what will be done. The question hear is what is truth should be fallowed, i am discussing hear not for my linkings or dislinkings but only for provideing equall respect to all the great gems of our country. I just want to know that if the discusion had taken place earlier then why the changes had not beed made or it seems that this India page is owned by few people who only want there editings on the page. -- Sandeepsp4u ( talk) 05:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Deepak D'Souza i am not threaten you i am answering you on your statement " no point on going on a discussin for on editor" that's i used a senttence " i can bring 100 editors hear who will dislike it" Moreover about the archives you had said i had gone through it and i had found in the end that there was no sound result arrived by such a long discussion. The page of India is still as it is after that discussion also and which shows that the changes are not accepted eaisly by few people hear. About democracy i will only say that you are editing the page of worlds largest democratic nation. I am still arguing on my point as after reading your archives i had come to know that there was no change on India page -- Sandeepsp4u ( talk) 05:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
The article India shows that there are 610 districts, The link supporting, the claim shows only 585 districts in India, But the Government of India says thare are only 604 districts, Please check out the below link:-
Please update the portal accordinlying. as all user dosen't have right to update this article.
Hope to see changes soon. -- Makks2010 ( talk) 01:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
All the topics about indian defence forces n systems are vandalised with false information with referance to news sites based in pakistan. How come you take referances from pakistani news networks about indian defence to be neutral and trusted.
I hope wiki-india project users and wiki admistrators got my point and will look into this matter and clean up the topic to neutral standards. ( Sushilkumarmishra ( talk) 11:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC))
I had to make an addendum to the topic mentioning the fact that India is a member of G-20 major economies, WTO, and the United Nations (UN). Svr014 ( talk) 19:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I ask you to reinstate the added line that says that India is a member of the UN, WTO, and G-20 major economies. Look at South Korea (SK) introduction paragraphs. It says the same about SK. Abecedare, please do not vandalize the content posted on wikipedia. I have reported to the Administrator of English Wikipedia about this vandalism. Svr014 ( talk) 15:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
South Korea is a pretty average article to say the least YellowMonkey ( cricket calendar poll!) 01:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I have added {{ International organisation membership of India}} that list all the major organisations India belongs to. However, the template can perhaps be improved (see here) - so feel free to edit and/or expand it. Abecedare ( talk) 01:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
It is very imperative on your part (Abecedare) not to 'negate' important addendums made by others. There is no need for any consensus. Obedience and respect is what is required by you. Look at the introduction paragraphs of the country South Korea. It mentions that South Korea is a member of United Nations, WTO, OECD, and G-20 (major economies). Likewise, I want to mark India which is a country in South Asia. India is member of UN, WTO, and G-20 (major economies). All scholars in the US know that not all information posted on WP can be trusted for obvious reasons. Please don't try to teach me some information. Thanks for your time. Svr014 ( talk) 17:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Chicagoland, Illinois, USA.
I suggest that there should be a gallery at the end of the article. Enthusiast10 ( talk) 13:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
the decimals in the side bar are written as commas. so 3.288 trillion reads as 3,288 trillion which is misleading. i don't know how to edit the sidebar data, can somebody help? Perryizgr8 ( talk) 05:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
The article must include images from all corners of India (as said above), so why was this Image removed? >>
atleast it's of the Indian culture. The Taj Mahal was built by the Turkish (Mughal) dynasty. And talking abt world heritage sites there are many other like the the city of Chandigarh or the Kalka-Shimla Toy train. But there seems no mention to them.
Moreover the Building picture of the "Taj" looks more like a advertisement pic for attracting tourists.
There are NO pic's showing true Indian Architecture (TajMahal's Turkish.. remember?)
02.06.09 HFret ( talk) 07:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Note: I have moved this discussion to the India noticeboard talkpage, since it is off-topic here. Please continue any discussion there. Abecedare ( talk) 17:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I know this isn't the brightest attribute of India (and many other countries), but having the largest sex trade in all of Asia, I think some information regarding that fact should be edited onto the India page. Considering there are nearly 200,000 young and usually underage Nepalese women and girls in India right now being forced into prostitution, I think they deserve a voice. By putting information on this page regarding that we could help them by letting the world know that such suffering exists in India and maybe more people would seek out to help them. I know I have. Perhaps also putting information on those attempting to aid this problem. Non-profit organizations spearheading forced prostitution and brothels for example; as this would give people not only a reason to offer help, but the means as well.
Just my two cents.. Wikipedia spreads all sorts of knowledge but I think it can also be used to help fix the worlds problems by shinning much needed light onto them.
JordenBryer ( talk) 00:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for that great information. JordenBryer ( talk) 01:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I edited about Indian famines in the history section. Since perhaps tens of millions died during the British era famines, I think that is worth mentioning. Editingman ( talk)
I agree that the famines were important and huge but don't think the sentence fits in with the rest of the article. It would go in the British Raj para but, since there is no other detail about the Raj, this one detail stands out as WP:UNDUE. (I reverted Editingman's addition because it would be better to discuss it first here and seek consensus.) -- RegentsPark ( sticks and stones) 23:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey there are many points ablout Bharadhantyam in Tamil epic Chilapadhikaram which predates any written literature in Kannada.Just because Bharathanatyam is the most wide spread Classical dance in India ,it doesn't mean Bharadhantyam is not exclusive to Tamil nadu (arun1paladin Arun1paladin ( talk) 12:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC))
Refer this http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/64017/bharata-natyam —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arun1paladin ( talk • contribs) 12:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
RRRAD ( talk) 18:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)RRRAD. This is probably more suited in the 'History of India' section but is important here nonetheless. I think that Kingdoms and Empires of India should be mentioned here. What i mean to say is that those countries whose roots and civilisations have found origin in India should be included here and should be stated as such. These could include the Philippines, Tibet, Vietnam, Malayasia, Singapore, Burma(Myanmar), Bhutan, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Indonesia and all other countries, particularly from South and Southeast asia and territories, disputed or otherwise that in reality originated from India. For anyone who thinks this is a joke, its not. It is the interpretation of history and influence of other civilisations which have clouded the past and which have played an important role in your judgement against me.
But it seams that India will cut to small states sooner or later due to biased attitude of govt. and cruel Hindus against minorities as already 150 different groups are struggling against govt. for separation therefore no need to mentioned the roots as its size is already reducing (as concluded by facts and figure). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.19.25 ( talk) 18:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
It needs to be updated, most of the information is from 2005 and 2007. I made some changes.(Dewan S. Ahsan 13:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)) Also I made some changes in the beginning of the India section by adding other aspects of the Indian civilization.
Kindly take necessary actions Thanks
85.7% of the population was living on less than $2.50 (PPP) a day in 2005, compared with 80.5% for Sub-Saharan Africa.[108]- This information is wrong, please check and correct. It should be below 40%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bimgeorge ( talk • contribs) 01:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Under the Government type in the front page for India, aren't you just supposed to put the President and Prime Minister. Why would you need the VP and Chief Justice? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.62.224.107 ( talk) 19:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
The entire Jammu and Kashmir belongs to India and no other Country can even touch it. Just draw the map to its original one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.183.242.98 ( talk) 21:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I want to add in the etymology section that the name Bharat was derived from the name Bharata the son of King Dushyanta. The information is already there in wiki under Emperor Bharata category. So if there are no concerns I will make the edit after a day or two. Manohar.sram ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC).
Made the above change. Manohar.sram ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC).
Where is Alexander the Great in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.105.128.38 ( talk) 18:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Wherever I read, Indian history seems to jump from Asoka to Gupta. What was happening from (say) 100 B.C. to 100 A.D.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.42.142.2 ( talk) 04:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Do we need the template {{ Largest cities of India}} in the Demographics section of this article, and if so what version is preferred ?
The template, especially with the images, adds considerable bloat to the article and is almost as large as some other sections. The images are completely decorative, since there is insufficient room in the template to even add a caption explaining what is being shown. Also the
Lotus Temple image in the template is repeated in the cultural section image rotation; consequently on some days we diplay the same image twice in this article.
The template is trsncluded into this article and is not used anywhere else; attempts to reduce or remove images from the template are regularly reverted - most recently by
User:Nikkul. Can other editors comment on what they prefer and consider encyclopedic ?
My opinion is that either the template should not be used at all since we can provide more useful information more compactly through text (eg, "India has X number of cities with population over 10 million, Y number over 1 million ... " The article already says, "India's largest cities are Mumbai, Delhi, Kolkata, Chennai, Bangalore, Hyderabad and Ahmedabad."); and if it is to be used, it should not be bloated with decorative content.
Abecedare (
talk) 13:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the template is hideous and ungainly and shouldn't be in the article. My thoughts:
AreJay ( talk) 17:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
As per the above discussion, I have removed the template and added content about the urban-rural population. Interestingly, despite common perception, the urban share of India's population has not increased dramatically post-independence (it has gone up from ~17% in 1951 to 27% in 2001); however the concentration in the large cities (as opposed to small and medium towns) has increased significantly (see
[12]).
Also, the article stated previously (without any source) that "in recent decades migration to larger cities has led to a dramatic increase in the country's urban population." I thought that too, but that reasoning turns out to be a urban legend (couldn't resist!) - the "natural increase" in the existing population, rather than migration, is the most significant contributor to urban population growth (see
last para on page 116 and Table 6.5; I saw other references about this too). Just another example of why simply including what we think is right is so risky.
Feel free to copyedit, trim or otherwise improve my addition. Cheers.
Abecedare (
talk) 22:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with the Nano immage summary:
Firstly, I totally disagree with this statement :"India's strong engineering base and expertise ". It is a personal opinion. None of the refs say that. And that is true only if you count the number of engineering graduates passing out. Quality wise India's engineering talents are hardly world-beating. Really, think about it: what percentage of your PC is Indian in origin? And what Indian product (apart from Nano) does the world talk about? I dont know any.
For the second part :India as a small-car hub
-- Deepak D'Souza 14:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest to rotate the both image in History section as there are many historical facts about india which are very famous and have lots of images for the same. Moreover i would alos suggest to rotate the image showing Gandhi Ji as there were many gr8 incident in Indian Independence so i think we must show them aslso. -- Sandeepsp4u ( talk) 07:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
what was the outcome of the discussion please let me know and why can't we discusse this again is there any ruel of Wiki stoping this discussion ?.-- Sandeepsp4u ( talk) 06:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I request you to pelase give me the location of that discussion which happened earlier regarding this issue. -- Sandeepsp4u ( talk) 08:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
This photo is very nice.
Nikkul (
talk) 04:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Thnaks for your suggestion and guidence. But how can one say that only M.K.Gandhi and Nehru were responsible for the indian independence. We can't compare any one's secrifice and if yes then please let me know how ? There are lots of people like Bal Ganga Dhar Tilak, Subhash Chandra Bose, Sardar Patel, etc etc.. Even we can think about M.K.Gandhi but Nehru was not grater or more prominent among in compare with the name i had suggested. Please think over it-- Sandeepsp4u ( talk) 06:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Nikkul I agree on Gandhi but not on Nehru Sardar Patel was more then him. How can you compare all with the contribution of Subhahs, Tilak etc do u think that contribution is less then the nehru and if u think that then i think we need to discusses on this -- Sandeepsp4u ( talk) 07:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Deepak That's ur POV about Nehru but its not general thinking about Nehru. I think we must discusses about this if you want.-- Sandeepsp4u ( talk) 07:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Deepak ya i am correct becuase u are only promoting whome u liks and that's nehru but i am promoting all x,y,z. What do u say now ?-- Sandeepsp4u ( talk) 10:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Nice joke my friend then u must put the picture of first president of India, the Constitution writter of india etc etc.. Please read my sentence carefully i am not neglecting him i am just asking that how one can compare the amount of contribution so to justify every secrifice few more pictures must be included.-- Sandeepsp4u ( talk) 07:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Any objections to replacing by in the History section ? The latter picture is of higher image quality and was taken at a specific historic moment (the 1942 Congress session, where the Quit India resolution was adopted, which can be mentioned in the caption). The basic subject matter is the same so there is no POV/UNDUE issue raised by this change. Abecedare ( talk) 23:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I still support the rotation of image in this section. I am opposing this move as its same as was earlier. There must be rotation of image in history section of as indian history is evolved around Nehru Gandhi it is much longer then that. I think we are only showing the 60 yrs history by this picture. If we try to rotate the image with various others then only the history section will be justified.-- Sandeepsp4u ( talk) 10:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Why is there a new image of the Hoysaleshvara temple in the demography section? No context, bleeds into the next section and is in excess of already existing good architectural images. -SpacemanSpiff Calvin‡ Hobbes 21:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
The addition of the National personifications nav bar in the article is absurd. I reverted addition once, but it's been added back. A link to Bharat Mata if there's context is acceptable, but a nav bar with links to every other country's personifications?? -SpacemanSpiff Calvin‡ Hobbes 06:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Please forgive me, editors SpacemanSpiff and Abecedare, as I find both your arguments quite untenable. Even though the names and official symbols of India are covered in the article, there is not one link in the article that points to Bharat Mata, the long-term personification of India, and powerful in the minds of the Indian people. No not one. You want absurd? That's absurd. The addition of the Np Navbar might seem absurd to you, however it is anything but absurd. If you were a citizen of a country, who happened to hold high the symbols of your country, such as the flag, the colossal statue in the harbor, the sculpture in front of the leader's building, whatever the widely recognized symbols may be, you might sing a different tune.
You say that the Np Navbar should be deleted on the grounds that it is "a list masquerading as a navigational template". What is any nav. template but a list of other articles that are related to the subject of the article? If this is your reason for disliking the navbar, then you must dislike ALL navbars for the exact same reason. Are you beginning to see why your reasons for reverting my edits cannot hold up to scrutiny? And the other navboxes you removed, Abecedare, are also very important tools for readers to use, including the Template group you dismiss on a whim. Template grouping is a practice designed to make this encyclopedia appear more like an encyclopedia and less like a circus. If, when readers finish an article and come to the Template group, they want to see what's inside, then viola! a whole new array of choices for further reading open up to them!
Rather than being a "speed bump", this and other Navbars help readers to smoothly make a transition to whatever other related articles they may want to peruse. Moreover, this particular Navbar, which holds the historical personifications of twenty one countries including India, can give readers the important information that other people in other countries also personify their beloved countries, and they get the feeling that we're not so different after all, are we.
In the end, the purpose of all Navboxes is to FOCUS readers on the related articles and subjects under certain headings and titles. Navboxes give people reading choices so that their curiosity may continue to be piqued by the subject that interests them. They serve several important functions in this encyclopedia, and they deserve better than the negatives you have tossed at them. I shall not revert your edits again for a few days to allow some time for you to perhaps rethink your positions. Then, if you still feel the same, there may come a need for some uninvolved editors to come and help us arbitrate this conflict. I say this because I strongly believe that I am right about all this; however, I have been wrong before, so it's always good to seek the opinions of others.
I do respect you and your opinions, and I want to make that very clear to both of you. It's just that your arguments for noninclusion of these important navigational aids to readers make absolutely no sense to me. Please do reconsider.
—
.`^) Paine Ellsworth
diss`cuss (^`. 08:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
So, editors Abecedare and SpacemanSpiff, here we are a few days later, and it's time to go forward on these issues. Let me say first that, even though some of the things said above (like "absurd", "completely undue", "not even worth mentioning", "list masquerading as") might be construed by some editors who have put as much time and work into a template as I have to be uncalled for, even uncivil, I on the other hand will continue to assume good faith on your parts. I see by both your contributions that you have the same end in mind that I have... to improve this article and, ultimately, this encyclopedia.
The reason I assume good faith on your parts and, as well, respect your opinions, is because I'm acutely aware that I am far less involved in this particular article and its related articles than the two of you are. Hopefully, you will understand that I have put a lot of work into the Np Navbar just to get it to hold more than twenty countries. It's entire focus is to show the people of the various countries in the Navbar that they are not alone when it comes to personifying their beloved nations, that they can stretch their imaginations and learn about the historic personifications of other people in other areas of the world. That's the focus. That's the purpose and focus of this {{National personifications}} Navbar.
When we left this, we seemed to be in complete disagreement about the Np Navbar and the other Navbars, as well as the Template group issue. Since none of the Navbars have been reinstated, I take this to mean that neither of you feel differently than you did a few days ago? That would seem to be the prudent conclusion. Is there room in your opinion set for reaching a settlement via compromise? Please let me know your thoughts on these matters, as I am always willing to learn from editors who've been working on the Wikipedia for as long as both of you have.
—
.`^) Paine Ellsworth
diss`cuss (^`. 11:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
(out) Thank you both for your further comments. We seem to be at an impasse as concerns the National personifications template. Abecedare, you did not address the issue of those other templates you removed, which I also oppose. Those templates were in place when I installed the National personifications template, so removing them may go against the information preservation policy. Nor was the issue of the Template group addressed. Do you agree then that those Navbars you removed and the Template group can be reinstated?
On to the next step, then. Since there are just the three of us involved in this discussion, and the two of you appear to be fairly like-minded, I shall ask for a third party opinion as soon as I have some time. Thank you again very much for your welcome participation!
—
.`^) Paine Ellsworth
diss`cuss (^`. 20:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I came here from WP:3O. A navbar on national personifications seems to me completely out of context in this article. A navbar is meant to help people navigate between subjects which are all strictly related with the article, sharing a common theme and/or of the same category of the article itself. This is not the case Therefore, the navbar is properly located to the articles of the national personifications themselves, not on the nation's article. I understand the concern of Paine Ellesworth in wanting a link to the national personification of India, and I agree on such link to be added, but the navbar is not at all the right way. Hope it helps. -- Cyclopia ( talk) 14:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)