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 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | → | Archive 30 |
Any reason why there is no section on Science & Technology? 71.198.231.7 ( talk) 09:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
A previous sentence describes unresolved terriorial claims, which is a good preface for the resolved territorial claims. Goa is one of them. India drove Portugal out and now everyone recognizes the India governing of Goa.
So the article says (paraphrasing): India has unresolved territorial claims. (adding) Some territorial claims have been resolved, such as reclaiming Goa from Portugal in 1961 when the Portuguese were driven out by military conquest.
This new sentence can be reworded, no problem. Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 19:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I have reverted this latest edit by Suomi Finland 2009, which expanded the existing sentence,
"On 15 August 1947, India gained independence from British rule, but at the same time Muslim-majority areas were partitioned to form a separate state of Pakistan"
with the addendum,
"and Goa remained under foreign control until a 1961 liberation."
I believe this addition is undue, since many large princely states (including Kashmir and Hyderabad) and French and Portuguese enclaves (including Goa, Pondicherry, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Daman and Diu) joined India post-15th August 1947, and singling out Goa for mention is inappropriate. All this is covered in the linked article History of the Republic of India, and further details are included in Political integration of India and dozens of others linked from there. Abecedare ( talk) 03:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Goa is the only territory of the Indian sub-continent whose legal status is yet to be ascertained. The 'de facto' control by India has not been legally recognised by the United Nations, and the 'de jure' status can only come through the self-determination of the indigenous people of Goa. All information regards Goa is misleading and should be put under a big question mark. An effort was made to bring out the legal facts (with sources, references) as regards Goa, but it was too good for wikipedia to consider. Those who wish to know more can find it all on our website. -- Gaunkars of Goa ( talk) 05:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Are there any objections to changing the talk page archive settings from 91 days to 30 days, and 9 threads to 5 threads? The talk page is inordinately long, and is getting to be as difficult to load as the article itself! If a thread hasn't been touched in 30 days, it's definitely gone past sell by date. If there aren't any objections, by Saturday, I'll change then, unless we get consensus earlier than that. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff Calvin‡ Hobbes 16:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I think the Ajanta image needs to be replaced. India has a rich history and the Ajanta image just does not satisfy. It is unclear, irrelevant, and unnecessary.
Are there any other candidates images? Nikkul ( talk) 01:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
What? You've got someting against artistic nudity? *joke* -- HFret ( talk) 12:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
{{
Indian image rotation}}
template, for rotation of images.--
Redtigerxyz
Talk 15:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)I miss the good ol' days when the Taj's image was removed from the article... It felt good without the hyper-cliched-styreotype India icon that it has turned into. I'm not trying to racially isolate the mausoleum for being Persian and not Indian, but the point is that it's picture just doesn't faithfully represent the diverse cultures of the country.
The Mahabodhi Temple picture is a great one. It signifies an integeral culture of India, the Buddhists'. But, as far as my knowledge goes, the Mughal culture had died out centuries ago... (with remainants only in Indonesia). (extinct, defunct, ... desperate?) The building sure is a prized possession of the nation. An antique, exotic (def: from another part of the world ), and gigantic Showpiece( simile)... and the World wants to see it. But, it is not a part of the "culture".
Astonishingly, India's national monument has no mention whatsoever...
any clues to what it is?? (clue: not the Taj Mahal of course)
It is..ahem..The India Gate. ( Ta-da!)
Moral o' the story: We shouldn't be bound to stereotypical point-o-views, they're misleading.
On a lighter note, India isn't all about the Taj, elephants 'n' turbaned camel-guys drinking a holy cow's 'you know what'.
-- HFret ( talk) 08:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
(undent)There actually is a form of this already happening with the second image in the Culture section, and with the image in the Fauna section. Those two images are rotated/changed every 24 hours, sort of a slow motion slide show which provides balance to different creatures and different aspects of culture. The template is at Template:Indian image rotation. The Taj image came close to being part of that image rotation, but it was at the end of an extremely acrimonious debate, and the compromise was to give it a permanent place (though there was no strong consensus). You can search the Talk archives for "Toda Hut" and "Image rotation" to learn more, though I advise taking a few shots of whiskey or novacain before reading those archives.... The Image Rotation was a brilliant solution, created by User:Saravask, to a debate that had no seeming resolution. Priyanath talk 16:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I think the Taj image is perfectly relevant of India. When anyone thinks of architecture in India, they only think of the Taj Mahal. The Taj is an important part of India's history. It shows Islamic rule in India and is one of the many influnces on Indian culture from Islam. I personally think the Taj Mahal image should be put in the history section, replacing the unclear Ajanta Caves Image. Nikkul ( talk) 04:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
HFret, if you're going to make fun of relevant discussion points made by other users, I would suggest you go do it somewhere else. Your banter does not belong here. Please stick to relevant discussion rather than writing paragraphs about laughing at other people. Thanks Nikkul ( talk) 01:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Dolphin has been given status of National aquatic animal, it should be added in table given in "government " section -- Migelot ( talk) 18:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
atleast its name should be included among others National symbols --
Migelot (
talk) 06:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I think the opening line introducing India to the rest of the world should be improvised if not modified
India, officially the Republic of India (Hindi: भारत गणराज्य Bhārat Gaṇarājya; see also other Indian languages), is a country in South Asia
Why can't it be written like India, officially the Republic of India (Hindi: भारत गणराज्य Bhārat Gaṇarājya; see also other Indian languages),is a Sovereign Socialist Federal Democratic Republic comprising of 28 states and 7 Union territories situated in South Asia.
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
117.194.196.178 (
talk) 16:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
The header of the page says ""Bharat" and "ROI" redirect here. For other uses, see Bharat (disambiguation) and ROI (disambiguation)." I noticed that ROI by default takes you to the disambiguation page. Should the header be corrected, or should ROI be made to redirect here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RohanDhruva ( talk • contribs) 15:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Can we incorporate the tensions and cooperation between India and China into the article. There is some alarming things in this relationship as both sides are preparing for war. Maybe we can mention it in the military section or politics.
For example this article: Geo-Strategic Chessboard: War Between India and China? ( http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=745)
This is an important topic and we should bring it to the attention of readers. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
174.112.218.230 (
talk) 23:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
No.. I Don't think it's a good point to add. The Article is an Country Representation and an future and possible thing or not-so-possible is no point to add. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.12.154 ( talk) 15:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I notice (at least in my IE7 browser and across all nine skins) that the [Show] link in the collapsible "Constitutionally recognised languages" section overhangs a significant bit outside the Infobox on the right. It's the line break in the name that's causing this, i.e., "Constitutionally recognised <br />
languages". However, if that line break is removed, then the long name will significantly increase the width of the Infobox. So I'm going to remove the line break and shorten the name to "Constitutional languages". This will grab the [Show] link back inside the Infobox, and yet it will keep the Infobox to about the same width it is now. If any editor would like to change that name, that's okay with me; however, please remember that the longer the name, the wider the Infobox. And if the line break is added back in, then the [Show] link in that section will again be pushed a bit outside the right side of the Infobox in some browsers and across all nine skins. I tested this in
my sandbox. Best of everything to all!
—
.`^) Paine Ellsworth
diss`cuss (^`. 13:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I've been making a lot of improvements to The English-speaking world Navbar template, and I'd like to know how editors involved with the article on India would feel if I added the following to the bottom of the article?
{{ Template group}}
—
.`^) Paine Ellsworth
diss`cuss (^`. 04:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
(out). Ha! I was just rereading your analogy above, SS, and went looking and found...
{{
coffee}}
just FYI. Cats are seldom used and understood by readers. In fact, I read WP since its inception and never once paid attention to cats until recently when I opened an account. Navbar links, on the other hand, I used quite a lot. Is my experience so very unconventional?
—
.`^) Paine Ellsworth
diss`cuss (^`. 04:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
(out). Wrong... You are all three very wrong about all this. You harbor unrealistic concerns about things like "bloat" and numbers of things that "could become endless". This is especially true when it comes to your relevancy misjudgements. But sadly, once again I have been overruled – not sad for me, of course, for I will go on trying to improve Wikipedia wherever I can – sad for all those many readers of this article whom you're depriving of all this useful and relevant information. It is hoped that you will rethink and reconsider, and best of everything to you and yours!
—
.`^) Paine Ellsworth
diss`cuss (^`. 07:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
i would like to include following facts
*include current Governor of Reserve Bank of India (RBI) . *speaker of parliament *foreign Minister *defence minister
these are some major facts so it will be nice to see them included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.143.92.115 ( talk) 08:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I think its not good to discuss about RBI as it is supposed to be confidencial,becase few information which might be misused by wrong people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphajane ( talk • contribs) 00:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
While India is known for its Hindu temples and their architecture worldwide, this page didn't care to add even one picture of Hindu temple. Putting aside respective ideologies of editors here, none can deny Hindu temples are soul of Indian religious life. How can we try to hide that?
There are two pics of Lotus temple!! I suggest replacing the second one with Hindu temple picture. Holy Ganga talk 11:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Note that the images in the Culture section are on a image rotation and the choice includes an images of Akshardham Temple, Konark temple, and a statue of Shiva. Abecedare ( talk) 17:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Still NO HINDU TEMPLE PICTURE? Holy Ganga talk 17:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I too support the image of a Hindu Tempale on Idian page on rotation basis -- Sandeepsp4u ( talk) 07:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
what is the outcome of this discussion ? Is there any improvement made been done about changing the pictures of culture section ?-- Sandeepsp4u ( talk) 06:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Can i proceed in this work. Can i put a hindu temple pic on the article or some one have any arguments on this ??-- Sandeep ( talk) 07:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the information but i think there are more famous temples like Temple of Tirupat, Different Jyotirlings etc then the sun temple what do u say ? I think the sun temple dosent symblose the mass-- Sandeep ( talk) 12:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Well , we should have pics of temples of all Religions originated from India (Hinduism, Jainism, Budhism, Sikhism), this will show cultural heritage in better way--
Migelot
Talk to me! 03:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Please Note that the following images and details are being added in the Page India.
/* Culture */ Lord Nataraja Statue, Srirangam Temple and Rameswaram Temple images added with details
Kindly see the suitability of the Pictures and the wordings. At the same time refer the pages Srirangam and Rameswaram before taking any action. -- TRYPPN ( talk) 13:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
this section lacks pictures.It should have pictures of national animals ,birds etc like Dolphin, tiger etc.-- Migelot ( talk) 11:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Why not this pic
-- HFret ( talk) 11:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I would like to add the Indian elephant to the fauna image rotation. This is a beautiful image taken in Nagarhole National Park, Karnataka, India. Any objections? Nikkul ( talk) 07:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. I think the importance should be placed on content. The elephant is one of the most important animals in India. It's a significant part of Indian culture. Just because we don't have a Featured Picture does not mean we should not include an image of it. What you're saying is that it's better to put a featured image of a cow than put a good image of something more relevant like an elephant. Nikkul ( talk) 19:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I propose a gallary system of fauna and flora-- Migelot Talk to me! 04:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I removed the category for Hindustani language that was added recently. If a Hindi speaking cat is created, then the article belongs there, but Hindustani isn't exactly a term in use to define significant linguistic groups (as opposed to the nationalistic Hindustani). Category:Hindustani-speaking countries and territories would be somewhere between 25 and 30 on the priority list of categories based on languages. - Spaceman Spiff 02:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Hey I was wondering if I could add a new section about quotes on India then? ? 71.105.87.54 ( talk) 05:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Well ! I have a suggession. Can anyone create a section for Legends of India. In all fields, who have made Indians to be proud of and also to be inspired. I think it is a good idea ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphajane ( talk • contribs) 23:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I would like to add a subsection on health to the introduction section. Sarcelles ( talk) 12:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Sarcelles, sorry I missed your earlier reply. I just saw your addition and while I think the 2-3 sentences don't need a separate sub-section of their own, some of the content is indeed pertinent to the article. For instance, I was surprised that we don't talk about disease and malnutrition anywhere outside the lede. However I am not sure how the topics you included in your draft were selected; for example, why mention pollution and malaria and not water borne disease etc ? Also family planning, and immunization programs may well worth be mentioning, and we need to give an idea of historic trends rather than just the recent some statistic.
Here are the sentences you added:
According to the World Health Organization 900,000 Indians die each year from drinking contaminated water and breathing in polluted air. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1736516,00.html Malaria is endemic in India. "Status of Malaria in India" (PDF). Half of children in India are underweight, one of the highest rates in the world and nearly same as Sub-Saharan Africa. "India: Undernourished Children: A Call for Reform and Action". World Bank. Many women are malnourished, too. There are about 60 physicians per 100,000 people in India. http://india-reports.in/transitions/global-skills/doctors-per-one-hundred-thousand-people-in-india
Can you and others comment on what information we should include in talking about healthcare in India, and what are the most authoritative sources for a short 2-4 sentence summary ? Once we have those, we can craft the exact language and placement. (I don't care whether the above senetences remain in the article or not, while the discussion is ongoing). Abecedare ( talk) 04:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
hi i a doin h/w and i am really stuck. u have 2 do a spider diagram on india, with all art and gods and religion comin off it. can ani 1 help me to fill it in???? pllzz taa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.222.122 ( talk) 17:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Why cant we just say the second-most populous country in the world ? -- Zhonghuo ( talk) 11:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
We have read enough by congress biased historians in our textbooks in our childhood. And deceived enough times by maps to think whole "kashmir" is owned by us. But now let us be neutral in wikipedia. Doorvery far ( talk) 05:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
There is no good ref that mentions both Congress party and Gandhi and skips all others in Indian freedom struggle. Not just the text, even the image there gives all credit of freedom struggle to congress party. Summary article need to mention another summary article by third party source as ref, instead of synthesizing 40 pages into one sentence which is ridiculous WP:SYN. There is no point of inline citation if the whole book is cited for single sentence. Is it only me who thinks 40 page inline citation is not at all specific and needs replacement by a different ref? And the admin threatens to block me for asking for exact page in the ref given - [2]. Doorvery far ( talk) 03:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request (Disagreement about vague inline citation given.): |
I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on India and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. |
A more specific edit should be provided, in order for readers to be able to find supporting material in the referenced source.— RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 10:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC) |
British rule was soon contested by a nationalist movement, which was embodied by the Indian National Congress, founded in 1885. From 1905, a protest movement developed...
— Claude Markovits, A history of modern India, 1480-1950, p. 345, Part Five, From the British Indian Empire to Indian Independence, Anthem, 2004
In the 20th century, a nationwide struggle for independence was launched by the Indian National Congress and other political organisations.[34]
(outdent) This is a topic that keeps reappearing in talk page discussions here. The larger topic is driven (in my view) by the belated frustration felt in certain political constituencies in present-day India (the Hindu right wing, many Bengalis (although this might be restricted to an older passing generation), and many elites of former princely states) at having played very little part in the Indian nationalist movement, at least in the last 30 years of it. They try to make up for this sense of historical inadequacy by diminishing Gandhi and by subscribing to certain myths, among which are: the so-called "freedom struggle" began in 1857, the "revolutionaries" really sent a shiver down the British spine, and Subhas Chandra Bose came within a hair's breadth of liberating India. What they forget is that the Indian National Congress's monopoly was so complete that even many revolutionaries were not outside its pale of influence. Bhagat Singh, for example, was a graduate of a nationalist college in the Punjab that was founded by Lala Lajpat Rai in response to Gandhi's call for non-cooperation in 1921. Bose, as is well known, spent much much more time in the INC than he did in the INA.
The best brief statement of the nationalist movement in India in the period 1917 to 1947 is provided by Rajat Kanta Ray (Professor of History, Calcutta University) in his introduction to Anthony Low's edited volume Congress and the Raj: Facets of the struggle, 1917–1947, OUP, :
The narratives make three things very clear: the Congress brought the country and the 'peasants' (whoever they might be) into its orbit to the dismay of the Raj in the 1930s; the rural upsurge did not prevent the Raj from reimposing its grip on the country; indirectly, however, it destroyed the Raj because the British had taken to governing India by certain electoral rules which Congress turned to its advantage.
In any case, if other people are required to be mentioned in the Indian nationalist movement, they would be among the likes of Sayed Ahmad Khan, Dadabhai Naoroji, Gopal Krishna Gokhale, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Surendranath Banerjee, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the Muslim League, the two Nehrus, Maulana Azad, Vallabhbhai Patel, Rajendra Prasad and so forth. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 21:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
It says Bombay Stock Exchange is the largest stock exchange in the India. That claim is little confusing. It is largest by the market capitalization of the companies listed on BSE. But if the shares transaction per day is considered National Stock Exchange is the largest stock exchange in India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redr ( talk • contribs) 14:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
After removing edit I read this news and I wonder whether it was right to remove edit, whether this is right time to mention this development. Thanks! RAMA ( talk) 19:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
A new state telengana is added —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adithya911 ( talk • contribs) 07:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
There is a need for science and Technology section with the latest being the Chandrayaan mission. This kind of important information is lacking in the page. Bcs09 ( talk) 14:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
-- TRYPPN ( talk) 04:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
-- TRYPPN ( talk) 04:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC) I agree too-- Baloria88 ( talk) 04:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
agreed--
Migelot
Talk to me! 05:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
everybody Agreed so shouldnt we starting the work??--
Migelot
Talk to me! 16:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I suggest, that there should be a section on education. Sarcelles ( talk) 12:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I hope above information is right Sarcelles ( talk) 16:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
could someone change the statement - third highest muslim population because it cannot be said with certainty. some people have said that its maybe fifth, not sure as the statistics of muslims in india is not very well documented. i think better to just leave it as "one of the big muslim populations". since the link already has the number which is close to 130(?) million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.76.31 ( talk) 05:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC) you are right the population of muslims in india is not that big when compared to the majority. it is actually more in the range of 115 million. i agree its better to just leave it as "one of the big populations". Fkfjdf ( talk) 17:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
The guptas never ruled south india. The golden age of south india is the rule of cholas. Please correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chola yadava ( talk • contribs) 03:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
The guptas only ruled north india so guptas rule is only golden age of north india. The golden age of south india is the rule of Chola dynasty which comprised the entire south india, srilanka, malayasia, indonesia and java. Also Vijaynagar dynasty needs to be explained in detail.
Yes, the history part doesn't cover the history of Soutth India
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Chola yadava (
talk •
contribs) 04:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Most empires were confined to regions,the south used to have the triparite struggle. Zoravar ( talk) 17:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
The article states sanskrit and tamil were granted the classical status "many" years before Kannada and Telugu. I think the qualifier 'many' doesn't serve any purpose and if I remember correctly, tamil was given that status only 3 or 4 years before. Rakesh Dhanireddy ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC).
The "classical language" {{ puffery}} is a complete WP:RECENTISM with no real-world relevance. By all means discuss the petty details at languages of India, but this is the India article and as such cannot lose itself on such tangents, under WP:DUE. -- dab (𒁳) 10:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
It's cargo-cult terminology of the "eminent scholars classify $LANGUAGE as classical" type. India should really get its act together and grow beyond such
wisecrackery. But as long as they do not, we just need to file away each item neatly where it belongs, in this case "
classical languages of India" (not
India). --
dab
(𒁳) 10:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
1. It is better to put the North block in Ndelhi image under Government section rather than politics section. 2. A table of biggest 10 cities included in some country pages can be added under Demographics 3. I would suggest to add an image depicting something from South India. There are no images here that represent a place south of vindhyas . 4. Isn't it more relevant to put some image related to India's IT industry rather than the Nano car? While Nano generated much hype across the world, it is the IT & BPO industries that represent Indian economy outside India, and it is those sectors that push the growth. Shekure ( talk) 05:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Here are the images currently in the Culture section rotation:
Most of them are of temples/religious structures, and it would be a good idea to expand the breadth of Indian culture that is depicted.
About the
Tata Nano image: I actually think it is pretty decent choice since it gives the reader an idea of low-priced, small, mass-market cars that are popular in India, and is a good representative of both indigenous development and manufacturing, and the expanding middle-class consumer market. The one downside I see is that we may seem to be shilling a particular commercial product, and taking anything to be "representative" of the Indian economy is always an oversimplification. I don't think a picture of the Infosys or any other IT company HQ is useful, since such buildings are virtually indistinguishable across countries, and IMO provide no real insight into particulars of the Indian IT industry. Perhaps we need an image illustrating agriculture in India, since that still accounts for 60% of the labour force...
The problem of course is to find relevant, encyclopedic, high quality and free images for the article (ideally, we'd pick
featured pictures, or at least something that is comparable). If there are any suggestions of specific images, we can discuss them here. Cheers.
Abecedare (
talk) 18:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions SBC! I have placed them in a gallery for easy viewing. Here are my views on the choices you list:
Can others also chime in with their opinions (please don't just "vote") ? Once we have a few opinions, we can pick from these (and forthcoming ?) options and then craft an appropriate caption. Given how precious real-estate on this page is, I think the caption should not simply be descriptive of the image itself, but needs to be informative and complementary to the article text. Cheers. Abecedare ( talk) 17:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
The temple forms the heart and lifeline of the 2500 year old city of Madurai. The complex houses 14 magnificent Gopurams or towers including two golden Gopurams for the main deities, that are elaborately sculptured and painted. The temple is a significant symbol for the Tamil people, and has been mentioned since antiquity in Tamil literature, though the present structure is believed to have been built in 1600[1]. The tallest temple tower is 51.9 metres (170 ft) high[1].This represents India rather Tajmahal which stands no where in architecture and Engineering when compared with Minakshi Temple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.78.27 ( talk) 05:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
So which picture are you talking about?--
Migelot
Talk to me! 17:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I will post link to some Pictures.My point is every few days someone changes picture just to satisfy his/her interests.We should put pictures that represents architectural and Engineering feats rather any random picture.Some of South Indian temples and structures definitely qualifies for that and are way ahead in architecture and engineering complexity then TajMahal.What you say? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.29.197.150 ( talk) 23:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Indians are mostly hindu,yet India is not a hindu state.Sikh,jain and buddhist archichecture is also part of India.
by invaders.Put Tajmahal picture under tourists places,if anyone thinks so.But certainely not under Indian culture.It's totally illogical and off point.TajMahal picture must go from Culture paragraph.Here is link to 7 wonders choosen by Indian public. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NDTV%27s_Seven_Wonders_of_India —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabusharma ( talk • contribs) 02:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Taj mahal is more Famous than any other monument or temple. That way I can also recoomend that Golden temple should have a picture here because it shows artitecture of north-west india-- Migelot Talk to me! 16:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Well brothers , It doesnot matter that Hindus are in majority in India as India is made by Indians. Moreover Sikhism originated in India and 70% of sikhs lives in India.I am not saying that Golden Temple Pic be added but I am supporting Taj mahal over others, cheers,-- Migelot Talk to me! 14:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
should be posted under Indian culture section should be decided after knowing what Indian culture is.Indian society and culture is predominantly Hindu since last 5000 years.So passing comments that it does not matter whether India is Hindu majority or not sounds uneducated.Its a culture section and not secularism.Link for Indian culture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_India —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabusharma ( talk • contribs) 03:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC) PRedominantly Hindu ahs nothing to with hindu,first correct your claims of 5000 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoravar ( talk • contribs) 17:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Can any of the following image of Golden temple Make up to the rotation list???--
Migelot
Talk to me! 09:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Well My point is very clear.Lets puts pictures of Architectural and Engineering Marvals.This is not a question what is more famous or less famous.Therefore we should put pictures of exceptional engineering Marvals from India.One more thing the section under which we are posting pictures is culture.Indian culture is mostly and predominantly Hindu,therefore any picture posted in this section must represent Predominant culture of India and not any other.India is not a muslim culture but Hindu.Even on Engineering and architectural comparison TajMahal stands nowhere near Great Indian temples.SO better to change since this section is Indian culture and not secularism.
TajMahal certainely not represents Indian culture and it should not be placed there as a permanent entity.More ever TajMhal was build by invaders,so how can it be a representative of India?Indian culture must have pictures which shows predominant culture.Hindu culture mostly covers Hinduism,sikhism,Janism.Put Tajmahal under tourist places but certainly not under Culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabusharma ( talk • contribs) 02:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
What are you talking about?? Taj is the most famous architectural landmark in India...and architecture is an integral part of culture...also taj mahal shows islamic influence in Indian culture. Nikkul ( talk) 22:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
The taj mahal shows archichechture best,the meenakshi temple is a religious attraction.The majority of India has got nothing to do with it(specially in case of a seclar state,as in India),I currently live in India dont even know waht it is.Religious attractions are causes of flame wars. Zoravar ( talk) 17:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
@Tabusharma, sir plz see what you are talking.???? And on the topic......I live in India and I havent even heard about it...........and sir "Hindu" is not a culture ,its religion, If it is a culture ,then plz explain why different states were made based on so called culture??.......Taj mahal should not be removed.And about Hindusim this article already have Picture of Lord Shiva in it.I hope you will be little more responsible next time.Thanks-- Migelot Talk to me! 07:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
don't represent 5000 year old Indian culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabusharma ( talk • contribs) 08:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC) This guy's claims 5000 years are all wrong,it was around 1500ad.Woah,tehy teach this in 7th and 6th grade. Zoravar ( talk) 17:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
There is a great deal of confusion about the official and national languages of India. apparently, GJ high court has clarified the situation for the time being and i propose to add it in the infobox and the body of the article. -- Car Tick 21:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
hate for Hindi language?Indian article clearly defines that Hindi is Official language of federal govt of India,why you need more explanations/infobox?Do you have some fear?Btw Hindi is the 5th most spoken language of the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabusharma ( talk • contribs) 08:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::No body hates any language. It's the matter of providing proper/correct information.
I propose to delete the "National Language - Hindi (Defined by constitution) " for India why because india does not have one according to constitution. This is the unique feature of India and it's vast culture and multilingualism. Since hindi is the 5th most spoken langauage, it cannot become the mother tongue of everyone in india (i.e bengali, punjabi, marathi, telugu, tamil, kannada...etc) so as it cannot become the national language too. Hindi is alien to tamil, telugu, punjabi, marathi..etc as much as english is to hindi. There are significant differences between official and national language status. Vasagan ( talk) 15:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC) Manivasagan T
Bold text
A while ago I wanted to put some thing's down on India's page that was factual and giving credit to things that had to do with India. But I was told that it wasnt proper because basically it's like im just bragging about India, and this is about facts....so....I asked how come the China page gets to say nice things and the India page cant then? For example on the China page it get's to say thing's like China is one of the oldest civilazations, and how it was one of the leader in the world of arts, etc. etc.....but....if I want to say thing's like that regarding India, the rulers of Wikipedia won't let me.....and I was told the reason is, because, that India is an offical page, and China isn't. So now im asking has that changed? Is China an offical page? If so then someone please tell me why does the page on China get to say some nice things that elevate the country and can I please put down things of that nature for the India page then so here the and ? ? 71.105.87.54 ( talk) 23:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Althought, I don't agree with what this IP is saying, I do understand where he is coming from and it is a problem. There are many instances where certain topics have been left off this page, such as the Science & Technology section, which many other countries have. Similarly, a template with multiple city skylines is present on many many country pages. Nikkul ( talk) 19:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
don't you think there are many more important things to talk about ? Idlichutni ( talk) 16:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
This article is missing information about its transportation. -- Extra999 ( talk) 17:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Please make appropriate changes in the government section to show the decades old demand for new states such as vidarbha,etc. and the current formation of the state telangana.
Percy1005 ( talk) 14:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
No, it's crystal balling and the hunt for new states isn't notable for an article about India. Hometech ( talk) 11:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
But I think it is. -- Extra999 ( talk) 12:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Is this article about republic of India or the Subcontinent? Besides the last time I saw , the Indus Valley was located outside India. I think this is misleading and it would be better to refer to something like Chola Dynasty or Mauryan Empire which are more Indian-Centric. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.20.26 ( talk) 02:33, 21 February 2010 (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 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | → | Archive 30 |
Any reason why there is no section on Science & Technology? 71.198.231.7 ( talk) 09:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
A previous sentence describes unresolved terriorial claims, which is a good preface for the resolved territorial claims. Goa is one of them. India drove Portugal out and now everyone recognizes the India governing of Goa.
So the article says (paraphrasing): India has unresolved territorial claims. (adding) Some territorial claims have been resolved, such as reclaiming Goa from Portugal in 1961 when the Portuguese were driven out by military conquest.
This new sentence can be reworded, no problem. Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 19:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I have reverted this latest edit by Suomi Finland 2009, which expanded the existing sentence,
"On 15 August 1947, India gained independence from British rule, but at the same time Muslim-majority areas were partitioned to form a separate state of Pakistan"
with the addendum,
"and Goa remained under foreign control until a 1961 liberation."
I believe this addition is undue, since many large princely states (including Kashmir and Hyderabad) and French and Portuguese enclaves (including Goa, Pondicherry, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Daman and Diu) joined India post-15th August 1947, and singling out Goa for mention is inappropriate. All this is covered in the linked article History of the Republic of India, and further details are included in Political integration of India and dozens of others linked from there. Abecedare ( talk) 03:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Goa is the only territory of the Indian sub-continent whose legal status is yet to be ascertained. The 'de facto' control by India has not been legally recognised by the United Nations, and the 'de jure' status can only come through the self-determination of the indigenous people of Goa. All information regards Goa is misleading and should be put under a big question mark. An effort was made to bring out the legal facts (with sources, references) as regards Goa, but it was too good for wikipedia to consider. Those who wish to know more can find it all on our website. -- Gaunkars of Goa ( talk) 05:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Are there any objections to changing the talk page archive settings from 91 days to 30 days, and 9 threads to 5 threads? The talk page is inordinately long, and is getting to be as difficult to load as the article itself! If a thread hasn't been touched in 30 days, it's definitely gone past sell by date. If there aren't any objections, by Saturday, I'll change then, unless we get consensus earlier than that. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff Calvin‡ Hobbes 16:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I think the Ajanta image needs to be replaced. India has a rich history and the Ajanta image just does not satisfy. It is unclear, irrelevant, and unnecessary.
Are there any other candidates images? Nikkul ( talk) 01:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
What? You've got someting against artistic nudity? *joke* -- HFret ( talk) 12:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
{{
Indian image rotation}}
template, for rotation of images.--
Redtigerxyz
Talk 15:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)I miss the good ol' days when the Taj's image was removed from the article... It felt good without the hyper-cliched-styreotype India icon that it has turned into. I'm not trying to racially isolate the mausoleum for being Persian and not Indian, but the point is that it's picture just doesn't faithfully represent the diverse cultures of the country.
The Mahabodhi Temple picture is a great one. It signifies an integeral culture of India, the Buddhists'. But, as far as my knowledge goes, the Mughal culture had died out centuries ago... (with remainants only in Indonesia). (extinct, defunct, ... desperate?) The building sure is a prized possession of the nation. An antique, exotic (def: from another part of the world ), and gigantic Showpiece( simile)... and the World wants to see it. But, it is not a part of the "culture".
Astonishingly, India's national monument has no mention whatsoever...
any clues to what it is?? (clue: not the Taj Mahal of course)
It is..ahem..The India Gate. ( Ta-da!)
Moral o' the story: We shouldn't be bound to stereotypical point-o-views, they're misleading.
On a lighter note, India isn't all about the Taj, elephants 'n' turbaned camel-guys drinking a holy cow's 'you know what'.
-- HFret ( talk) 08:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
(undent)There actually is a form of this already happening with the second image in the Culture section, and with the image in the Fauna section. Those two images are rotated/changed every 24 hours, sort of a slow motion slide show which provides balance to different creatures and different aspects of culture. The template is at Template:Indian image rotation. The Taj image came close to being part of that image rotation, but it was at the end of an extremely acrimonious debate, and the compromise was to give it a permanent place (though there was no strong consensus). You can search the Talk archives for "Toda Hut" and "Image rotation" to learn more, though I advise taking a few shots of whiskey or novacain before reading those archives.... The Image Rotation was a brilliant solution, created by User:Saravask, to a debate that had no seeming resolution. Priyanath talk 16:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I think the Taj image is perfectly relevant of India. When anyone thinks of architecture in India, they only think of the Taj Mahal. The Taj is an important part of India's history. It shows Islamic rule in India and is one of the many influnces on Indian culture from Islam. I personally think the Taj Mahal image should be put in the history section, replacing the unclear Ajanta Caves Image. Nikkul ( talk) 04:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
HFret, if you're going to make fun of relevant discussion points made by other users, I would suggest you go do it somewhere else. Your banter does not belong here. Please stick to relevant discussion rather than writing paragraphs about laughing at other people. Thanks Nikkul ( talk) 01:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Dolphin has been given status of National aquatic animal, it should be added in table given in "government " section -- Migelot ( talk) 18:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
atleast its name should be included among others National symbols --
Migelot (
talk) 06:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I think the opening line introducing India to the rest of the world should be improvised if not modified
India, officially the Republic of India (Hindi: भारत गणराज्य Bhārat Gaṇarājya; see also other Indian languages), is a country in South Asia
Why can't it be written like India, officially the Republic of India (Hindi: भारत गणराज्य Bhārat Gaṇarājya; see also other Indian languages),is a Sovereign Socialist Federal Democratic Republic comprising of 28 states and 7 Union territories situated in South Asia.
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
117.194.196.178 (
talk) 16:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
The header of the page says ""Bharat" and "ROI" redirect here. For other uses, see Bharat (disambiguation) and ROI (disambiguation)." I noticed that ROI by default takes you to the disambiguation page. Should the header be corrected, or should ROI be made to redirect here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RohanDhruva ( talk • contribs) 15:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Can we incorporate the tensions and cooperation between India and China into the article. There is some alarming things in this relationship as both sides are preparing for war. Maybe we can mention it in the military section or politics.
For example this article: Geo-Strategic Chessboard: War Between India and China? ( http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=745)
This is an important topic and we should bring it to the attention of readers. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
174.112.218.230 (
talk) 23:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
No.. I Don't think it's a good point to add. The Article is an Country Representation and an future and possible thing or not-so-possible is no point to add. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.12.154 ( talk) 15:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I notice (at least in my IE7 browser and across all nine skins) that the [Show] link in the collapsible "Constitutionally recognised languages" section overhangs a significant bit outside the Infobox on the right. It's the line break in the name that's causing this, i.e., "Constitutionally recognised <br />
languages". However, if that line break is removed, then the long name will significantly increase the width of the Infobox. So I'm going to remove the line break and shorten the name to "Constitutional languages". This will grab the [Show] link back inside the Infobox, and yet it will keep the Infobox to about the same width it is now. If any editor would like to change that name, that's okay with me; however, please remember that the longer the name, the wider the Infobox. And if the line break is added back in, then the [Show] link in that section will again be pushed a bit outside the right side of the Infobox in some browsers and across all nine skins. I tested this in
my sandbox. Best of everything to all!
—
.`^) Paine Ellsworth
diss`cuss (^`. 13:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I've been making a lot of improvements to The English-speaking world Navbar template, and I'd like to know how editors involved with the article on India would feel if I added the following to the bottom of the article?
{{ Template group}}
—
.`^) Paine Ellsworth
diss`cuss (^`. 04:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
(out). Ha! I was just rereading your analogy above, SS, and went looking and found...
{{
coffee}}
just FYI. Cats are seldom used and understood by readers. In fact, I read WP since its inception and never once paid attention to cats until recently when I opened an account. Navbar links, on the other hand, I used quite a lot. Is my experience so very unconventional?
—
.`^) Paine Ellsworth
diss`cuss (^`. 04:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
(out). Wrong... You are all three very wrong about all this. You harbor unrealistic concerns about things like "bloat" and numbers of things that "could become endless". This is especially true when it comes to your relevancy misjudgements. But sadly, once again I have been overruled – not sad for me, of course, for I will go on trying to improve Wikipedia wherever I can – sad for all those many readers of this article whom you're depriving of all this useful and relevant information. It is hoped that you will rethink and reconsider, and best of everything to you and yours!
—
.`^) Paine Ellsworth
diss`cuss (^`. 07:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
i would like to include following facts
*include current Governor of Reserve Bank of India (RBI) . *speaker of parliament *foreign Minister *defence minister
these are some major facts so it will be nice to see them included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.143.92.115 ( talk) 08:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I think its not good to discuss about RBI as it is supposed to be confidencial,becase few information which might be misused by wrong people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphajane ( talk • contribs) 00:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
While India is known for its Hindu temples and their architecture worldwide, this page didn't care to add even one picture of Hindu temple. Putting aside respective ideologies of editors here, none can deny Hindu temples are soul of Indian religious life. How can we try to hide that?
There are two pics of Lotus temple!! I suggest replacing the second one with Hindu temple picture. Holy Ganga talk 11:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Note that the images in the Culture section are on a image rotation and the choice includes an images of Akshardham Temple, Konark temple, and a statue of Shiva. Abecedare ( talk) 17:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Still NO HINDU TEMPLE PICTURE? Holy Ganga talk 17:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I too support the image of a Hindu Tempale on Idian page on rotation basis -- Sandeepsp4u ( talk) 07:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
what is the outcome of this discussion ? Is there any improvement made been done about changing the pictures of culture section ?-- Sandeepsp4u ( talk) 06:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Can i proceed in this work. Can i put a hindu temple pic on the article or some one have any arguments on this ??-- Sandeep ( talk) 07:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the information but i think there are more famous temples like Temple of Tirupat, Different Jyotirlings etc then the sun temple what do u say ? I think the sun temple dosent symblose the mass-- Sandeep ( talk) 12:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Well , we should have pics of temples of all Religions originated from India (Hinduism, Jainism, Budhism, Sikhism), this will show cultural heritage in better way--
Migelot
Talk to me! 03:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Please Note that the following images and details are being added in the Page India.
/* Culture */ Lord Nataraja Statue, Srirangam Temple and Rameswaram Temple images added with details
Kindly see the suitability of the Pictures and the wordings. At the same time refer the pages Srirangam and Rameswaram before taking any action. -- TRYPPN ( talk) 13:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
this section lacks pictures.It should have pictures of national animals ,birds etc like Dolphin, tiger etc.-- Migelot ( talk) 11:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Why not this pic
-- HFret ( talk) 11:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I would like to add the Indian elephant to the fauna image rotation. This is a beautiful image taken in Nagarhole National Park, Karnataka, India. Any objections? Nikkul ( talk) 07:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. I think the importance should be placed on content. The elephant is one of the most important animals in India. It's a significant part of Indian culture. Just because we don't have a Featured Picture does not mean we should not include an image of it. What you're saying is that it's better to put a featured image of a cow than put a good image of something more relevant like an elephant. Nikkul ( talk) 19:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I propose a gallary system of fauna and flora-- Migelot Talk to me! 04:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I removed the category for Hindustani language that was added recently. If a Hindi speaking cat is created, then the article belongs there, but Hindustani isn't exactly a term in use to define significant linguistic groups (as opposed to the nationalistic Hindustani). Category:Hindustani-speaking countries and territories would be somewhere between 25 and 30 on the priority list of categories based on languages. - Spaceman Spiff 02:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Hey I was wondering if I could add a new section about quotes on India then? ? 71.105.87.54 ( talk) 05:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Well ! I have a suggession. Can anyone create a section for Legends of India. In all fields, who have made Indians to be proud of and also to be inspired. I think it is a good idea ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphajane ( talk • contribs) 23:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I would like to add a subsection on health to the introduction section. Sarcelles ( talk) 12:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Sarcelles, sorry I missed your earlier reply. I just saw your addition and while I think the 2-3 sentences don't need a separate sub-section of their own, some of the content is indeed pertinent to the article. For instance, I was surprised that we don't talk about disease and malnutrition anywhere outside the lede. However I am not sure how the topics you included in your draft were selected; for example, why mention pollution and malaria and not water borne disease etc ? Also family planning, and immunization programs may well worth be mentioning, and we need to give an idea of historic trends rather than just the recent some statistic.
Here are the sentences you added:
According to the World Health Organization 900,000 Indians die each year from drinking contaminated water and breathing in polluted air. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1736516,00.html Malaria is endemic in India. "Status of Malaria in India" (PDF). Half of children in India are underweight, one of the highest rates in the world and nearly same as Sub-Saharan Africa. "India: Undernourished Children: A Call for Reform and Action". World Bank. Many women are malnourished, too. There are about 60 physicians per 100,000 people in India. http://india-reports.in/transitions/global-skills/doctors-per-one-hundred-thousand-people-in-india
Can you and others comment on what information we should include in talking about healthcare in India, and what are the most authoritative sources for a short 2-4 sentence summary ? Once we have those, we can craft the exact language and placement. (I don't care whether the above senetences remain in the article or not, while the discussion is ongoing). Abecedare ( talk) 04:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
hi i a doin h/w and i am really stuck. u have 2 do a spider diagram on india, with all art and gods and religion comin off it. can ani 1 help me to fill it in???? pllzz taa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.222.122 ( talk) 17:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Why cant we just say the second-most populous country in the world ? -- Zhonghuo ( talk) 11:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
We have read enough by congress biased historians in our textbooks in our childhood. And deceived enough times by maps to think whole "kashmir" is owned by us. But now let us be neutral in wikipedia. Doorvery far ( talk) 05:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
There is no good ref that mentions both Congress party and Gandhi and skips all others in Indian freedom struggle. Not just the text, even the image there gives all credit of freedom struggle to congress party. Summary article need to mention another summary article by third party source as ref, instead of synthesizing 40 pages into one sentence which is ridiculous WP:SYN. There is no point of inline citation if the whole book is cited for single sentence. Is it only me who thinks 40 page inline citation is not at all specific and needs replacement by a different ref? And the admin threatens to block me for asking for exact page in the ref given - [2]. Doorvery far ( talk) 03:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request (Disagreement about vague inline citation given.): |
I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on India and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. |
A more specific edit should be provided, in order for readers to be able to find supporting material in the referenced source.— RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 10:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC) |
British rule was soon contested by a nationalist movement, which was embodied by the Indian National Congress, founded in 1885. From 1905, a protest movement developed...
— Claude Markovits, A history of modern India, 1480-1950, p. 345, Part Five, From the British Indian Empire to Indian Independence, Anthem, 2004
In the 20th century, a nationwide struggle for independence was launched by the Indian National Congress and other political organisations.[34]
(outdent) This is a topic that keeps reappearing in talk page discussions here. The larger topic is driven (in my view) by the belated frustration felt in certain political constituencies in present-day India (the Hindu right wing, many Bengalis (although this might be restricted to an older passing generation), and many elites of former princely states) at having played very little part in the Indian nationalist movement, at least in the last 30 years of it. They try to make up for this sense of historical inadequacy by diminishing Gandhi and by subscribing to certain myths, among which are: the so-called "freedom struggle" began in 1857, the "revolutionaries" really sent a shiver down the British spine, and Subhas Chandra Bose came within a hair's breadth of liberating India. What they forget is that the Indian National Congress's monopoly was so complete that even many revolutionaries were not outside its pale of influence. Bhagat Singh, for example, was a graduate of a nationalist college in the Punjab that was founded by Lala Lajpat Rai in response to Gandhi's call for non-cooperation in 1921. Bose, as is well known, spent much much more time in the INC than he did in the INA.
The best brief statement of the nationalist movement in India in the period 1917 to 1947 is provided by Rajat Kanta Ray (Professor of History, Calcutta University) in his introduction to Anthony Low's edited volume Congress and the Raj: Facets of the struggle, 1917–1947, OUP, :
The narratives make three things very clear: the Congress brought the country and the 'peasants' (whoever they might be) into its orbit to the dismay of the Raj in the 1930s; the rural upsurge did not prevent the Raj from reimposing its grip on the country; indirectly, however, it destroyed the Raj because the British had taken to governing India by certain electoral rules which Congress turned to its advantage.
In any case, if other people are required to be mentioned in the Indian nationalist movement, they would be among the likes of Sayed Ahmad Khan, Dadabhai Naoroji, Gopal Krishna Gokhale, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Surendranath Banerjee, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the Muslim League, the two Nehrus, Maulana Azad, Vallabhbhai Patel, Rajendra Prasad and so forth. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 21:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
It says Bombay Stock Exchange is the largest stock exchange in the India. That claim is little confusing. It is largest by the market capitalization of the companies listed on BSE. But if the shares transaction per day is considered National Stock Exchange is the largest stock exchange in India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redr ( talk • contribs) 14:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
After removing edit I read this news and I wonder whether it was right to remove edit, whether this is right time to mention this development. Thanks! RAMA ( talk) 19:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
A new state telengana is added —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adithya911 ( talk • contribs) 07:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
There is a need for science and Technology section with the latest being the Chandrayaan mission. This kind of important information is lacking in the page. Bcs09 ( talk) 14:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
-- TRYPPN ( talk) 04:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
-- TRYPPN ( talk) 04:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC) I agree too-- Baloria88 ( talk) 04:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
agreed--
Migelot
Talk to me! 05:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
everybody Agreed so shouldnt we starting the work??--
Migelot
Talk to me! 16:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I suggest, that there should be a section on education. Sarcelles ( talk) 12:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I hope above information is right Sarcelles ( talk) 16:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
could someone change the statement - third highest muslim population because it cannot be said with certainty. some people have said that its maybe fifth, not sure as the statistics of muslims in india is not very well documented. i think better to just leave it as "one of the big muslim populations". since the link already has the number which is close to 130(?) million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.76.31 ( talk) 05:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC) you are right the population of muslims in india is not that big when compared to the majority. it is actually more in the range of 115 million. i agree its better to just leave it as "one of the big populations". Fkfjdf ( talk) 17:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
The guptas never ruled south india. The golden age of south india is the rule of cholas. Please correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chola yadava ( talk • contribs) 03:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
The guptas only ruled north india so guptas rule is only golden age of north india. The golden age of south india is the rule of Chola dynasty which comprised the entire south india, srilanka, malayasia, indonesia and java. Also Vijaynagar dynasty needs to be explained in detail.
Yes, the history part doesn't cover the history of Soutth India
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Chola yadava (
talk •
contribs) 04:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Most empires were confined to regions,the south used to have the triparite struggle. Zoravar ( talk) 17:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
The article states sanskrit and tamil were granted the classical status "many" years before Kannada and Telugu. I think the qualifier 'many' doesn't serve any purpose and if I remember correctly, tamil was given that status only 3 or 4 years before. Rakesh Dhanireddy ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC).
The "classical language" {{ puffery}} is a complete WP:RECENTISM with no real-world relevance. By all means discuss the petty details at languages of India, but this is the India article and as such cannot lose itself on such tangents, under WP:DUE. -- dab (𒁳) 10:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
It's cargo-cult terminology of the "eminent scholars classify $LANGUAGE as classical" type. India should really get its act together and grow beyond such
wisecrackery. But as long as they do not, we just need to file away each item neatly where it belongs, in this case "
classical languages of India" (not
India). --
dab
(𒁳) 10:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
1. It is better to put the North block in Ndelhi image under Government section rather than politics section. 2. A table of biggest 10 cities included in some country pages can be added under Demographics 3. I would suggest to add an image depicting something from South India. There are no images here that represent a place south of vindhyas . 4. Isn't it more relevant to put some image related to India's IT industry rather than the Nano car? While Nano generated much hype across the world, it is the IT & BPO industries that represent Indian economy outside India, and it is those sectors that push the growth. Shekure ( talk) 05:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Here are the images currently in the Culture section rotation:
Most of them are of temples/religious structures, and it would be a good idea to expand the breadth of Indian culture that is depicted.
About the
Tata Nano image: I actually think it is pretty decent choice since it gives the reader an idea of low-priced, small, mass-market cars that are popular in India, and is a good representative of both indigenous development and manufacturing, and the expanding middle-class consumer market. The one downside I see is that we may seem to be shilling a particular commercial product, and taking anything to be "representative" of the Indian economy is always an oversimplification. I don't think a picture of the Infosys or any other IT company HQ is useful, since such buildings are virtually indistinguishable across countries, and IMO provide no real insight into particulars of the Indian IT industry. Perhaps we need an image illustrating agriculture in India, since that still accounts for 60% of the labour force...
The problem of course is to find relevant, encyclopedic, high quality and free images for the article (ideally, we'd pick
featured pictures, or at least something that is comparable). If there are any suggestions of specific images, we can discuss them here. Cheers.
Abecedare (
talk) 18:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions SBC! I have placed them in a gallery for easy viewing. Here are my views on the choices you list:
Can others also chime in with their opinions (please don't just "vote") ? Once we have a few opinions, we can pick from these (and forthcoming ?) options and then craft an appropriate caption. Given how precious real-estate on this page is, I think the caption should not simply be descriptive of the image itself, but needs to be informative and complementary to the article text. Cheers. Abecedare ( talk) 17:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
The temple forms the heart and lifeline of the 2500 year old city of Madurai. The complex houses 14 magnificent Gopurams or towers including two golden Gopurams for the main deities, that are elaborately sculptured and painted. The temple is a significant symbol for the Tamil people, and has been mentioned since antiquity in Tamil literature, though the present structure is believed to have been built in 1600[1]. The tallest temple tower is 51.9 metres (170 ft) high[1].This represents India rather Tajmahal which stands no where in architecture and Engineering when compared with Minakshi Temple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.78.27 ( talk) 05:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
So which picture are you talking about?--
Migelot
Talk to me! 17:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I will post link to some Pictures.My point is every few days someone changes picture just to satisfy his/her interests.We should put pictures that represents architectural and Engineering feats rather any random picture.Some of South Indian temples and structures definitely qualifies for that and are way ahead in architecture and engineering complexity then TajMahal.What you say? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.29.197.150 ( talk) 23:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Indians are mostly hindu,yet India is not a hindu state.Sikh,jain and buddhist archichecture is also part of India.
by invaders.Put Tajmahal picture under tourists places,if anyone thinks so.But certainely not under Indian culture.It's totally illogical and off point.TajMahal picture must go from Culture paragraph.Here is link to 7 wonders choosen by Indian public. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NDTV%27s_Seven_Wonders_of_India —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabusharma ( talk • contribs) 02:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Taj mahal is more Famous than any other monument or temple. That way I can also recoomend that Golden temple should have a picture here because it shows artitecture of north-west india-- Migelot Talk to me! 16:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Well brothers , It doesnot matter that Hindus are in majority in India as India is made by Indians. Moreover Sikhism originated in India and 70% of sikhs lives in India.I am not saying that Golden Temple Pic be added but I am supporting Taj mahal over others, cheers,-- Migelot Talk to me! 14:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
should be posted under Indian culture section should be decided after knowing what Indian culture is.Indian society and culture is predominantly Hindu since last 5000 years.So passing comments that it does not matter whether India is Hindu majority or not sounds uneducated.Its a culture section and not secularism.Link for Indian culture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_India —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabusharma ( talk • contribs) 03:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC) PRedominantly Hindu ahs nothing to with hindu,first correct your claims of 5000 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoravar ( talk • contribs) 17:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Can any of the following image of Golden temple Make up to the rotation list???--
Migelot
Talk to me! 09:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Well My point is very clear.Lets puts pictures of Architectural and Engineering Marvals.This is not a question what is more famous or less famous.Therefore we should put pictures of exceptional engineering Marvals from India.One more thing the section under which we are posting pictures is culture.Indian culture is mostly and predominantly Hindu,therefore any picture posted in this section must represent Predominant culture of India and not any other.India is not a muslim culture but Hindu.Even on Engineering and architectural comparison TajMahal stands nowhere near Great Indian temples.SO better to change since this section is Indian culture and not secularism.
TajMahal certainely not represents Indian culture and it should not be placed there as a permanent entity.More ever TajMhal was build by invaders,so how can it be a representative of India?Indian culture must have pictures which shows predominant culture.Hindu culture mostly covers Hinduism,sikhism,Janism.Put Tajmahal under tourist places but certainly not under Culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabusharma ( talk • contribs) 02:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
What are you talking about?? Taj is the most famous architectural landmark in India...and architecture is an integral part of culture...also taj mahal shows islamic influence in Indian culture. Nikkul ( talk) 22:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
The taj mahal shows archichechture best,the meenakshi temple is a religious attraction.The majority of India has got nothing to do with it(specially in case of a seclar state,as in India),I currently live in India dont even know waht it is.Religious attractions are causes of flame wars. Zoravar ( talk) 17:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
@Tabusharma, sir plz see what you are talking.???? And on the topic......I live in India and I havent even heard about it...........and sir "Hindu" is not a culture ,its religion, If it is a culture ,then plz explain why different states were made based on so called culture??.......Taj mahal should not be removed.And about Hindusim this article already have Picture of Lord Shiva in it.I hope you will be little more responsible next time.Thanks-- Migelot Talk to me! 07:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
don't represent 5000 year old Indian culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabusharma ( talk • contribs) 08:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC) This guy's claims 5000 years are all wrong,it was around 1500ad.Woah,tehy teach this in 7th and 6th grade. Zoravar ( talk) 17:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
There is a great deal of confusion about the official and national languages of India. apparently, GJ high court has clarified the situation for the time being and i propose to add it in the infobox and the body of the article. -- Car Tick 21:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
hate for Hindi language?Indian article clearly defines that Hindi is Official language of federal govt of India,why you need more explanations/infobox?Do you have some fear?Btw Hindi is the 5th most spoken language of the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabusharma ( talk • contribs) 08:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::No body hates any language. It's the matter of providing proper/correct information.
I propose to delete the "National Language - Hindi (Defined by constitution) " for India why because india does not have one according to constitution. This is the unique feature of India and it's vast culture and multilingualism. Since hindi is the 5th most spoken langauage, it cannot become the mother tongue of everyone in india (i.e bengali, punjabi, marathi, telugu, tamil, kannada...etc) so as it cannot become the national language too. Hindi is alien to tamil, telugu, punjabi, marathi..etc as much as english is to hindi. There are significant differences between official and national language status. Vasagan ( talk) 15:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC) Manivasagan T
Bold text
A while ago I wanted to put some thing's down on India's page that was factual and giving credit to things that had to do with India. But I was told that it wasnt proper because basically it's like im just bragging about India, and this is about facts....so....I asked how come the China page gets to say nice things and the India page cant then? For example on the China page it get's to say thing's like China is one of the oldest civilazations, and how it was one of the leader in the world of arts, etc. etc.....but....if I want to say thing's like that regarding India, the rulers of Wikipedia won't let me.....and I was told the reason is, because, that India is an offical page, and China isn't. So now im asking has that changed? Is China an offical page? If so then someone please tell me why does the page on China get to say some nice things that elevate the country and can I please put down things of that nature for the India page then so here the and ? ? 71.105.87.54 ( talk) 23:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Althought, I don't agree with what this IP is saying, I do understand where he is coming from and it is a problem. There are many instances where certain topics have been left off this page, such as the Science & Technology section, which many other countries have. Similarly, a template with multiple city skylines is present on many many country pages. Nikkul ( talk) 19:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
don't you think there are many more important things to talk about ? Idlichutni ( talk) 16:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
This article is missing information about its transportation. -- Extra999 ( talk) 17:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Please make appropriate changes in the government section to show the decades old demand for new states such as vidarbha,etc. and the current formation of the state telangana.
Percy1005 ( talk) 14:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
No, it's crystal balling and the hunt for new states isn't notable for an article about India. Hometech ( talk) 11:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
But I think it is. -- Extra999 ( talk) 12:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Is this article about republic of India or the Subcontinent? Besides the last time I saw , the Indus Valley was located outside India. I think this is misleading and it would be better to refer to something like Chola Dynasty or Mauryan Empire which are more Indian-Centric. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.20.26 ( talk) 02:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)