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 30 | ← | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | → | Archive 40 |
Here are the results:
Clearly the selection is overwhelmingly biased towards North India. K2 ( Bundi), K3 ( Varanasi), K12 ( Amritsar), K22( Kargil, K42 (Tibetan?), K44 (Delhi) 6 out of 9. There is nothing from central India and nothing from South Central India. I will post here in a few minutes and suggest a solution. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 03:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Here is my final selection and the reasoning behind it. I have left out K12, as it is as much about the Golden Temple and Sikhism. That picture will appear in the culture section in a rotation on religion etc.
Since there is no pictures from Central India or South Central India, I am including K7 and K13 K14. The selection, then, is:
I believe, I have worked out a fair equitable solution, with no obvious geographic or gender bias. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 03:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
You should have done your homework before you submitted that image. It's not my job, it was yours. Saravask had also said in the initial announcement that all picture candidates should be at least 1Kx1K, which also you conveniently forgot about, submitting a number of very low res pictures. That Facebook site by the way is not even captioned in Tibetan. Strangely enough it has Chinese. I'm very confused. Children of Tibetan exiles in Karnataka who write in Chinese (the official language of an Atheist State). I don't think the demographics of India is that complicated. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 04:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Recent events here--the conflicting attempts to finalize this photo issue--are hard to follow, but I think I get the gist of it. For what it is worth, I approve the proposal that Fowler&fowler "tally the votes and then apply a corrective for geographical or gender bias", as he put it. And although several of the photos are not much to my personal liking, I approve of his method and result. His reverts of Nikkul (diff'ed above) I see as an attempt to avoid chaotic discussion threading, not to censor Nikkul. I also can see how the proposal that F&f do the tally may be challenged, as Nikkul is doing, even if the proposal was seconded and not challenged until now (it would have been nice to challenge it when it was proposed, but hey, this is a busy talk page, I can barely keep up myself). With these things in mind I am posting my opinion on the matter: While I don't think Nikkul is being particularly disruptive, I nonetheless support the proposal that F&f tally and finalize the process. Pfly ( talk) 08:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
AshLin, Here are the final eight images:
Fowler&fowler «Talk» 16:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid you are being a little disingenuous Redtigerxyz. It was based on your original objection that I added 24 new images, on which you conveniently forgot to vote, despite repeated reminders. We have spent three weeks on these images. I have done most of the work, sorting over 10,000 images in the process. Let us agree to disagree, but no going back to first principles now. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 17:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
( edit conflict) Voting on the "new" set:
Wikipedia:Consensus is "the primary way in which editorial decisions are made on Wikipedia". I do not want to indulge any hero-worship or demonization by weighting the virtues or vices of someone. This is not an admin election. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 04:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Redtigerxyz made some good points above. Based on his input, here is a Final version 2. Please offer your comments and critiques below. Regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 02:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Support version 2 -- Redtigerxyz Talk 04:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I think these are all great pictures. Being an ignorant outsider, I can't tell whether a given picture reflects a particular caste--they all look very "Indian" to my eyes. I'm amazed by the time and effort required here to reach consensus on pictures for a single section of the page. I'm not saying it is too much time or effort, just that this level of collaborative work is not something I have often encountered on Wikipedia--I mainly stick to rather arcane topics, or pages of mere local interest. The way this page works is quite different from most. It is, like I said, amazing to watch. Pfly ( talk) 09:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Support the latest version. Let the Apatani cell phone image embellish "telecommunication" rather than "demographics". I concur with Pfly's views. Its really good that we could ALL overcome our prejudices, shortcomings, mistakes etc and come to a good consensus. I must say I much prefer this kind of process, painful and lengthy though it may be, to having a super image admin-type person, as suggested by Saravask in good faith a few paras above. My congratulations to all concerned. I hope we wrap up the consensus for this amicably so that we can get on to the next set of imagery. AshLin ( talk) 10:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Support: Looks good to me. Re Nikkul and the redtigerxyz above, the consensus was that f&f would pick the images, these would then be installed in the article, and then anyone could discuss changes on an image by image basis ("Proposal to replace image xyz by abc" sort of thing). I suggest we stick to that process otherwise the discussion will bog down continually. Fowler, there is nothing wrong with Nikkul tabulating results, anyone can do that. Anyway, let's install these images and then deal with changes while we move on to the other sections. -- regentspark ( comment) 21:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Oppose The change has already been implemented by User:Saravask but here's my "formal vote", for the record, for the reasons stated at the top of the sub-section and in my reply to User:Pfly. Along with the map of India, this is now a 3rd area I have an issue with. Zuggernaut ( talk) 02:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I hear the talk of changing images in Economy and Culture. Which images are considered for a change?
-- Redtigerxyz Talk 04:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Q8: Goa needs a number "6" beside it in the map of states and a clickable area to its Wiki article.
This was placed mistakenly in the FAQ section. Can someone examine and address it if necessary? Zuggernaut ( talk) 22:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
The current image has too many distracting elements: trees, buildings. I like the old one or the one in BSE article which shows the building more, with much distractions. Redtigerxyz Talk 06:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I am removing the comment, 'the lowest since independence', on human sex ratio of India as it is the child sex ratio which is lowest since independence not the human sex ratio which was 933 in 2001 census compared to present census reported figures of 940. Alokagrawal8 ( talk) 09:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
As Redtigerxyz has said, eight images rotate in "Demographics" at present. Every time the page is purged or edited, a "parser function" is evaluated: one that calculates the current second modulo the number of rotated images—here, eight. Thus we evaluate "[second] mod 8". So if the current second (which can range from 0 through 59, because there are 59 + 1 = 60 seconds in a minute) when the purge/edit is done was, say, 13, then you take the remainder after dividing 13 into 8 (13 / 8)—which is five. So then the sixth (5 + 1 = 6) image (the eight images are numbered from 0 to 7) in the rotation lineup ( ), the one numbered "5", is selected. And so it goes forever—so long as the rotation code and image count/lineup remain unchanged—every time a purge or edit happens. Saravask 17:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I've been watching the discussion upstairs and can't help feeling that an average reader has no idea that the rotation is in fact a rotation. All they see is a picture. If they come back, they may easily do so after such time as to have little memory of the previous visit. The diversity we've worked so hard to display is likely wasted on them.
I was wondering if we could put the final 8 images selected for the rotation on a subpage, lock it down, and provide a link for it in the caption of the rotation image. See accompanying picture. This way the reader will have instant access to all images, will instantly clue into the fact of rotation, not to mention India's diversity, and perhaps even return soon to view its random offerings. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 15:00, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, this, perhaps, could work. Captions might not be needed (but they will need to be improved in the Commons version of these images). Here is one implementation with no captions. In general, though, I agree more with AshLin's view. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
A minor section on corruption should be added, as it is a major issue in politics and business. Sarcelles ( talk) 17:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
---Thanks, Joel---
For gosh sake, before it was the obsessively subpar images; now, great God almighty, it is the defiantly subpar prose. Both keep rising up again and again—like the heads of the Lernaean Hydra. Except now I no longer have time for the usual interminable call-and-response routine of casuistry and perseveration that prevails here.
So let me put it this way: if anyone else has the misfortune of falling through the trapdoor and onto this page by foolishly attempting some "undiscussed" non-stupid and non-piddling verbal or visual therapy here, then [fill in random horror-movie plot device here] them. If you revert because you "prefer to discuss it first", fine ...
A few days of talk for one image or one lede paragraph is bearable. But then what is with the weeks-long nit-picking and round-table jabber that then ensues, most of it useless? Glad-handing bloat or stalling or trolling, much of it? Doctrinairism. Functional fixedness. Non-pragmatism. Non-incrementalism. All often causing the page to end up even worse than it was before—which is now likely to happen with the images. All while the same "consensus" crap in question stays pasted up on main for all to laugh at? Again, for weeks? The consensus-death of real solutions, the true wonder of this time-sink of a talk page. Saravask 18:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
AGF Saravask there must surely be something in the prose that you feel is below par and feel so strongly about. Let us leave aside the discussion of mode of improving articles, can we get some kind of indication from you as to which are the parts needing improvement so that we can get on with it? AshLin ( talk) 21:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
To give an example, a sentence in the ancient India section, as I remember it, originally was:
The caste system, which created a hierarchy of priests, warriors and free peasants, but excluded indigenous peoples by labeling their occupations impure, arose during this period.
The cites supported this sentence. The sentence was changed somewhere along the way to:
The caste system, creating a social hierarchy, appeared during this period.
This had now been changed by Saravask to:
The caste system, which spawned a social hierarchy, appeared during this period.
The problem with the final version is that it seems to imply that the caste system (an abstraction) spawned (gave birth to) the hierarchy. The caste system was the hierarchy. The meaning has changed entirely (and I say this as someone who normally likes the word "spawn."). When such edits are discussed ahead of time, the problems can be pointed out; however, when they appear as parts of edits with minimal or perfunctory edit summaries, it is very hard to keep going after each error. I certainly don't have the time, nor the energy. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 23:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Here is another sentence, which in the original FAR'd version read:
In north India, during the same time, Hinduism asserted patriarchal control within the family, leading to the increased subordination of women.
This too was changed by someone to:
In north India during the same time, Hinduism asserted patriarchal control within the family.
, with "patriarchal" linked to "patriarchy," which now has been pruned further by Saravask to
In North Indian families, Hinduism asserted patriarchal control.
Though Saravask, clearly, is not to be blamed for the intermediate edit, it now sounds like Hinduism asserted patriarchal control in all north Indian families, not just the Hindu households. Clearly, during this time, large swathes of India, both North and South, lay beyond the pale of Hinduism. If you are looking for terse writing, then, in this instance, a sentence like: "In North India, Hinduism asserted patriarchal control," is closer to the original meaning than "In North Indian families, Hinduism asserted patriarchal control."
One of the things about style in Wikipedia is that we can't turn to prose into a series of Haikus. The average reader likes to have some extra words to hang his hat one, to get his bearings right. So, a sentence like "patriarchal control within the family" is not verbally excessive even though patriarchy is largely (but not entirely) about the family. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 00:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Here is an example where I have more sympathy with Saravask's edit or at least the intent behind the edit. The original edit, one of my pet Victorian constructions, was:
Depending upon the historian, India's modern age begins variously in 1848, when with the appointment of Lord Dalhousie as Governor General of the Company rule in India, changes essential to a modern state, including the consolidation and demarcation of sovereignty, the surveillance of the population, and the education of citizens, were put in place, and technological changes, among them, railways, canals, and telegraph were introduced not long after being introduced in Europe; 1857, when disaffection with the Company's rule, set off by diverse resentments, which included British social reforms, harshness of land taxes, and the humiliation of landed and princely aristocracy, led to the Indian rebellion of 1857 in many parts of northern India; 1858, when after the suppression of the rebellion, the British government took over the direct administration of India, and proclaimed a unitary state, which on the one hand envisaged a limited and gradual British-style parliamentary system, but on the other hand protected India's princes and large landlords as a feudal safeguard; and 1885, when the founding of the Indian National Congress marked the beginning of a period in which public life emerged at an all-India level.
:) In my way of thinking (at least as of May 2011 when I was writing it) there is no reason why today's readers can't suck it up like the Victorians and withhold gratification (or delay catharsis) until they get to the end of the sentence. But I can see that it will strain the readers resources and will likely elicit a rereading for full comprehension. This has been changed by Saravask to:
Depending upon the historian, India's modern age may have begun in 1848, when the appointment of Lord Dalhousie as Governor General of the Company rule in India inaugurated changes essential to the development of a modern state: the demarcation and consolidation of sovereignty; the surveillance of the population; the education of citizens; and the construction of railways, canals, and telegraph lines, which were introduced not long after they had taken root in Europe. The age may have begun in 1857, when British-style social reforms, harsh land taxes, and humiliations borne by landed and princely aristocracy led to the Indian Rebellion of 1857 that challenged Company rule and ravaged many parts of northern India. It may also have begun in 1858 when, after the rebels were suppressed, the British government opted for direct administration of India and proclaimed a unitary state, which on the one hand envisaged a slow transition to a British-style parliamentary system, but on the other hand favoured Indian princes and landlords as a feudal safeguard against popular unrest. Lastly, its modern era may have commenced with the founding of the Indian National Congress in 1885, thus marking the start of an all-India public life.
The problem with such a large change is that it's hard to know where to begin.
So there you have it. I could go on, but you realize that long BOLD edits like these cannot be casually reworked without a lot of explanation. I really don't have that kind of time. I've tried to say things very carefully in the history section, after reading a lot of sources. I'm not saying that nothing is wrong with my edits, only that they can't be changed casually without discussion, for they end of wasting more time later. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 01:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Nominations are invited for images in a rotation in the Sports section of the India page. Here are some ground rules (open to be discussed and changed by consensus):
Fowler&fowler «Talk» 21:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Nominations are now closed. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 00:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
India page sports rotation
India page sports rotation
India page sports rotation
India page sports rotation
India page sports rotation
India page sports rotation
India page sports rotation
India page sports rotation
India page sports rotation
India page sports rotation
India page sports rotation
India page sports rotation
|
Let's wait for all the images to come in before voting. We should also remember WP:Relevance- the fact that Cricket is the life and blood of India compared to other sports. Honestly, I do not think we need a rotation. One good image of cricket will suffice. Having a picture of any other sport would be undue. Nikkul ( talk) 01:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
You can keep spouting garbage or you can find images. Don't blame me for not giving enough notice this time. Do you have a reliable source for 98% of all sport and recreation in India is cricket? (50% of the population is women.) Fowler&fowler «Talk» 01:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
It shows FIH Women's Field Hockey World Cup, Rosario, Argentina with "Hockey Press Argentina" in white at the bottom. This may be a copyvio, owned by "Hockey Press Argentina". Some flickr users collect on the net and then release it by any license. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I have just been casually checking Commons and Flickr and I find free images on Indian sport other than cricket are very hard to come by. For example, there is not a single response on CC-Attrib & cc-SA in Flickr on kabaddi or kho kho two traditional Indian games played in schools (I have played both as a child) and also at higher levels. We will need to ask photographers to photograph matches in the coming year for inclusion. In this context, strict image size may be a problem for traditional Indian sports. Take jallikattu for instance, File:Madurai-alanganallur-jallikattu.jpg seems to be a very exciting and to my untrained eye, good image but fails the size test. I think we may lower the image size bar and put in an image size pass/reject vote later on where images are smaller. This need not hold for conventional sports, like cricket or hockey where adequate images are available. AshLin ( talk) 03:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Can videos be made part of the rotation? More precisely, can still images and video clips both feature in the same rotation? If so, I (personally) wouldn't mind seeing video clips, as they illustrate a sport (especially the lesser known traditional sports, but for that matter even cricket or hockey for unacquainted readers) as nothing else does. For more information on submitting video clips, see How to Post a Video on Wikipedia]. Responses and feedback are welcome. (Please also see this news article about videos on Wikipedia). Fowler&fowler «Talk» 12:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
There does not seem to be a consensus about number of images. IMO, the ground rule: "Voting will begin after 11 November 2011 for a total of eight images" needs to be changed and the number finalized beforehand. Please present your views in the following format:
Thanks. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid, you don't understand. We can't keep having this discussion (and now, more confusingly, a "vote") interminably. It will turn off the most well-meaning and dedicated editors. Several people, including Saravask (who is traveling), Spaceman Spiff (also traveling), AshLin, RegentsPark, Pfly, and Big william compton, have already supported rotation and diversity. If you have misgivings, you can express them at the time of the actual vote (beginning 11 November 2011) If you think I am acting an undemocratic fashion, please pursue this further in the Wikipedia forum of your choice. There is already a rotation in place in the sports section, featuring none of the depictions of sport which you exalt, and in which you exult. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 08:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
To: Regtigerxyz, Nikkul. Let me repeat one more time, we have already made a India-page community decision to have rotations in Culture, Economy, Sport, in addition the ones we already have in Demographics and Biodiversity. Many people have taken part in the discussion, expressed articulate and long opinions. The process for selection will go on regardless of what goes on here. When we vote on 11 November 2011, the voting announcement will say, "Please vote for up to 8 images indicating by your vote both the number and choice of images you would like to see in the rotation" If you don't want rotation, you can vote for a single image. The images will then be selected and added to the rotation. At that point if you edit war, I will take you to ANI or whatever else it takes, and let them have a look at the archives. This is the end of this discussion. Let me warn you very politely Redtigerxyz and Nikkul, please don't be passively disruptive. The average person, even one with a surfeit of good faith, is not so stupid as to not figure out what is transpiring here. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 11:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Seems some people editing here would be interested in the " South Tibet" article. It refers to an area that makes up most of Arunachal Pradesh, and is claimed by China. I feel the term, and the article to be NNPOV, with a China bias, but don't have the time/interest to do much about it myself. Maybe some of the editors here would like to balance out the bias. -- Keithonearth ( talk) 04:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Nehru gandhi.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 18 November 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 20:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC) |
I have seen many countries pages and they have this section, but Indian don't have it!
United States
Germany
I don't remember more, but it would be better to include this sections with subsections like:
Transportation
Science and Tech
Education
Health
Energy
etc.
( ) 19:30, 13 June 2024 IST [ refresh
Here I have a little Coding, Please someone add more information to it and Place it in the article or Advise me if I am wrong.
India's infrastructure is carefully planned and developed mainly by
Planning Commission (India).Today, India is one of the most exciting emerging markets in the world. Skilled managerial and technical manpower that match the best available in the world and a middle class whose size exceeds the population of the USA or the European Union, provide India with a distinct cutting edge in global competition.
The road transport sector has been declared a priority and will have access to loans at favorable conditions. The Monopoly and Restrictive Trade Practices Act (MRTP Act) was passed in order to encourage large industry to enter the road sector.
[1]
The National Highways Act has been modified to help the reduction of tolls on national motorways, bridges and tunnels. Calcutta's Howrah Bridge is the world's busiest with a daily flow of 57,000 vehicles and innumerable pedestrians. Private participation in the energy sector has been encouraged with the reduction of import duties, a five-year tax exemption for new energy projects and a 16% return on equity.
The government is also following a new telecommunications policy that aims for the improvement of quality to a worldwide standard and, as a result, India could emerge as a major producer and exporter of telecommunication systems. Advantageous policies in this sector are encouraging private and foreign participation.
Over the years, ISRO has conducted a variety of operations for both Indian and foreign clients. ISRO's satellite launch capability is mostly provided by indigenous launch vehicles and launch sites. In 2008, ISRO successfully launched its first lunar probe, Chandrayaan-1, while future plans include indigenous development of GSLV, manned space missions, further lunar exploration, and interplanetary probes. ISRO has several field installations as assets, and cooperates with the international community as a part of several bilateral and multilateral agreements.
Collapses as issue is resolved
|
---|
What exactly is
user:Saravask attempting to do here with
this one edit across multiple sections including that of previous posts, but without showing scratched content, without even putting his John Hancock to indicate updating? Of which Wikipedia talk page guideline is that emblematic? He has been continually tweaking previous posts, some weeks old, which he flatters himself that anyone reads, without any indication that they've been edited, except perhaps in one grandiloquent edit summary covering a multi-section edit. Whether it is disingenuous or not is hard to know. It certainly is very confusing for others.
Fowler&fowler
«Talk» 14:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
|
Note: The images have been labelled in the style "Alphabet-Numeral" (e.g. C-7). The upper case letters, A, B, C, ..., very approximately, denote the different classes of sports mentioned in the text of India#Sport section. The numerals, 1, 2, 3, ... represent the location of the images in the sequence above.
Fowler&fowler «Talk» 00:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Note: As of 10:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC) the vote tally is: A-1 (2), A-2, A-3, C-6, C-7, D-8, D-10 (2), D-19, E-11, E-13, F-15 (4), G-16, G-19, J-24, K-25 (3), K-26, M-30 (3), N-31, N-34, O-36 (3), O-38, O-39, P-43 (3), Q-45, S-48 (3)
If 8 images were selected now without any corrections for bias, they would be:
F-15 (4), K-25 (3), M-30 (3), O-36 (3), P-43 (3), S-48 (3), A-1 (2), D-10 (2)
There are a number of issues with the raw count: a) no pictures of girls or women, b) 5 pictures of modern sports and only 3 of traditional, c) it seems people have voted for what they thought was a more spectacular picture, rather than what they though might be representative. The Kallaripattayu (F-15) image, though spectacular, is too low-res. The Jallikattu image, D-10, at least for me, has the additional problem that it is a picture of a festival or series of festivals, in which troublingly, hordes of (drunken?) young men gang up on a scared and often tired bull (see more realistic accompanying picture, which I uploaded on Commons on 4 November, but forgot to nominate. The Supreme Court of India recently ruled on this issue, and the organizers now have many more constraints (such as having vetinarians and animal welfare activists monitoring the events), but we don't have pictures of those events.))
Oppose removal of Jallikattu image: The POV that all instances of Jallikattu are (druken) men surrounding a tired bull, is nothing but OR based on 1 image. Outlook says it is a popular sport with "iconic status" and a "representative of bravery of men". [1] It is an "ancient, traditional rural sport", dating back to the Sangam era (3rd century BC to 3rd century AD) and comparable to bull sports of France and Crete. Though animal activists may like it or not, it remains a popular sport in Tamil Nadu. Agree to change of chess image to C-7 or C-6. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Endorse Fowler's proposal—except for S-48 and the jallikattu remark regarding D-10:
Prefer C-6 and E-13 E-11. Otherwise, hats off to both of you for these noms—it really is a representative and fun-looking fascinatingly diverse set of images.
Saravask 10:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC) [redacted by
Saravask at 19:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC) and 19:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)]
Sorry, Redtigerxyz, but that is a government law. It has nothing to do with the separate matter before the Supreme Court of India, a matter on which the Supreme court has been flip-flopping for three or four years now. As for digital altering, if that picture is not altered I don't know what picture is. When you upload a regular picture on Wikipedia, as I did one of my own in File:Humayun's Tomb, New Delhi Corner View.jpg, you get excruciating detail about the camera etc. etc. in the Metadata. What does the metadata of the bogus Jallikattu picture have? Answer: The name of a digital imaging software. You have to mangle a picture pretty good with software before the camera data will disappear. How do we know that it wasn't scanned by the uploader from somewhere? It certainly has the graininess of scanned pictures. Like I said, if you want to put a bogus picture of an illegal sport in a Featured Article, conduct an RfC. Otherwise, no dice. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 05:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Fowler&fowler «Talk» 05:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Support Fowler's selection with Redtiger's Anand switch. Saravask 12:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Modified list and check the temporary crop: if it's ok?
Redtigerxyz Talk 13:58, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Since there are 2 images pertaining to the Mughals, I suggest replacing the current image with the Taj Mahal (non-rotation).
-- Redtigerxyz Talk 05:49, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Don't agree with that. The Mughals have a lot more art and architecture to show, staggeringly more. Among their UNESCO World Heritage sites are: Agra Fort, Fatehpur Sikri, Humayun's Tomb, Taj Mahal, and Red Fort, not to mention Lahore Fort, and Thatta in Pakistan: all in all a total of seven independent World Heritage sites. The Cholas have only one. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 05:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Almost all the sources of this article are damned websites. You have to understand that it's an article about a Country. A website, and that too so lame, cannot be considered a reliable resource. ( Mr.ankit97 ( talk) 13:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC))
the medieval history section employs usages such as : "By repeatedly repulsing the Mongol raiders in the thirteenth century, the Sultanate saved India from the devastation visited on West and Central Asia"
when the etymology of the word mughal itself is from Mongol , i fail to see any truth in such assertions, and nobody protected India from any such devastation , the Muslim invaders WERE the devastators.
also
"The Sultanate's raiding and weakening of the regional kingdoms of South India paved the way for the indigenous Vijayanagara Empire."
Another attempt at assigning positives to a largely negative interaction.
I wonder if such tones should be entertained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chimesmonster ( talk • contribs) 18:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
AshLin ( talk) 18:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Appropos above pt 1, And what were they is not ,INVADING HORDES? How can there be a claim that since once particular horde did the looting and pillaging ,one ought to be thankful to THEM that another horde did Not do the same!
pt2 13th to 16th century , the invaders did nothing more than consolidate their partisan agendas, Islamisize parts of india and ultimately lead to Bangladesh.Where was the influence for paving the way for southern kingdoms?
Pt3 Duly acknowledged and will be adhered to.
RAA Ra Ra your Boat ( talk) 07:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Bharat Ratna Award Bharat Ratna is the highest civilian honour, given for exceptional service towards advancement of Art, Literature and Science, and in recognition of Public Service of the highest order. India has produced a legacy of brave hearts since times immemorial. Probably there is not enough space to measure their sacrifices. However, we cannot close our eyes to those people who have made our country proud by excelling in their own fields and bringing us international recognition.
Param Vir Chakra (PVC) Param Vir Chakra (PVC) is the highest gallantry award for officers and other enlisted personnel of all military branches of India for the highest degree of valour in the presence of the enemy. Introduced on 26th January 1950, this award may be given posthumously.
Padma Awards Padma Vibhushan, Padma Bhushan and Padma Shri Padma Awards, namely, Padma Vibhushan, Padma Bhushan and Padma Shri are given for exceptional and distinguished service in any field including service rendered by Government servants. The recommendations for Padma Awards are received from the State Governments/Union Territory Administrations, Central Ministries/Departments, Institutions of Excellence, etc. which are considered by an Awards Committee. On the basis of the recommendations of the Awards Committee, and after approval of the Home Minister, Prime Minister and President, the Padma Awards are announced on the eve of the Republic Day.
Gallantry Awards Independent India saw the introduction of awards such as Param Vir Chakra, Maha Vir Chakra, Ashoka Chakra, Shaurya Chakra etc. Ashok Chakra The Ashok Chakra series of awards are open to civilians also. Recommendations received in respect of civilians from the State Governments/Union territory Administra-tions and Ministries/Departments of the Central Government are processed by the Ministry of Defence for the consideration of the Central Honours and Awards Committee chaired by the Defence Minister. These awards are biannual and are given on the Republic Day and Independence Day.
Shaurya Chakra This is awarded for gallantry other than in the face of the enemy. This award may be granted to civilians or to military personnel and may be awarded posthumously.
Bravery Awards The national awards for bravery was started in 1957 by the Indian Council for Child Welfare (ICCW) (External website that opens in a new window) to recognise and honour children who have performed outstanding deeds of bravery and selfless sacrifice. Every year the ICCW confers these awards to children below 16years of age.
Jeevan Raksha Padak Series of Awards The Jeevan Raksha Padak Series of awards are given for courage and promptitude under circumstances of great danger to the life or bodily injury of the rescuer, displayed in an act or a series of acts of humane nature, in saving life from drowning, fire, rescue operations in mines, etc. Recommendations for Jeevan Raksha Padak series of awards are received from the State Government/Union Territory, Administrations and Ministries /Departments of the Government of India.
[2] --Sachin 07:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachinpandhare ( talk • contribs)
Bharat Ratna Award Bharat Ratna is the highest civilian honour, given for exceptional service towards advancement of Art, Literature and Science, and in recognition of Public Service of the highest order. India has produced a legacy of brave hearts since times immemorial. Probably there is not enough space to measure their sacrifices. However, we cannot close our eyes to those people who have made our country proud by excelling in their own fields and bringing us international recognition.
Param Vir Chakra (PVC) Param Vir Chakra (PVC) is the highest gallantry award for officers and other enlisted personnel of all military branches of India for the highest degree of valour in the presence of the enemy. Introduced on 26th January 1950, this award may be given posthumously.
Padma Awards Padma Vibhushan, Padma Bhushan and Padma Shri Padma Awards, namely, Padma Vibhushan, Padma Bhushan and Padma Shri are given for exceptional and distinguished service in any field including service rendered by Government servants. The recommendations for Padma Awards are received from the State Governments/Union Territory Administrations, Central Ministries/Departments, Institutions of Excellence, etc. which are considered by an Awards Committee. On the basis of the recommendations of the Awards Committee, and after approval of the Home Minister, Prime Minister and President, the Padma Awards are announced on the eve of the Republic Day.
Gallantry Awards Independent India saw the introduction of awards such as Param Vir Chakra, Maha Vir Chakra, Ashoka Chakra, Shaurya Chakra etc. Ashok Chakra The Ashok Chakra series of awards are open to civilians also. Recommendations received in respect of civilians from the State Governments/Union territory Administra-tions and Ministries/Departments of the Central Government are processed by the Ministry of Defence for the consideration of the Central Honours and Awards Committee chaired by the Defence Minister. These awards are biannual and are given on the Republic Day and Independence Day.
Shaurya Chakra This is awarded for gallantry other than in the face of the enemy. This award may be granted to civilians or to military personnel and may be awarded posthumously.
Bravery Awards The national awards for bravery was started in 1957 by the Indian Council for Child Welfare (ICCW) (External website that opens in a new window) to recognise and honour children who have performed outstanding deeds of bravery and selfless sacrifice. Every year the ICCW confers these awards to children below 16years of age.
Jeevan Raksha Padak Series of Awards The Jeevan Raksha Padak Series of awards are given for courage and promptitude under circumstances of great danger to the life or bodily injury of the rescuer, displayed in an act or a series of acts of humane nature, in saving life from drowning, fire, rescue operations in mines, etc. Recommendations for Jeevan Raksha Padak series of awards are received from the State Government/Union Territory, Administrations and Ministries /Departments of the Government of India.
[3] --Sachin 07:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachinpandhare ( talk • contribs)
Bharat Ratna Award Bharat Ratna is the highest civilian honour, given for exceptional service towards advancement of Art, Literature and Science, and in recognition of Public Service of the highest order. India has produced a legacy of brave hearts since times immemorial. Probably there is not enough space to measure their sacrifices. However, we cannot close our eyes to those people who have made our country proud by excelling in their own fields and bringing us international recognition.
Param Vir Chakra (PVC) Param Vir Chakra (PVC) is the highest gallantry award for officers and other enlisted personnel of all military branches of India for the highest degree of valour in the presence of the enemy. Introduced on 26th January 1950, this award may be given posthumously.
Padma Awards Padma Vibhushan, Padma Bhushan and Padma Shri Padma Awards, namely, Padma Vibhushan, Padma Bhushan and Padma Shri are given for exceptional and distinguished service in any field including service rendered by Government servants. The recommendations for Padma Awards are received from the State Governments/Union Territory Administrations, Central Ministries/Departments, Institutions of Excellence, etc. which are considered by an Awards Committee. On the basis of the recommendations of the Awards Committee, and after approval of the Home Minister, Prime Minister and President, the Padma Awards are announced on the eve of the Republic Day.
Gallantry Awards Independent India saw the introduction of awards such as Param Vir Chakra, Maha Vir Chakra, Ashoka Chakra, Shaurya Chakra etc. Ashok Chakra The Ashok Chakra series of awards are open to civilians also. Recommendations received in respect of civilians from the State Governments/Union territory Administra-tions and Ministries/Departments of the Central Government are processed by the Ministry of Defence for the consideration of the Central Honours and Awards Committee chaired by the Defence Minister. These awards are biannual and are given on the Republic Day and Independence Day.
Shaurya Chakra This is awarded for gallantry other than in the face of the enemy. This award may be granted to civilians or to military personnel and may be awarded posthumously.
Bravery Awards The national awards for bravery was started in 1957 by the Indian Council for Child Welfare (ICCW) (External website that opens in a new window) to recognise and honour children who have performed outstanding deeds of bravery and selfless sacrifice. Every year the ICCW confers these awards to children below 16years of age.
Jeevan Raksha Padak Series of Awards The Jeevan Raksha Padak Series of awards are given for courage and promptitude under circumstances of great danger to the life or bodily injury of the rescuer, displayed in an act or a series of acts of humane nature, in saving life from drowning, fire, rescue operations in mines, etc. Recommendations for Jeevan Raksha Padak series of awards are received from the State Government/Union Territory, Administrations and Ministries /Departments of the Government of India.
[4] --Sachin 09:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachinpandhare ( talk • contribs)
I find that in the infobox, where it lists India's independace from the UK, it should also stated the date of the independance of Diu, Damao, and Goa from Portugal. It is significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.186.55.223 ( talk) 10:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Should we parallelly start the nomination phase for Arts image section rotation to save time ? -- Redtigerxyz Talk 11:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Removing "Please do not nominate photoshopped images. (Cropping is fine, but not much else, especially not color changes.)". It is an absurd condition. Even Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria does not prevent digital manipulation altogether. "Typical acceptable manipulation includes cropping, perspective correction, sharpening/blurring, and colour/exposure correction". -- Redtigerxyz Talk 18:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
And nobody needs prove one's expertise by showing some diploma/degree etc. If the images look better, they are better. I see no sense in criticizing images because they have been improved. The criticism would be more palatable/understandable/logical if it was because of the reason that they were not improved. Thanks. MW ℳ 02:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC) It would be easier on everyone if you could admit that your views are Indophobic- MW ℳ 02:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Those people(s) who are most humble/halting and least assertive in their opinions tend to have the best taste—in images, prose, or whatever else. Just think of Japanese or Bhutanese architecture, culture, aesthetics compared with those of McWorld. "People get what they deserve, not what they expect". Saravask 10:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
In light of Redtigerxyz's (very understandable conundrum and) partial revert, here is a:
Just 1 observation move the "Indian cuisine" part in "Art, architecture, and literature" to Society. See [2]. Also I propose to add something about Indian art. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 14:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Nominations are now open for the India#Arts section rotation. Please read the text of that section, then submit high quality images relevant to the text. Nominations will close at 00:00 22 November 2011. I am adding rows of gallery blanks in all three subsections below. Please make more copies, if you are nearing the last row.
Let us temporarily have a rotation of images that passed in Talk:India/Archive_35#Voting_.232_.28With_47_images.29 and Talk:India/Archive 36 (Demographics voting), but were not included, citing that there will soon be a selection for a religion rotation in the culture section and images be reserved for that. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 14:49, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Fowler raises some good points here:
Fowler's excellent points regarding quality have dovetailed with the ones I've tried to make over the past several weeks—and I think I've pretty much railed against of otherwise alienated everyone here regarding image or prose quality. I hope Redtiger and others don't our criticisms personally. Fowler just wants to keep this article clean: free of shabbiness and POV. Saravask 12:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I see that no decisions have been made in my absence. Unfortunately, I'm flat out of time, and can't help much. Looking at it cursorily, all I can say is that there are too few votes and too many images. There are too many sub-standard images, nominated without thought, without care, and often without the courtesy of intelligible captions. There might have been more votes, but many people who earlier were participating in the process are now no longer doing so. I believe they have been driven away, turned off either by the bickering or by what they might see as an attempt—by the off-handed dumping of less-than-explained images—to limit the vote to a group of insiders. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 18:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Delhi is now largest country in india according to 2011 census
Gebenjam ( talk) 11:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The state Orissa has been changed to Odisha. Can you please make the change in India wiki page?
Saubhagya Nayak 19:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
|answered=
to "no" in the edit semi-protected template at the top of this section. —
Bility (
talk) 20:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)As for the posts in a previous talk page thread, Medieval history section seems patronizing?], opened while I was on Wikibreak, the sentence is well-documented. Please read the references in the footnotes. Not only were there no large-scale forced conversions of Hindus to Islam during the rule of the Delhi Sultanate (whose Turkish slave armies were vastly superior to those of the indigenous rulers of the subcontinent), but by encountering and defeating the Mongols at the northwestern borders, the Delhi sultans saved North India from the wanton destruction seen in West Asia and Southern Eurasia. For the former, there are many sources, among which the better known ones (with links to relevant pages) are:
For the military and technological superiority of the Turkish armies contrasted with the indigenous Indian rulers, see:
For the effective protection provided by the Sultanate against the Mongols, there are many sources as well, in addition to the ones cited. Among these are:
Which holy book from the west gives this interpretation ? RAA Ra Ra your Boat ( talk) 08:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
" An army of 12,000 under Targhi's leadership moved to Delhi in a swift attack; many governors could not send their troops to Delhi in time. Alauddin Khilji was forced to retreat to Siri for about two months. The Mongols attacked and pillaged not only the surrounding areas, but Delhi itself." Rene Grousset - Empire of steppes, Chagatai Khanate; Rutgers Univ Pr,New Jersey, U.S.A, 1988 ISBN 0-8135-1304-9 RAA Ra Ra your Boat ( talk) 09:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
You are not correctly quoting the reference which can be see on Google books here.[1] Which Part is INCORRECT ? that delhi was pillaged ? That the Sultanate ,which you and your friend here term as a bulwark ,failed to act as an effective resistance as is being painted in the main article ? If any of the above two facts are true,then terming any effective protection from the mongols by the delhi sultanate is prima facie Incorrect. RAA Ra Ra your Boat ( talk) 06:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
RAA Ra Ra your Boat ( talk) 07:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Also you are cherry-picking so while it is true that the Mongols besieged Delhi and raided India a few times, often they were defeated or held at bay.
that is true of many rulers in many parts of the world , yet nowhere is such a claim made that one bunch of invaders resulted in protection from another bunch of thugs, i mean to say, where is the differece and why this need to paint positives ? Tamarlane was a mongol , the babur and Mughals were Mongols , and neither khilji nor the marmalukes nor the lodhi's were any less "barbarian"!
RAA Ra Ra your Boat ( talk) 06:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
They could not achieve the kind of success they achieved in other parts of Central Asia due to Khiljis army and tactics and as such the Mongols could never rule over India.
"But they DID , and you forget that one century does not define the boundaries of success OR failure, I cannot for exampe say ,that the marathas succeded in keeping the westerners at bay ,because in the end , in hindsight , they Did not."
RAA Ra Ra your Boat ( talk) 06:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
RAA Ra Ra your Boat ( talk) 09:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC) Whatever the source said, it did not verbatim say what you implied and there were points which you left out conveniently.that is PLAIN WRONG!
RAA Ra Ra your Boat ( talk) 09:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
RAA Ra Ra your Boat ( talk) 09:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Delhi did fall almost a hundred years later, in 1398 to Tamerlane, who defeated the Genghisid Mongols of the Chagatai Khanate, and that too after the Delhi sultanates declined. So the Delhi Sultans stopped the Mongols from ravaging the Indian heartlands.
Exactly MY POINT , so why assign falsehood and undeserved praise to this bunch of invaders? RAA Ra Ra your Boat ( talk) 09:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
So if you imply that the Khilji's could not prevent the Mongols from coming, you need to learn more about Mongol tactics and generalship.
RAA Ra Ra your Boat ( talk) 09:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Tamerlane was from a Turkic-Mongol origins, yet he fought and defeated the Chagatai Khanate and started his own dynasty. He began his own line which later became the Mughal dynasty in India. They were of Mongol origin but were not Mongols.
RAA Ra Ra your Boat ( talk) 09:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Some historians , notably Will durant , disagree , "the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without and multiplying from within.” RAA Ra Ra your Boat ( talk) 09:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
AshLin (
talk) 10:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
U can even check on the google images, THE RAM SETU built by LORD RAMA, the hero of one of the holy books of hindus, THE RAMAYANAM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by S.R.Aniruddha ( talk • contribs) 17:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello! This is my first time doing this, so I apologize if I make a mistake or post this incorrectly, etc.
This may seem like a small detail, but as it stands, this is the sentence in the current Wikipedia article about India that I have issue with:
"The predominant religion, Hinduism, has been shaped by various historical schools of thought, including those of the Upanishads,[231] the Yoga Sutras, the Bhakti movement,[230] and by Buddhist philosophy.[232]
I understand that this is an article on India, not Hinduism, and to go into the fact of how "Hinduism" is not even a "religion" will prove to be superfluous in this particular case; however, stating that Hinduism has been "shaped by Buddhist philosophy"? Buddhism began in approx. 6th century BCE - how could it, then, "shape" Hinduism, which has been around for thousands of years before Buddhism even existed? Buddha himself was born into a royal Hindu family. The clear fact is that to state that Hinduism was "shaped" by Buddhism is an anachronism - if anything, Buddhism was shaped by Hinduism, not the other way around. My simple request is that the Buddhist mention be removed in that sentence, for it is not only misleading, but wildly incorrect.
The other mentions (Upanishads, Yoga, and Bhakti) are at least part of the 'astik' schools of Hindu philosophy (Buddhism is 'nastik' in Hindu philosophy and came after the other mentioned schools of thought). The sentence is talking about "historical schools of thought," and Buddhism "historically" came way after Hinduism. If the sentence is trying to state that NOWADAYS, Buddhist philosophy is gaining popularity within certain Hindu sects, then that is what it should say, for the sentence as it stands is very misleading. But even that would be an arguable notion - Buddhism came out of Hinduism and many of the principles (not all, of course) are similar. So saying Buddhism is "influencing" Hinduism makes no sense, because it came out of Hinduism itself. Even some concepts mostly associated with Buddhism (like "ahimsa", for example) can originally be found in certain Hindu philosophies. Like I said, it's a whole different thing to say that Buddhism is gaining popularity or that its ideals are being practiced by more Hindus. But you cannot state that it "shaped" the religion that not only came before it, but is inadvertently responsible for its creation. Simply put, it is factually and literally impossible for Buddhism to have "shaped" Hinduism.
Sorry my post is so long - I'm not trying to offend anyone, I just want to be clear. Millions of people read Wikipedia and little details like that make a world of difference in the misinterpretations that go on in society.
Thank you for reading!
Jeanniejeanniejeannie ( talk) 07:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the first sentence, there is an unmatched right parenthesis. Please change "see also the official names of India)," to "see also the official names of India,"
Jdtwood ( talk) 08:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi India now has the 9th Largest Nominal GDP not the 10th, its just a simple detail that i noticed Thanks
222.155.241.80 ( talk) 08:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The economy seems incorrect 219.89.221.106 ( talk) 03:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
i desire to continue the discussion regarding the below two lines in the medieval history section .
"By repeatedly repulsing the Mongol raiders in the 13th century, the Sultanate saved India from the devastation visited on West and Central Asia, "
&
"The Sultanate's raiding and weakening of the regional kingdoms of South India paved the way for the indigenous Vijayanagara Empire."
I continue this from archived part (archive 36),wherein somebody has cruelly culled the ongoing discussion between another interested party and myself.
I am not averse to renewing the old section, but lack the know-how to do this.
RAA Ra Ra your Boat (
talk) 08:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The Indian economy is the 9th largest and here is the source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal) 219.89.221.106 ( talk) 03:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
the religion census is not yet updated though the census has been announced muslim population should be 14.9% according to census 2010 thought it is written 13.4% which is according to the last census 2001
so , therefore there is big difference of 10 years and according to indian censuses muslims are increasing atleast 1.9% every ten years so that's why there should be updating on this article though govt. is not disclosing the correct figure of muslims .
pls take my request and aply it as soon as possible and i would appreciate you thank you
182.71.118.178 ( talk) 22:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Rvd4life has added two new sections: "Science and Technology" (with the "T" miscapitalised) and "Transport". If we arrive at a consensus to keep even one of these, it'd be best to emulate the TOC at Canada, which is a well-maintained FA. They have S&T under "Economy". Also, they don't have a "Transport" section. Maybe Rvd4life is looking at the structure of United Kingdom, but that article is oversized and not featured. Also, there are the WP:COUNTRY and WP:MOS guidelines. Saravask 05:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
In the Politics Heading, under the "5.2 subdivisions", there is a lot of white space surrounding the map. Can we move the map to the right and have the states and UTs to the left rather than having the map below the states and UTs. -- Anbu121 ( talk me) 11:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Why is "Most historians also consider this period to have encompassed several waves of Indo-Aryan migration into the subcontinent from the north-west" written under the history section of this page? This has never been proven and many MODERN historians have actually de-bunked this outdated theory. For this reason, I'm not sure why this is written under the "history" section -- it's unproven, and the "indo-aryan migration" theory already has its own wiki page for those who want to inquire about these colonial beliefs. I just don't understand what it's doing under the history section of this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zondrah89 ( talk • contribs) 21:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The political map shows the wrong information about the disputed territories. It says these territories are pakistan & chinese territories but in actual these are Indian territories claimed by Pakistan & China.
121.244.160.219 ( talk) 04:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Not done: Please be specific about which information is incorrect and provide a reliable source for the change. Thanks, Celestra ( talk) 06:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
i desire to continue the discussion regarding the below two lines in the medieval history section .
"By repeatedly repulsing the Mongol raiders in the 13th century, the Sultanate saved India from the devastation visited on West and Central Asia, "
-
"The Sultanate's raiding and weakening of the regional kingdoms of South India paved the way for the indigenous Vijayanagara Empire."
I continue this from archived part (archive 36),wherein somebody has cruelly culled the ongoing discussion between another interested party and myself.
I am not averse to renewing the old section, but lack the know-how to do this. RAA Ra Ra your Boat (talk) 08:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
RAA Ra Ra your Boat 09:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chimesmonster ( talk • contribs)
"The Brahmanical tradition was paralleled by the non-Vedic Shramana movement. The Buddha was a member of this movement. [1] Shramana also gave rise to Jainism [2], yoga [3], the concept of the cycle of birth and death, the concept of samsara, and the concept of liberation. [4] The Shramana movement also influenced the Aranyakas and Upanishads in the Brahmanical tradition. [5] " SaibAbaVenkatesh ( talk) 03:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I would also like to replace some currently existing sentences, since they don't seem to be supported by the respective sources. SaibAbaVenkatesh ( talk) 03:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
So whats the verdict? SaibAbaVenkatesh ( talk) 00:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
(od) I'm going to have to look at the reference for that. Meanwhile, I've simplified the text further until we can clarify "orthodoxies". -- regentspark ( comment) 22:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
All parties interested see Dispute Resolution Noticeboard at " India". Thank you! SaibAbaVenkatesh ( talk) 05:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi,
This is Shiny Kumar Das from Mumbai, India. I would want to change the Indian National Anthem loaded on this portal, which does not have words in it. The Anthem consist of music and words. The words define India in its own beauty and culture. Please load the Anthem given on the Indian Government site http://india.gov.in/knowindia/national_symbols.php?id=6
Thanks & Regards,
Shiny Das. Shinydas ( talk) 00:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Not done: That website is very clear that the anthem can be played or sung. It may be better for the typical reader to leave off the words. Either way, you would need to upload the file using the tool to the left. Thanks, Celestra ( talk) 01:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
The lead currently has a footnote next to Pakistan when mentioning bordering countries, in which Afghanistan is claimed as a bordering country according to the Government of India's claims. My question is, is this really appropriate per WP:NPOV and WP:DUE? Looking at the ground realities, it's unrealistic to say that India shares an imaginary border with Afghanistan because the Gilgit-Baltistan region is as much a part of Pakistan as Jammu and Kashmir is claimed to be a part of India. And also, what are the viewpoints of other nations on this? Pakistan considers the entire of Kashmir as its own territory, including the state of Jammu and Kashmir. China, the other party in the Kashmir dispute, has its own issues with the Indian claim too. And most importantly, what is the Government of Afghanistan's stance on Gilgit-Baltistan? Or the international community, such as the United Nations, which as per status quo regards Indian-administered territory to cease no further than the Line of Control? Where then, does India bordering Afghanistan come into the equation? And how come the Pakistan article lead does not have a similiar footnote claiming its borders to stretch beyond the Line of Control, to include the disputed territory of Jammu and Kashmir? Mar4d ( talk) 08:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
According to me, the foot note has been written from a very neutral point of view. It does not say "India shares border with Afghanistan", it only says "Government of India considers Afghanistan to be a bordering country", which is a fact. -- Anbu121 ( talk me) 09:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Let me be more clear. I am not advocating that Indian government's viewpoints to be included in India article and Pakistan government's viewpoints to be included in Pakistan article. The foot note has been written in the context of list of bordering countries of India and not in the context of Kashmir dispute. It could be reworded to be more precise, but explaining the Kashmir conflict in this foot note looks a bit out of context. -- Anbu121 ( talk me) 14:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Added an official GOI declaration ref. AshLin ( talk) 05:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In India the vehicles are driven in Right side, As per our wikipedia, its written as Left, Kindly make the changes to Right, many thanks -Paneer Selvan A, Paneerselvan ( talk) 16:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change "English East India Company" to "British East India Company" in section "History" --> "Early modern India" because "English" is incorrect.
SC 03:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I think that Regional Power in the lead section must be changed to nascent Great Power. That would really depict the real condition of India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srikarkashyap ( talk • contribs) 13:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
There may be dispute regarding status of Kashmir. But there is no dispute regarding status os Jammu. Jammu is Hindu dominated area and there is abolutely no separtist movement against India or in favour of Pakistan. Thus Pakistan has no claim over Jammu.Similarly , Arunachal Pradesh is full fledged state of India. There is neither any separatist movement against or any movement for merger in China. As far as claim is concern, even India has claim over Kailash Range and Mansarovar lake and even Tibet is disputed. Rajesh Kumar69 ( talk) 06:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Here's one:
What I am trying to say is how is this a 'dispute', the standard earlier mentioned were about UN resolution. The dispute here is not about Arunachal Pradesh at all. Therefore this should be removed.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 21:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
As there is claimed to be dispute, is Indian side presented adequately here? As an example, there are sources that quote status of Arunachal Pradesh as disputed, but is content where India has rejected any claims as a 'dispute' been presented also in the article? I already presented one source. If I can come up with other sources I will add here.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 08:27, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
"The Vedas, the oldest scriptures of Hinduism,[20] were composed during this period, and historians have analysed these to posit a Vedic culture in the Punjab region and the upper Indo-Gangetic Plain.[19"
Nowhere except Mr. Upender Singh's book, is there a mention of date of composition of Vedas. Vedas were part of "Shruti" (heard knowledge) and was passed from generations to generations like that; until it was finally put on papirus leaves somewhere around the time quoted by Mr. Upender's book.
What is the verificity of the content of Mr. Upender Singh's book and how is it being treated as the reliable source of information?
- Prateek Mohan (mohan.prateek@gmail.com)
Well, Christianity arrived in what is now Kerala hundreds of years before Islam even existed, in the first century AD, by strong tradition through personal arrival of the Apostle St Thomas, one of the twelve disciples of Christ. Early converts were the many centuries-long established Jews, who barely survive as a community in Kerala, the vast majority of their ancestors having converted to Christianity nearly two millenia ago. It has not been established what proportion of the dwindling community of Xians -- because of their extremely low birthrate down to 20% of the state's population -- are descended from ancient Jews, not Hindus. Apart from enough ethnically indigenous fathers -- Jews only needing to have Jewish mothers -- to have given both Jews and Christians of Kerala a look of entirely local ancestry. A curious but authentic historical fact, especially ironic in that when Kerala Jews migrate to Israel they are not enthusiastically received and generally move onwards to North America because they look Indian, as Ethiopian Jews look African and are forced to "convert" to Judaism if they wish to remain in Israel. To Israelis they do not look Jewish, not being German, Polish or Russian. An ironic answer to one of the Biblical mysteries as to what happened to the ten supposedly lost tribes of Israel, three of them in fact having arrived in Kerala, Ethiopia (odd being a mystery given that the Bible is full of references to Ethiopia) and Afghanistan, the latter having centuries ago converted to Islam as did Parsis both there and in Iran where Christians were also obliged to do so. Kerala Christians themselves are often ignorant of this historical fact. Masalai ( talk) 03:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Please don't Play with the integrity of nation by showing wrong map of country India has been a peaceful and vary gentle country in world community and it has a history of not starting wars with it's neighbours.
Other countries have tried to take banifite of this and claiming some areas from india. Please make it sure if your Images showing the correct maps of India which is identical to Indian official maps.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.115.95.44 ( talk) 05:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Which is the NATIONAL LANGUAGE OF INDIA? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunnbio87 ( talk • contribs) 23:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Please read this -- Anbu121 ( talk me) 10:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
this is so very confusing!! i always thought Hindi is termed as the national language of India. why isnt it mentioned in here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taief631 ( talk • contribs) 21:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Hindi and English are the two official languages of the Republic of India. There are also several other regional official languages. However, there is no National language per se. You might be confusing "official language" with "national language". 11achitturi ( talk) 22:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
In the last paragraph of the section ""Foreign relations and military" (change and update facts and figures):
FIRSTLY:
SECONDLY:
So I noticed that both the introduction to this article and the infobox give India's official name in English (Republic of India) and in the other Indian languages (Bhaarat Ganaraajya). The infobox also gives a provision to add the native name of the country in that country's official language - and according to Article 343(1) of the Constitution of India, [7], that language is Standard Hindi in the Devanagari script. So why is भारत गणराज्य not listed as the name of India, either in the infobox or in the introduction? India seems to be the only country article where this occurs.
In Wikipedia:Countries, it states that "The official long-form name of the country in the local language is to go on top as the caption. If there are several official names (languages), list all (if reasonably feasible). The conventional long-form name (in English), if it differs from the local long-form name, should follow the local name(s)." Hindi in the Devanagari script and English in the Roman script are the two official languages of India, with Hindi being "the principal official language of the Union" (all the other languages of India are regional languages recognized by individual states, which I am assuming is different). Thus, the question becomes: Why is भारत गणराज्य not listed in the infobox? 11achitturi ( talk) 17:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the second paragraph of the article, please correct sentence that indicates that Islam arrived to India in the 1st century C.E. (obviously incorrect for a religion that began five centuries later) 98.216.133.228 ( talk) 21:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I know that the majority of India was held by the British and obviously thats why independance is listed as being from them, but the Portuguese were in India longer and held it more recently than the British. Granted, the most recent Portuguese India was quite small, but it should not at all be forgotten. Its date and independance should be noted in the infobox alongside. If there are no objections or conversation over this move by a week after this post, I shall add it. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás ( talk) 04:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
do see your point on the independence issue, and perhaps you are right, footnotes would be more accurate. This being said, I still strongly stand against the fact that the longest European presence in India is only mentioned once in the entire article. Not a single sentence mentions Vasco da Gama, perhaps one of the most influential characters in both Portuguese and Indian history. I find this lack of information a tragedy and it should be corrected. I do not wish to add it myself for I am no expert on Indian history as a whole, and I have not written at all for this article and I do not wish to meddle in other people's works. I am afraid that if this problem is not solved, perhaps this article is not truely suitable for a featured article. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás ( talk) 05:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot about this. I tend to agree with RegentsPark about not mentioning names. I checked some textbooks, and I feel that we should mention the opening of the sea route between Europe and India to provide context for the East India Company paragraph. The paragraph currently reads:
By the early 18th century, with the lines between commercial and political dominance increasingly blurred, a number of European trading companies, including the English East India Company, had established coastal outposts.
We could change this (if there is consensus) to:
By the early 18th century, some two centuries after the establishment of regular sea routes between Europe and India, a number of European trading companies, including the English East India Company, had established coastal outposts.
I believe this addition provides more context for the transition from the Mughal Empire to the EIC. Note "sea routes" is linked to Portuguese India Armadas. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 03:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
The sentence in the history section(ancient history) "Most historians also consider this period to have encompassed several waves of Indo-Aryan migration into the subcontinent from the north-west" is not required according to me as the theory of Aryan invasion has been challenged by many historinas -- sarvajna ( talk) 14:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
(od) It says 'most' because most is the correct term. Only a few nationalist elements in India have other ideas and those ideas are on the fringe. The current version is accurate. -- regentspark ( comment) 17:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Requesting a summary of the state of the issue from Fowler&fowler please. AshLin ( talk) 05:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
There is a good reason why we value the content of widely used textbooks published by internationally known academic publishers. It is that these books have been vetted for balance by scholars. In contrast, journal articles or monographs can espouse one particular viewpoint or emphasize one particular nuance. The widely-used texts are unanimous in broadly accepting the Indo-European (Aryan) migration theory. Ms. Upinder Singh's book has already been cited for the sentence. Here are two four other widely used texts:
There is no reason to change anything in the sentence. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 17:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC) Updated Fowler&fowler «Talk» 05:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
"Most historians also consider this period to have encompassed several waves of Indo-Aryan migration into the subcontinent from the north-west" - The word most should be replaced by some. As there are many historians who claim that Indo-Aryan migration theory is completely false. There is no-one to decide whether a majority (most) of the historians support this theory or a minority. So the word some historians would be more neutral and appropriate. Raghu-holkar ( talk) 13:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
@ RegentsPark
Again there is no-one to decide whether those who have given 'Out of India' theory are 'proper' historians or not. And no-one can decide whether Indo-Aryan migration theory is mainstream theory or not. If it is mainstream theory, then 'Indigenous Aryans' theory is also one mainstream theory. So, some should come in place of most. Raghu-holkar ( talk) 11:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
The question remains same : who is to decide whether its majority or minority of historians. Most is too subjective. If not some, then many can be more appropriate. It should be Many historians, not most. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raghu-holkar ( talk • contribs) 11:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Not Hindu nationalist groups, but non-Indian historians were the first to give 'Indigenous Aryans theory'.
Bryant, Edwin (2001), The quest for the origins of Vedic culture: the Indo-Aryan migration debate,
Oxford University Press, p. 6,
ISBN
0195137779, "It must be stated immediately that there is an unavoidable corollary of an Indigenist position. If the Indo-Aryan languages did not come from outside South Asia, this necessarily entails that India was the original homeland of all the other Indo-European languages."
A recent genetic-based research conducted by Harvard also claims that Aryan invasion is nothing but a myth. [8] By the way, whats the problem with Many ? It would be more neutral. Raghu-holkar ( talk) 12:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
1. There are other accepted view, I feel the debate here is how many accept the other theory 2. Making it as just "Historians" without any qualifications would mean that there are no other theories. Which would convey a very different meaning. -- sarvajna ( talk) 13:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I feel that there is some kind of vandalism here. These two user
Fowler&fowler and
regentspark are continuously trying to force their own views in the article.
sarvajna had a valid point here. This is a fact that Aryan Migration is a theory just like Indigenous Aryan theory. Both of them have not been accepted as such. The use of word 'Most' gives an impression that Aryan migration theory is true and others are false.
I was going to as for Administrators' intervention regarding
vandalism in this article, but I was surprised to know that
regentspark is himself an admin.
@ sarvajna : Its not worth wasting time here in requesting any change in the current article as some admins themselves seem to be involved in vandalism. regentspark seem to be an advocate of that old western ideology of defaming India. I didn't want to disrespect the admins of this reputed encyclopedia. But this is too much. Any neutral person will say that Most inappropriate here. Raghu-holkar ( talk) 13:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
The original poster is correct. There is no reason to remove the Hindi script. The name of India has been in the Devanagari script for years, but it was suddenly removed recently. This is odd, since Bharat Ganarajya is still there. That is the name of the country in Hindi. The name of India is different in other languages such as Bengali and Tamil. The general consensus is if a non-English word is mentioned in an article, it is also written in parenthesis in its native script after the mention. In any case, the government of India also uses both Hindi and English officially: on passports, its website, for laws, and so on. It is true that the Indian constitution does not stipulate a national language; however, both Hindi and India were declared co-official languages in 1950. The national language controversy has been stroked by a specific, small group of people with an agenda and does not represent a reason to remove Hindi. Finally, I'd like to point out that in the last few months, it seems as though a concerted effort is being conducted on the part of a group of people, primarily Tamil nationalists, with an agenda to remove the Hindi script from a variety of India related articles- even if the people or place in question is a native Hindi speaker or in a Hindi speaking area. For example, the names of several Bollywood actors, Hindi movies, and the state of Himachal Pradesh (where Hindi is the official language) have had the Devanagari script removed from there. This is not standard procedure with how to deal with languages in articles. Likewise, just how Tamil Nadu is in the Tamil script, Hindi speaking states ought to have their names written out in their script. This super-edit has mostly effected Hindi areas (such as the city of Delhi), but also come other areas, such as the city of Mumbai, where the native name in both Marathi and Hindi have been removed.
I've done a through check in the article history and have identified one particular person who is responsible for many of these edits. I would like to request this person to stop doing this, on the basis that it is against Wikipedia policy and it as done unilaterally rather than by a consensus discussion. He should wait for a consensus to build up, or follow the current policy, and if he has an issue, we will request mediation from Wikipedia editors.
One way to deal with the issue is to look to the South Africa article. South Africa has a similar linguistic situation to India, with a variety of official languages. All of them are inserted into its box. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa
By the way, to avoid accusations of self-interest, I will state that I am not a native Hindi speaker and am not trying to promote or "impose" a language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akhipill ( talk • contribs) 01:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I feel that you should write the capitals of the states of india mentioned. 122.167.81.221 ( talk) 15:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Probably these things have been discussed in history. You may very well point me to those discussions and save time.
As you all know India is facing several seperatist movements who want freedom such as North east India insurgency and jammu and kashmir I believe these HUGE issues deserve a mention in the India article since its a major problem what with all the human rights abuses against the native population by the Indian army Talkd2me ( talk) 08:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
The Aryans came from central INDIA The language they spoken is still spoken today.That is HINDI.Hindi is the national language of India,today Admin RegentsPark your edit summary read to the effect TOI is not about this, please read carefully before trigger-happy undoing, there were three other references with quotations, don't edit war, that the AI(M)T is disputed is as clear as sunlight, Byrant and Patton write "For two centuries, scholars concentrating on the South Asian data have described an Indo-European/Aryan migration/invasion into South Asia to explain the formation of Indian civilization. The conflating of language, people/culture, "race" to maintain the "myth of Aryan invasion" continues, perhaps as Leach so cogently notes, due to the academic prestige at stake. "... Renfrew ... opts to distort archeological record.... Archeological data ... does not support ... any version of migration/invasion ... population movement into South Asia". Is Wikipedia a tool for protection of the academic prestige of discredited theorists?? The theory is there and it is disputed is a known fact supported by evidence. Why is this article hijacked by faddists? Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 14:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Since you have started a new section (for no reason), here they are again (with quotes):
Fowler&fowler «Talk» 15:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC) Last updated Fowler&fowler «Talk» 04:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
The AIT is disputed. [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]
Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 15:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Here is Gavin Flood himself: (Introduction to Hinduism, Cambridge University Press. pp 33–34) THE ARYAN MIGRATIONS RECONSIDERED Both the Aryan migration thesis and the cultural transformation thesis have bodies of supporting evidence. Arguably, however, the meticulous, thorough work of Asko Parpola establishes strong evidence for the Indus valley script belonging to the Dravidian language group. His evidence is based on an analysis of language from a wide-ranging cultural sphere, from Anatolia to the Deccan; on iconographic continuities between Indus valley and Dravidian forms of Hinduism, and on discontinuities between vedic or Aryan forms and those of the Indus valley. ... A modified Aryan migration theory is therefore supported by Parpola's work. At the beginning of the second millennium BCE, Aryan nomads entered the Indian subcontinent. They were, of course, a minor-ity, and, while the Indus valley culture continues without a break, as the archaeological record shows, the Aryan culture lived and developed alongside it and absorbed elements of it. However, there is little doubt that there are continuities between the Indus valley and vedic cultures. The new groups, who possessed arya, 'nobility', formed a dominating elite speaking the Aryan language, though Sanskrit has absorbed proto-Dravidian features, such as the retroflex sound which does not exist in other Indo-European languages, as well as agricultural terms. Dravidian languages, as one would expect, have also absorbed elements of Sanskrit. Over a number of centuries bilingualism would have developed until the majority of the population adopted the Aryan language, a form of vedic Sanskrit, as Modern French developed from vulgar Latin." Fowler&fowler «Talk» 16:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Dear Humour Thisthat2011, Mr. Y. Khandke, has has altered the actual quotes in some places, or confused the names of the editors of a volume with the authors of the individual papers, or in some other case, selectively cherry-picked quotes, or over and over again picked quotes for authors who are critiquing the Aryan invasion theory, not the migration theory. Here are some of his examples:
The Aryans: The most commonly accepted theory to date has been that Hinduism is the consequence of incursions of groups known as Aryans into the north-ern plains of India from central Asia, via the mountain passes of Afghanistan, around 1500 BCE. Some of these groups went into Iran and there are close affinities between the Iranian religion of the Avesta (the sacred scripture of Zoroastrianism) and the religion of the Veda. (page 30)"
I would like to know if a content dispute can be taken to ANI. Per Yogesh Khandke's views it can not be.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 06:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I AGREE TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THAT MAHTMA GHANDI LED A REBELLION TO FREE INDIA DEH SHIVA BER MOHA HA SHUBH LUNKHURH YU R A FOOL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.169.115 ( talk) 20:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Due to on going dispute about the Aryan migration/invasion theory. I have added a content dispute banner regarding this to the article, please do not remove this banner until the content dispute is resolved and both parties are happy. If you believe this banner is unjustified please provide reasoning for removal here. Thank you Distributor108 ( talk) 07:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
The third paragraph of the lead article (as below):
Thanks! — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
59.178.162.100 (
talk) 11:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
It is stated in this article that Right to information is a fundamental right. I have doubt regarding it. I don't think, that it is so can someone please help in that. Thanks Yash t 101 08:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
National Language : Hindi Pratapbeh ( talk) 09:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Please express your views here Talk:Afghanistan#Pls_add_the_footnote_2. Thanks very much — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.212.88.26 ( talk) 17:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
I do not understand the necessity of this edit, if you read it the para talks about what the Indian govt claims -- sarvajna ( talk) 15:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Chipmunk. A discussion of India's northernmost point has to include the POVs of all governments involved in the Kashmir dispute, Indian, Pakistani, and perhaps even Chinese (although I doubt they have anything to say as the northernmost point is not in Aksai Chin), not just that of the Indian government. After all, where else would the Pakistani government POV be included on Wikipedia? Certainly not in the Pakistan article, for there would be no occasion there for mentioning India's northernmost point, and Pakistan's own northernmost point is much farther north (see List of countries by northernmost point). I believe India's undisputed northernmost point (in Himachal Pradesh) needs to be mentioned, if we are going to include governmental POVs. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Suggesting not to delete the note. Let us not get into baseless propaganda of forcing hands just so as to avoid inhumane ignorance of warmongering trigger-happy 'irregulars' running over territory and pillaging population. India considers the whole of J&K state as Indian as any other state. Do we need the actual official numbers from GoIndia?इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 17:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Rather ironically, fowler, the note in question was added by you in this edit (modified, slightly, by Saravask in this edit). It was expressed so well that I couldn't imagine a pov pusher having put it in (and sort of suspected you were the culprit). Regardless, I'm willing to give up the note and stick to the 'real' northernmost point. -- regentspark ( comment) 14:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
i would really like to see a section on cuisines of india. I think there is a lot to offer in this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igodspeed ( talk • contribs) 05:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to partially agree with RK on this. First is a bit overarching here. Perhaps "first significant" would be better. But, sourced or not, it is worth noting that Mahavira showed up at around the same time (likely a bit before). -- regentspark ( comment) 14:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
RP: Why don't we say, "Buddhism, based on the teachings of Gautama Buddha, whose lifetime was marked by the advent of India's recorded history, attracted followers from all social classes ...." There are plenty of sources for this. Note: I'm traveling and not reliably interactive. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 06:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
I now believe it is best to leave in the bit about "India's first historical figure." I've had time to look at the sources, and I find that there are plenty of reliable ones attesting to the truth of the statement. A culture's first historical figure constitutes a very important piece of encyclopedic information, as it tells us roughly when the first documents began to be produced in that culture. Here are the sources, with the quotes:
If someone has equally high quality sources which confer this honor on another individual, please produce them here. Otherwise, merely arguing on the basis of half remembered bits of history is not very useful. If such sources are not available, then I propose we quickly reinstate the reference to India's first historical figure. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 03:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
1. A History of Indian Philosophy, Vol. 1 Page 169, "...that a disciple of Parsva met a disciple of Mahavira and brought the union of old Jainism and that propounded by Mahavira seems to suggest that this Parsva was probably a historical figure"
2. Encyclopedia of world's religion Page 255, "..The twenty-third of these, Parsva is said to have lived only 250 years before mahavira and hence may well have been a historical figure"
3. This one suggest that Bimbisar was the first historic figure India: From Indus Valley Civlization to Mauryas Page 299, "..Both Buddha and Mahavir are said to have belonged to the time of Bimbisar....He is the first known hitorical figure" -- sarvajna ( talk) 09:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Fowler, there are two separate questions here. First, whether Buddha is or is not "the first historical figure". Second, why do we we need to explicitly name someone as that in the article. Even if it is reliably sourced, first historical figure seems to be (to me) a weak claim to make (perhaps the Narmada Man should be given that honor!) and should be stated in the article only if it is necessary. I don't see the necessity. If, as you say above, the purpose is to indicate that this is the time when India's recorded history begins, then that's what the article should directly say. -- regentspark ( comment) 12:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
A notoriously ahistorical culture such as ancient India's did not suddenly start recording history definitively and for all time. It happened in fits and starts, often aided by the visits of observant foreigners. Even after the edicts of Ashoka had been scattered along the length and breadth of the sub-continent, there was a gap of some 200 years in which little was recorded, and about which little is known. The first records in India were inextricably tied with the life of Buddha (as observed above in the quote of Burton Stein above). Later, the first scripts in India (and southeast Asia) were all derived from Brahmi and were all tied to the spread of Buddhism. So, simply saying "the onset of recorded history" is meaningless in the Indian context; some mention of the Buddha and Buddhism is needed in it. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 02:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
00:48: Comment above: Will be back later with a proposal.
05:30: No conspicuous presentation of any proposal, but the same editor reintroduces India's first historical figure as a description of Gautama B, with the edit summary: You're new to this page. I'm afraid that is how we have functioned here. Best not to play this game with me. Widely used texts have been vetted for balance.
I too am new to this page (though not to Wikipedia). I'm in no mood to play games. The previous "functioning" of this article is of little interest to me. What do interest me are Wikipedia policies. These include, but are not limited to, verifiability and a prohibition of multiple reversions.
Now, what needs to be said, and what reliable evidence do you have for saying it? Present here, discuss here. If on the other hand there's more silly nonsense in the article itself, I'll be inclined to protect it until people here have come to their senses. And maybe do some blocking as well (after all, at least one 3RR block could already be warranted). -- Hoary ( talk) 05:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Based on the inputs of RK, RP, and Hoary, I am proposing that we go with the following sentence: ""Buddhism, based on the teachings of Gautama Buddha attracted followers from all social classes excepting the middle class; chronicling the life of the Buddha was central to the beginnings of recorded history in India." The added bit will be cited to Stein-Arnold (p. 21, see bibliography upstairs). The other citations will remain the same. Please respond below. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 03:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
the wrong map of India is shown here. they are said as claimed and uncontrolled, while it is not only claimed but also controlled. and by the way Pakistan has achieved their wrong means by spreading fake maps all over the world, and control? what has Pakistan done worthy of showing that they have control? only spread a bunch of fake maps. the region was supposedly won over by Pakistan in 1984, but it was not a war or dispute, it was a group of terrorists who had illegally entered the country and made it their home, they were followed by the Pakistani army, and there wasn't even a war. at all places, in Wikipedia a wrong map of India, giving away half of Kashmir to Pakistan, and another strip to china, and a line is drawn saying it is Chinese and Pakistani territory claimed by India, and the same for Arunachal Pradesh.all these articles are protected. Why? why is Wikipedia so intent to tarnish the reputation of itself in the heart of a billion people? if it doesn't have proper maps, then I am ready to supply, but this misinformation shouldn't be conveyed, and worse of all protected, Mr. jimmy wales, answer to this and rectify your error or defend yourself, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shashwatpkumar ( talk • contribs) 11:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
It is a democracy, lets vote for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igodspeed ( talk • contribs) 06:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
I have a question similar to the one I asked at Talk:Mumbai: Why isn't the country's native name rendered in any native script?
The source of the article says: Do not add non-Latin scripts per the consensus reached at
WP:IN.
I couldn't find anything like a consensus at
WP:IN. If there was a clear consensus, there should be a clearer link to it.
The FAQ on the top of this talk page says: "Q: Why is Bhārat Gaṇarājya not rendered in Devanagari script? A: See this discussion. That discussions, if printed, will take about 20 pages. That's a lot. I tried to skim through it and couldn't find anything that looks like an answer. Maybe there is one, but it's very hard to find. Can anybody write a convincing summary of it? -- Amir E. Aharoni ( talk) 13:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Already present in Etymology section.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 13:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: The historical verdict in India. For the first time, one girl, Laxmi Sargara from Jodhpur, the court to annul her marriage. When Laxmi was only one year, her parents "married" her for a three year old boy . The phenomenon of child marriage in India is formally illegal, but many areas are still practiced. That encrease the importance of this decisions of Indian courts. 78.2.93.78 ( talk) 17:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Affiliations
Organization | Dates |
United Nations | since Octoberer 30, 1945 |
International Olympic Committee | since 1927 |
Asian Development Bank | since 1966 |
Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation | Founding member June 6, 1997 |
International Olympic Committee | since 1927 |
IMF | since December 27, 1945 |
Interpol | since October 1949 |
World Trade Organization | since January 1, 1995 |
Neo656 ( talk) 05:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)neo656
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
|languages=none [1]
Maulikbharat2 ( talk) 10:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
|languages=Hindi [1]
Maulikbharat2 ( talk) 10:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
The nationals symbols of India in this article is listed as a table with no border. Also, It does not have a distinguishing color. Is that actually intended?→ Vanischenu T M 09:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
My issue is with the following phrase: "..whereas Zoroastrianism, Christianity, and Islam arrived in the 1st millennium CE and also helped shape the region's diverse culture." While mentioning the religions born in India is understandable, why would an encyclopedia article have such a phrase so weasel and aimless that it says "also helped shape the culture". I just looked around about some articles to see how they have mentioned non-indigenous religions that have impacted its culture. Neither United States nor United Kingdom articles mention "Christianity" in the lead section. Without a tinge of doubt, the influence of Christianity on both of these countries are more profound than the influence of Zoroastrianism, Christianity, or Islam on India. So i request we remove that phrase and stick with just mentioning indigenous religions in the lead section. Thanks 117.214.20.149 ( talk) 09:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Too god to be improved?-- Sunil of India ( talk) 00:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
May someone confirm, Is this source reliable to claim "India has the world's largest Hindu, Sikh, Jain, population" in Demographics section. Regards :)-- Omer123hussain ( talk) 23:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Too god to be improved?-- Sunil of India ( talk) 00:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
May someone confirm, Is this source reliable to claim "India has the world's largest Hindu, Sikh, Jain, population" in Demographics section. Regards :)-- Omer123hussain ( talk) 23:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would request an edit request. I would request that the term "mythology" is removed when referring to Hindu scriptures or text. I appreciate your assistance in allowing me to update/make this change.
Thank you
Sharma103 ( talk) 16:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Sharma103 ( talk) 16:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
<!national language=HINDI>
Iravi9 (
talk) 17:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Too god to be improved?-- Sunil of India ( talk) 00:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
May someone confirm, Is this source reliable to claim "India has the world's largest Hindu, Sikh, Jain, population" in Demographics section. Regards :)-- Omer123hussain ( talk) 23:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would request an edit request. I would request that the term "mythology" is removed when referring to Hindu scriptures or text. I appreciate your assistance in allowing me to update/make this change.
Thank you
Sharma103 ( talk) 16:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Sharma103 ( talk) 16:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
<!national language=HINDI>
Iravi9 (
talk) 17:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry this page accidentally went off my watchlist and I forgot about the consensus reached in the archived section: Talk:India/Archive_36#Proposal_3 and discussed in the sections immediately before that. I have now added the consensus wording on Buddhism and the beginnings of recorded history in India. Regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 12:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I have deepest respect and sympathy for the Jains and Sikhs and their culture and customs, but I am not sure if we should refer to them as being among the world's "major religions". 134.155.36.48 ( talk) 20:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Hummmm if you think Sikhism is not a major religion then you might need to recheck few facts UK's official second language is PUNJABI 6% people in America are Punjabi 9% people in Australia are Punjabi 12% in Italy are Punjabi Punjab is the worlds largest agriculture Producing state(are wise) and to achieve that Sikhism is the worlds youngest religion its only about 400 years — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamaljits.77 ( talk • contribs) 19:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I added a line on Medieval History, beginning of sixteenth century role of local warriors, the Afghan Suri kings and their adviser, Chief of Army and Prime Minister, the Hindu king 'Hemu' (Hem Chandra Vikramaditya) who later acceeded to the throne of Delhi defeating Akbar's army at Agra and Delhi , but it is removed. Local Afghan rulers and Hindu king together had a rule of 16 years from 1540 to 1556 in North India after Sher Shah Suri defeated Mughal king Humanyun in battle of Chausa and forced him to flee to Kabul. It was only in 1556 that Mughals could recapture Delhi and North India when 'Hemu' the last Hindu emperor of India was defeated and killed in the 'Second battle of Panipat' by Akbar's army. This 16 years period was an important period of India's history and a line on it should be placed on the page. Sudhirkbhargava ( talk) 11:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Text says in the beginning of sixteenth century, If we analyse the period Mughal ruler Babur invaded and won Panipat war in 1526, could rule portions of north India before he was defeated by the local Afghan king Sher Shah Suri in 1540 whose period was considered native.Then from 1540 to 1556, North India was under local Afghan kings and Hindu king Hemu who had the support of all Hindu kings also. In 1556, the Mughal king Akbar defeated Hemu in second battle of Panipat and established Mughal rule in North India. So Mughal rule should be counted from 1556 and not from the beginningof 16th century. Moreover, the line I have added talks of two native Indian kings who deserve mentions in their country's page. I hope you are understanding the difference between Mughal invaders and Muslim rulers. Afghans Muslim rulers were considered natives while Mughals were considered invaders. I think the line added on native king is approprite. 117.198.128.16 ( talk) 03:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
......My intention of describing and differentiating various terms is to put facts and background of sixteenth century beginning political situation. I have given mathamatical figures to justify my point that Hemu and Afghans played an important role in librating India in the beginning of sixteenth century. And that is the reason a line about them should be put on the page India. I wonder why you should call facts as garbage. 117.198.121.155 ( talk) 04:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
..Well ! Facts are different. Hemu's behind was not whupped by 13 year old Akbar as you claim, as Akbar did not come to the battle field in Panipat at all and stayed 8 miles away in a camp fully protected. However, after the war, almost dead Hemu was captured in battle field and presented before Akbar (described as divine on this page) at his camp who formally beheaded him to earn the title of Ghazi. This is also true that Hemu, who was associated with Afghans since 1540, had won 22 battles from Punjab to Bengal in between 1553-56 and was defacto king as per Abul Fazal's version in 'Akbarnama', and accedeed to Delhi throne independently on 7th Oct. 1556 after defeating Akbar's forces at Agra and Delhi. So his importance. You rightly say there is paucity of space and many kings do not find space here. I thought 16 years of rule could be mentioned. You are a better judge. 117.198.121.155 ( talk) 07:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In Subdivisions map, There is Indian map with Title - A clickable map of the 28 states and 7 union territories of India. Parts of Indian territories have been categarized as "Chinese territory claimed by India" & "Pakistani territory claimed by India" As an Indian it offends me this disputed territories have shown as part of other/foreign country. I truely believe that these territories are integral part of India. Kindly correct it to "Disputed Foreign territory (India & China)" & "Disputed Foreign territory (India & Pakistan)"
Shekhar9k ( talk) 18:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Why doesn't the lead of this article state that Bharat is an official English name of India? For evidence I have provided this reference from the Indian Government. MadWrites ( talk) 14:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The info-box should have an Establishment/Formation section, not merely an 'Independence' section.
The British occupation and end thereof are a miniscule portion of the history of India. 'Independence' from the British and Islamic occupations are signposts not beginnings or ends in themselves.
India as an entity has been in existence for thousands of years. It seems silly for this page to subscribe to the nonsensical notion that India is a recent construct or that it came into existence at the end of the British occupation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.143.115.163 ( talk) 05:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
If it is about the 'modern country of India' then why is there a History section that mentions 'Ancient India' and 'Medieval India'? By your logic there shouldn't be a single shred of information about anything that happened before the end of the British occupation. Governing systems, dispensations and even geography may change but the page is about the cultural and geographic entity that has been known as India for millennia. [Side note: I find it amusing that an Englishman is the presiding judge deciding on matters concerning the India page.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.143.116.232 ( talk) 16:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Also, if this page is solely about the 'Republic of India' then there cannot logically be a mention of 'independence', because it was not the present republic that gained said independence. If we are confining ourselves to the republic then surely we must state that it came into being (once again we must use the word formation) on August 15th 1947. Sticking to the logic of this page the entity that gained independence was not the current republic but that thing which preceded it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.143.116.232 ( talk) 18:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Was the People's Republic of China established in 221 BCE? Was the current Federal Republic of Germany formed in 962 CE? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.143.116.232 ( talk) 18:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Like I said earlier geography and dispensations may vary but the entity in question remains unchanged. The present 'Germany' in the article on that country didn't exist in 962 did it? The India before 1947 may have been larger or smaller but it wasn't different and that is the point. This is clearly a serious matter that calls for a serious discussion and a re-think on the very nature of the India page. I think we need some higher level people involved here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.143.116.232 ( talk) 18:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't threatening to go over your head on anything. I just meant if this is a change that you are not authorized to perform then a higher-level editor might be called for. I would like more people joining in on this that is all. As for making myself clearer on what I want, I would request you to peruse some of the other country pages, the China and Germany ones that I mentioned for instance. It is simple fact that the 'current' Germany was not formed in 962 CE but that is what the infobox says. It is simple fact that the current China was not formed in 221 BCE but that is what the infobox says. I am sure those countries also have separate 'History of' pages - that is not the issue at hand. The point is that India, China, Germany, Russia (formed in 862 apparently) have all been in existence in one form or another for eons. The current form of these countries is just that, the current form, of entites, be they geographic, cultural, and/or ethnic that go back a long way. What a country page should do is form a thread backwards starting with the current entity, It should not regard the current entity as a standalone. Moreover what I am calling for is uniformity and the application of similar standards across all country pages. 114.143.116.232 ( talk) 19:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
No, I am not arguing that those dates are wrong. Of course there can be different points of view on what constituted the beginning of a nation but those dates for are more in keeping with the spirit of what I am saying. Which is that these current entities are merely the latest form of nations that have been around in one form or another for a long time. For India it might be worth considering the time of Ashoka as some sort of establishment date. Albeit that too will surely be contested with some saying it should be earlier. If for example it is decided to use 265 BCE (the Maurya Empire at its peak under Ashoka) as the date when the India that we recognize today truly came into being, then that would be the first date in the infobox and the significant subsequent periods could be mentioned under it, such as the Kushan Empire which followed the Maurya Empire, or the various Islamic ocupations, or the Maratha Empire, or the Sikh Empire, or the Company occupation, or the British occupation, etc. 114.143.116.232 ( talk) 04:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand why people keep repeating the 1947 date. That the British occupation ended on that date is simple fact beyond dispute. That is not what I am arguing about. I thought I was fairly clear on what I was trying to convey, which is that 1947 does not mark the beginning of the entity known as India. As for the specific point of this article referring to the 'political entity', that is precisely why I have drawn everyone's attention to other country pages, which even though are also about current 'political entities' use ancient dates for establishment/formation. I would like to put forward the date of 265 BCE as my contribution for a possible 'first date' in the infobox. 114.143.119.26 ( talk) 06:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
We could use the same source(s) that establishes the extent of Ashoka's empire in the year 265 BCE. I don't think there is any doubt that Ashoka's Empire covered all of India at that time is there? 114.143.119.26 ( talk) 15:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Kievan Rus' was a lot smaller than modern Russia. The Holy Roman Empire was a lot larger than modern Germany. Yet anyone with the slightest knowledge and understanding of history will recognize that those two entities were precursors to modern day Russia and Germany respectively. The area that is today Pakistan (and Bangladesh) has always been a part of India. Even the Mughal occupation at its peak did not cover the southern tip of India. The notion that Ashoka's India does not qualify as India because it included present-day Pakistan is ludicrous. I have already covered the greater/lesser argument. The logic of what I am saying should be abundantly clear to any unbiased listener. It is fairly evident that what we have here is merely good old-fashioned India hatred. I believe I have sufficiently made my point. I will not press this matter any further. This issue can now be considered closed. 114.143.119.26 ( talk) 04:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
That fowler is heavily biased is fairly clear. An earlier participant had asked me what I believed should be the first date in the infobox and I had merely offered 265 BCE as my suggestion. I was not claiming it to be final in any way. It just seems like a strong candidate. If you take a look at one of my earlier comments you will see that I had guessed that others might offer even earlier dates. All I wanted was a discussion and for uniformity in the infoboxes of various countries. Fowler's warped logic seems to be that because India was under British occupation for 190 or 90 years depending on how one views the situation, it was a colony, and therefore a 'lesser' country than a Germany or a Russia which were never colonies. That is the core of his argument. It is risible, crude and not worth entertaining. Those genuinely interested in this matter should carry-on this debate about what would make a good first date in the infobox. A good way to start would be to look at other country pages and get a sense of the logic of my argument. 114.143.119.26 ( talk) 11:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I am trying to figure out if you are genuinely interested in the discussion or simply want to annoy all concerned. Can you not see that I have mentioned the date 265 BCE half a dozen times. As for the source for that date we could use the same source(s) that establishes beyond dispute the extent of Ashoka's Empire at its peak. 114.143.119.26 ( talk) 12:32, 22 June 2012 (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 30 | ← | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | → | Archive 40 |
Here are the results:
Clearly the selection is overwhelmingly biased towards North India. K2 ( Bundi), K3 ( Varanasi), K12 ( Amritsar), K22( Kargil, K42 (Tibetan?), K44 (Delhi) 6 out of 9. There is nothing from central India and nothing from South Central India. I will post here in a few minutes and suggest a solution. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 03:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Here is my final selection and the reasoning behind it. I have left out K12, as it is as much about the Golden Temple and Sikhism. That picture will appear in the culture section in a rotation on religion etc.
Since there is no pictures from Central India or South Central India, I am including K7 and K13 K14. The selection, then, is:
I believe, I have worked out a fair equitable solution, with no obvious geographic or gender bias. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 03:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
You should have done your homework before you submitted that image. It's not my job, it was yours. Saravask had also said in the initial announcement that all picture candidates should be at least 1Kx1K, which also you conveniently forgot about, submitting a number of very low res pictures. That Facebook site by the way is not even captioned in Tibetan. Strangely enough it has Chinese. I'm very confused. Children of Tibetan exiles in Karnataka who write in Chinese (the official language of an Atheist State). I don't think the demographics of India is that complicated. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 04:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Recent events here--the conflicting attempts to finalize this photo issue--are hard to follow, but I think I get the gist of it. For what it is worth, I approve the proposal that Fowler&fowler "tally the votes and then apply a corrective for geographical or gender bias", as he put it. And although several of the photos are not much to my personal liking, I approve of his method and result. His reverts of Nikkul (diff'ed above) I see as an attempt to avoid chaotic discussion threading, not to censor Nikkul. I also can see how the proposal that F&f do the tally may be challenged, as Nikkul is doing, even if the proposal was seconded and not challenged until now (it would have been nice to challenge it when it was proposed, but hey, this is a busy talk page, I can barely keep up myself). With these things in mind I am posting my opinion on the matter: While I don't think Nikkul is being particularly disruptive, I nonetheless support the proposal that F&f tally and finalize the process. Pfly ( talk) 08:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
AshLin, Here are the final eight images:
Fowler&fowler «Talk» 16:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid you are being a little disingenuous Redtigerxyz. It was based on your original objection that I added 24 new images, on which you conveniently forgot to vote, despite repeated reminders. We have spent three weeks on these images. I have done most of the work, sorting over 10,000 images in the process. Let us agree to disagree, but no going back to first principles now. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 17:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
( edit conflict) Voting on the "new" set:
Wikipedia:Consensus is "the primary way in which editorial decisions are made on Wikipedia". I do not want to indulge any hero-worship or demonization by weighting the virtues or vices of someone. This is not an admin election. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 04:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Redtigerxyz made some good points above. Based on his input, here is a Final version 2. Please offer your comments and critiques below. Regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 02:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Support version 2 -- Redtigerxyz Talk 04:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I think these are all great pictures. Being an ignorant outsider, I can't tell whether a given picture reflects a particular caste--they all look very "Indian" to my eyes. I'm amazed by the time and effort required here to reach consensus on pictures for a single section of the page. I'm not saying it is too much time or effort, just that this level of collaborative work is not something I have often encountered on Wikipedia--I mainly stick to rather arcane topics, or pages of mere local interest. The way this page works is quite different from most. It is, like I said, amazing to watch. Pfly ( talk) 09:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Support the latest version. Let the Apatani cell phone image embellish "telecommunication" rather than "demographics". I concur with Pfly's views. Its really good that we could ALL overcome our prejudices, shortcomings, mistakes etc and come to a good consensus. I must say I much prefer this kind of process, painful and lengthy though it may be, to having a super image admin-type person, as suggested by Saravask in good faith a few paras above. My congratulations to all concerned. I hope we wrap up the consensus for this amicably so that we can get on to the next set of imagery. AshLin ( talk) 10:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Support: Looks good to me. Re Nikkul and the redtigerxyz above, the consensus was that f&f would pick the images, these would then be installed in the article, and then anyone could discuss changes on an image by image basis ("Proposal to replace image xyz by abc" sort of thing). I suggest we stick to that process otherwise the discussion will bog down continually. Fowler, there is nothing wrong with Nikkul tabulating results, anyone can do that. Anyway, let's install these images and then deal with changes while we move on to the other sections. -- regentspark ( comment) 21:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Oppose The change has already been implemented by User:Saravask but here's my "formal vote", for the record, for the reasons stated at the top of the sub-section and in my reply to User:Pfly. Along with the map of India, this is now a 3rd area I have an issue with. Zuggernaut ( talk) 02:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I hear the talk of changing images in Economy and Culture. Which images are considered for a change?
-- Redtigerxyz Talk 04:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Q8: Goa needs a number "6" beside it in the map of states and a clickable area to its Wiki article.
This was placed mistakenly in the FAQ section. Can someone examine and address it if necessary? Zuggernaut ( talk) 22:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
The current image has too many distracting elements: trees, buildings. I like the old one or the one in BSE article which shows the building more, with much distractions. Redtigerxyz Talk 06:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I am removing the comment, 'the lowest since independence', on human sex ratio of India as it is the child sex ratio which is lowest since independence not the human sex ratio which was 933 in 2001 census compared to present census reported figures of 940. Alokagrawal8 ( talk) 09:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
As Redtigerxyz has said, eight images rotate in "Demographics" at present. Every time the page is purged or edited, a "parser function" is evaluated: one that calculates the current second modulo the number of rotated images—here, eight. Thus we evaluate "[second] mod 8". So if the current second (which can range from 0 through 59, because there are 59 + 1 = 60 seconds in a minute) when the purge/edit is done was, say, 13, then you take the remainder after dividing 13 into 8 (13 / 8)—which is five. So then the sixth (5 + 1 = 6) image (the eight images are numbered from 0 to 7) in the rotation lineup ( ), the one numbered "5", is selected. And so it goes forever—so long as the rotation code and image count/lineup remain unchanged—every time a purge or edit happens. Saravask 17:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I've been watching the discussion upstairs and can't help feeling that an average reader has no idea that the rotation is in fact a rotation. All they see is a picture. If they come back, they may easily do so after such time as to have little memory of the previous visit. The diversity we've worked so hard to display is likely wasted on them.
I was wondering if we could put the final 8 images selected for the rotation on a subpage, lock it down, and provide a link for it in the caption of the rotation image. See accompanying picture. This way the reader will have instant access to all images, will instantly clue into the fact of rotation, not to mention India's diversity, and perhaps even return soon to view its random offerings. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 15:00, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, this, perhaps, could work. Captions might not be needed (but they will need to be improved in the Commons version of these images). Here is one implementation with no captions. In general, though, I agree more with AshLin's view. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
A minor section on corruption should be added, as it is a major issue in politics and business. Sarcelles ( talk) 17:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
---Thanks, Joel---
For gosh sake, before it was the obsessively subpar images; now, great God almighty, it is the defiantly subpar prose. Both keep rising up again and again—like the heads of the Lernaean Hydra. Except now I no longer have time for the usual interminable call-and-response routine of casuistry and perseveration that prevails here.
So let me put it this way: if anyone else has the misfortune of falling through the trapdoor and onto this page by foolishly attempting some "undiscussed" non-stupid and non-piddling verbal or visual therapy here, then [fill in random horror-movie plot device here] them. If you revert because you "prefer to discuss it first", fine ...
A few days of talk for one image or one lede paragraph is bearable. But then what is with the weeks-long nit-picking and round-table jabber that then ensues, most of it useless? Glad-handing bloat or stalling or trolling, much of it? Doctrinairism. Functional fixedness. Non-pragmatism. Non-incrementalism. All often causing the page to end up even worse than it was before—which is now likely to happen with the images. All while the same "consensus" crap in question stays pasted up on main for all to laugh at? Again, for weeks? The consensus-death of real solutions, the true wonder of this time-sink of a talk page. Saravask 18:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
AGF Saravask there must surely be something in the prose that you feel is below par and feel so strongly about. Let us leave aside the discussion of mode of improving articles, can we get some kind of indication from you as to which are the parts needing improvement so that we can get on with it? AshLin ( talk) 21:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
To give an example, a sentence in the ancient India section, as I remember it, originally was:
The caste system, which created a hierarchy of priests, warriors and free peasants, but excluded indigenous peoples by labeling their occupations impure, arose during this period.
The cites supported this sentence. The sentence was changed somewhere along the way to:
The caste system, creating a social hierarchy, appeared during this period.
This had now been changed by Saravask to:
The caste system, which spawned a social hierarchy, appeared during this period.
The problem with the final version is that it seems to imply that the caste system (an abstraction) spawned (gave birth to) the hierarchy. The caste system was the hierarchy. The meaning has changed entirely (and I say this as someone who normally likes the word "spawn."). When such edits are discussed ahead of time, the problems can be pointed out; however, when they appear as parts of edits with minimal or perfunctory edit summaries, it is very hard to keep going after each error. I certainly don't have the time, nor the energy. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 23:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Here is another sentence, which in the original FAR'd version read:
In north India, during the same time, Hinduism asserted patriarchal control within the family, leading to the increased subordination of women.
This too was changed by someone to:
In north India during the same time, Hinduism asserted patriarchal control within the family.
, with "patriarchal" linked to "patriarchy," which now has been pruned further by Saravask to
In North Indian families, Hinduism asserted patriarchal control.
Though Saravask, clearly, is not to be blamed for the intermediate edit, it now sounds like Hinduism asserted patriarchal control in all north Indian families, not just the Hindu households. Clearly, during this time, large swathes of India, both North and South, lay beyond the pale of Hinduism. If you are looking for terse writing, then, in this instance, a sentence like: "In North India, Hinduism asserted patriarchal control," is closer to the original meaning than "In North Indian families, Hinduism asserted patriarchal control."
One of the things about style in Wikipedia is that we can't turn to prose into a series of Haikus. The average reader likes to have some extra words to hang his hat one, to get his bearings right. So, a sentence like "patriarchal control within the family" is not verbally excessive even though patriarchy is largely (but not entirely) about the family. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 00:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Here is an example where I have more sympathy with Saravask's edit or at least the intent behind the edit. The original edit, one of my pet Victorian constructions, was:
Depending upon the historian, India's modern age begins variously in 1848, when with the appointment of Lord Dalhousie as Governor General of the Company rule in India, changes essential to a modern state, including the consolidation and demarcation of sovereignty, the surveillance of the population, and the education of citizens, were put in place, and technological changes, among them, railways, canals, and telegraph were introduced not long after being introduced in Europe; 1857, when disaffection with the Company's rule, set off by diverse resentments, which included British social reforms, harshness of land taxes, and the humiliation of landed and princely aristocracy, led to the Indian rebellion of 1857 in many parts of northern India; 1858, when after the suppression of the rebellion, the British government took over the direct administration of India, and proclaimed a unitary state, which on the one hand envisaged a limited and gradual British-style parliamentary system, but on the other hand protected India's princes and large landlords as a feudal safeguard; and 1885, when the founding of the Indian National Congress marked the beginning of a period in which public life emerged at an all-India level.
:) In my way of thinking (at least as of May 2011 when I was writing it) there is no reason why today's readers can't suck it up like the Victorians and withhold gratification (or delay catharsis) until they get to the end of the sentence. But I can see that it will strain the readers resources and will likely elicit a rereading for full comprehension. This has been changed by Saravask to:
Depending upon the historian, India's modern age may have begun in 1848, when the appointment of Lord Dalhousie as Governor General of the Company rule in India inaugurated changes essential to the development of a modern state: the demarcation and consolidation of sovereignty; the surveillance of the population; the education of citizens; and the construction of railways, canals, and telegraph lines, which were introduced not long after they had taken root in Europe. The age may have begun in 1857, when British-style social reforms, harsh land taxes, and humiliations borne by landed and princely aristocracy led to the Indian Rebellion of 1857 that challenged Company rule and ravaged many parts of northern India. It may also have begun in 1858 when, after the rebels were suppressed, the British government opted for direct administration of India and proclaimed a unitary state, which on the one hand envisaged a slow transition to a British-style parliamentary system, but on the other hand favoured Indian princes and landlords as a feudal safeguard against popular unrest. Lastly, its modern era may have commenced with the founding of the Indian National Congress in 1885, thus marking the start of an all-India public life.
The problem with such a large change is that it's hard to know where to begin.
So there you have it. I could go on, but you realize that long BOLD edits like these cannot be casually reworked without a lot of explanation. I really don't have that kind of time. I've tried to say things very carefully in the history section, after reading a lot of sources. I'm not saying that nothing is wrong with my edits, only that they can't be changed casually without discussion, for they end of wasting more time later. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 01:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Nominations are invited for images in a rotation in the Sports section of the India page. Here are some ground rules (open to be discussed and changed by consensus):
Fowler&fowler «Talk» 21:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Nominations are now closed. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 00:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
India page sports rotation
India page sports rotation
India page sports rotation
India page sports rotation
India page sports rotation
India page sports rotation
India page sports rotation
India page sports rotation
India page sports rotation
India page sports rotation
India page sports rotation
India page sports rotation
|
Let's wait for all the images to come in before voting. We should also remember WP:Relevance- the fact that Cricket is the life and blood of India compared to other sports. Honestly, I do not think we need a rotation. One good image of cricket will suffice. Having a picture of any other sport would be undue. Nikkul ( talk) 01:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
You can keep spouting garbage or you can find images. Don't blame me for not giving enough notice this time. Do you have a reliable source for 98% of all sport and recreation in India is cricket? (50% of the population is women.) Fowler&fowler «Talk» 01:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
It shows FIH Women's Field Hockey World Cup, Rosario, Argentina with "Hockey Press Argentina" in white at the bottom. This may be a copyvio, owned by "Hockey Press Argentina". Some flickr users collect on the net and then release it by any license. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I have just been casually checking Commons and Flickr and I find free images on Indian sport other than cricket are very hard to come by. For example, there is not a single response on CC-Attrib & cc-SA in Flickr on kabaddi or kho kho two traditional Indian games played in schools (I have played both as a child) and also at higher levels. We will need to ask photographers to photograph matches in the coming year for inclusion. In this context, strict image size may be a problem for traditional Indian sports. Take jallikattu for instance, File:Madurai-alanganallur-jallikattu.jpg seems to be a very exciting and to my untrained eye, good image but fails the size test. I think we may lower the image size bar and put in an image size pass/reject vote later on where images are smaller. This need not hold for conventional sports, like cricket or hockey where adequate images are available. AshLin ( talk) 03:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Can videos be made part of the rotation? More precisely, can still images and video clips both feature in the same rotation? If so, I (personally) wouldn't mind seeing video clips, as they illustrate a sport (especially the lesser known traditional sports, but for that matter even cricket or hockey for unacquainted readers) as nothing else does. For more information on submitting video clips, see How to Post a Video on Wikipedia]. Responses and feedback are welcome. (Please also see this news article about videos on Wikipedia). Fowler&fowler «Talk» 12:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
There does not seem to be a consensus about number of images. IMO, the ground rule: "Voting will begin after 11 November 2011 for a total of eight images" needs to be changed and the number finalized beforehand. Please present your views in the following format:
Thanks. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid, you don't understand. We can't keep having this discussion (and now, more confusingly, a "vote") interminably. It will turn off the most well-meaning and dedicated editors. Several people, including Saravask (who is traveling), Spaceman Spiff (also traveling), AshLin, RegentsPark, Pfly, and Big william compton, have already supported rotation and diversity. If you have misgivings, you can express them at the time of the actual vote (beginning 11 November 2011) If you think I am acting an undemocratic fashion, please pursue this further in the Wikipedia forum of your choice. There is already a rotation in place in the sports section, featuring none of the depictions of sport which you exalt, and in which you exult. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 08:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
To: Regtigerxyz, Nikkul. Let me repeat one more time, we have already made a India-page community decision to have rotations in Culture, Economy, Sport, in addition the ones we already have in Demographics and Biodiversity. Many people have taken part in the discussion, expressed articulate and long opinions. The process for selection will go on regardless of what goes on here. When we vote on 11 November 2011, the voting announcement will say, "Please vote for up to 8 images indicating by your vote both the number and choice of images you would like to see in the rotation" If you don't want rotation, you can vote for a single image. The images will then be selected and added to the rotation. At that point if you edit war, I will take you to ANI or whatever else it takes, and let them have a look at the archives. This is the end of this discussion. Let me warn you very politely Redtigerxyz and Nikkul, please don't be passively disruptive. The average person, even one with a surfeit of good faith, is not so stupid as to not figure out what is transpiring here. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 11:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Seems some people editing here would be interested in the " South Tibet" article. It refers to an area that makes up most of Arunachal Pradesh, and is claimed by China. I feel the term, and the article to be NNPOV, with a China bias, but don't have the time/interest to do much about it myself. Maybe some of the editors here would like to balance out the bias. -- Keithonearth ( talk) 04:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Nehru gandhi.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 18 November 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 20:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC) |
I have seen many countries pages and they have this section, but Indian don't have it!
United States
Germany
I don't remember more, but it would be better to include this sections with subsections like:
Transportation
Science and Tech
Education
Health
Energy
etc.
( ) 19:30, 13 June 2024 IST [ refresh
Here I have a little Coding, Please someone add more information to it and Place it in the article or Advise me if I am wrong.
India's infrastructure is carefully planned and developed mainly by
Planning Commission (India).Today, India is one of the most exciting emerging markets in the world. Skilled managerial and technical manpower that match the best available in the world and a middle class whose size exceeds the population of the USA or the European Union, provide India with a distinct cutting edge in global competition.
The road transport sector has been declared a priority and will have access to loans at favorable conditions. The Monopoly and Restrictive Trade Practices Act (MRTP Act) was passed in order to encourage large industry to enter the road sector.
[1]
The National Highways Act has been modified to help the reduction of tolls on national motorways, bridges and tunnels. Calcutta's Howrah Bridge is the world's busiest with a daily flow of 57,000 vehicles and innumerable pedestrians. Private participation in the energy sector has been encouraged with the reduction of import duties, a five-year tax exemption for new energy projects and a 16% return on equity.
The government is also following a new telecommunications policy that aims for the improvement of quality to a worldwide standard and, as a result, India could emerge as a major producer and exporter of telecommunication systems. Advantageous policies in this sector are encouraging private and foreign participation.
Over the years, ISRO has conducted a variety of operations for both Indian and foreign clients. ISRO's satellite launch capability is mostly provided by indigenous launch vehicles and launch sites. In 2008, ISRO successfully launched its first lunar probe, Chandrayaan-1, while future plans include indigenous development of GSLV, manned space missions, further lunar exploration, and interplanetary probes. ISRO has several field installations as assets, and cooperates with the international community as a part of several bilateral and multilateral agreements.
Collapses as issue is resolved
|
---|
What exactly is
user:Saravask attempting to do here with
this one edit across multiple sections including that of previous posts, but without showing scratched content, without even putting his John Hancock to indicate updating? Of which Wikipedia talk page guideline is that emblematic? He has been continually tweaking previous posts, some weeks old, which he flatters himself that anyone reads, without any indication that they've been edited, except perhaps in one grandiloquent edit summary covering a multi-section edit. Whether it is disingenuous or not is hard to know. It certainly is very confusing for others.
Fowler&fowler
«Talk» 14:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
|
Note: The images have been labelled in the style "Alphabet-Numeral" (e.g. C-7). The upper case letters, A, B, C, ..., very approximately, denote the different classes of sports mentioned in the text of India#Sport section. The numerals, 1, 2, 3, ... represent the location of the images in the sequence above.
Fowler&fowler «Talk» 00:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Note: As of 10:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC) the vote tally is: A-1 (2), A-2, A-3, C-6, C-7, D-8, D-10 (2), D-19, E-11, E-13, F-15 (4), G-16, G-19, J-24, K-25 (3), K-26, M-30 (3), N-31, N-34, O-36 (3), O-38, O-39, P-43 (3), Q-45, S-48 (3)
If 8 images were selected now without any corrections for bias, they would be:
F-15 (4), K-25 (3), M-30 (3), O-36 (3), P-43 (3), S-48 (3), A-1 (2), D-10 (2)
There are a number of issues with the raw count: a) no pictures of girls or women, b) 5 pictures of modern sports and only 3 of traditional, c) it seems people have voted for what they thought was a more spectacular picture, rather than what they though might be representative. The Kallaripattayu (F-15) image, though spectacular, is too low-res. The Jallikattu image, D-10, at least for me, has the additional problem that it is a picture of a festival or series of festivals, in which troublingly, hordes of (drunken?) young men gang up on a scared and often tired bull (see more realistic accompanying picture, which I uploaded on Commons on 4 November, but forgot to nominate. The Supreme Court of India recently ruled on this issue, and the organizers now have many more constraints (such as having vetinarians and animal welfare activists monitoring the events), but we don't have pictures of those events.))
Oppose removal of Jallikattu image: The POV that all instances of Jallikattu are (druken) men surrounding a tired bull, is nothing but OR based on 1 image. Outlook says it is a popular sport with "iconic status" and a "representative of bravery of men". [1] It is an "ancient, traditional rural sport", dating back to the Sangam era (3rd century BC to 3rd century AD) and comparable to bull sports of France and Crete. Though animal activists may like it or not, it remains a popular sport in Tamil Nadu. Agree to change of chess image to C-7 or C-6. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Endorse Fowler's proposal—except for S-48 and the jallikattu remark regarding D-10:
Prefer C-6 and E-13 E-11. Otherwise, hats off to both of you for these noms—it really is a representative and fun-looking fascinatingly diverse set of images.
Saravask 10:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC) [redacted by
Saravask at 19:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC) and 19:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)]
Sorry, Redtigerxyz, but that is a government law. It has nothing to do with the separate matter before the Supreme Court of India, a matter on which the Supreme court has been flip-flopping for three or four years now. As for digital altering, if that picture is not altered I don't know what picture is. When you upload a regular picture on Wikipedia, as I did one of my own in File:Humayun's Tomb, New Delhi Corner View.jpg, you get excruciating detail about the camera etc. etc. in the Metadata. What does the metadata of the bogus Jallikattu picture have? Answer: The name of a digital imaging software. You have to mangle a picture pretty good with software before the camera data will disappear. How do we know that it wasn't scanned by the uploader from somewhere? It certainly has the graininess of scanned pictures. Like I said, if you want to put a bogus picture of an illegal sport in a Featured Article, conduct an RfC. Otherwise, no dice. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 05:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Fowler&fowler «Talk» 05:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Support Fowler's selection with Redtiger's Anand switch. Saravask 12:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Modified list and check the temporary crop: if it's ok?
Redtigerxyz Talk 13:58, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Since there are 2 images pertaining to the Mughals, I suggest replacing the current image with the Taj Mahal (non-rotation).
-- Redtigerxyz Talk 05:49, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Don't agree with that. The Mughals have a lot more art and architecture to show, staggeringly more. Among their UNESCO World Heritage sites are: Agra Fort, Fatehpur Sikri, Humayun's Tomb, Taj Mahal, and Red Fort, not to mention Lahore Fort, and Thatta in Pakistan: all in all a total of seven independent World Heritage sites. The Cholas have only one. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 05:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Almost all the sources of this article are damned websites. You have to understand that it's an article about a Country. A website, and that too so lame, cannot be considered a reliable resource. ( Mr.ankit97 ( talk) 13:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC))
the medieval history section employs usages such as : "By repeatedly repulsing the Mongol raiders in the thirteenth century, the Sultanate saved India from the devastation visited on West and Central Asia"
when the etymology of the word mughal itself is from Mongol , i fail to see any truth in such assertions, and nobody protected India from any such devastation , the Muslim invaders WERE the devastators.
also
"The Sultanate's raiding and weakening of the regional kingdoms of South India paved the way for the indigenous Vijayanagara Empire."
Another attempt at assigning positives to a largely negative interaction.
I wonder if such tones should be entertained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chimesmonster ( talk • contribs) 18:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
AshLin ( talk) 18:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Appropos above pt 1, And what were they is not ,INVADING HORDES? How can there be a claim that since once particular horde did the looting and pillaging ,one ought to be thankful to THEM that another horde did Not do the same!
pt2 13th to 16th century , the invaders did nothing more than consolidate their partisan agendas, Islamisize parts of india and ultimately lead to Bangladesh.Where was the influence for paving the way for southern kingdoms?
Pt3 Duly acknowledged and will be adhered to.
RAA Ra Ra your Boat ( talk) 07:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Bharat Ratna Award Bharat Ratna is the highest civilian honour, given for exceptional service towards advancement of Art, Literature and Science, and in recognition of Public Service of the highest order. India has produced a legacy of brave hearts since times immemorial. Probably there is not enough space to measure their sacrifices. However, we cannot close our eyes to those people who have made our country proud by excelling in their own fields and bringing us international recognition.
Param Vir Chakra (PVC) Param Vir Chakra (PVC) is the highest gallantry award for officers and other enlisted personnel of all military branches of India for the highest degree of valour in the presence of the enemy. Introduced on 26th January 1950, this award may be given posthumously.
Padma Awards Padma Vibhushan, Padma Bhushan and Padma Shri Padma Awards, namely, Padma Vibhushan, Padma Bhushan and Padma Shri are given for exceptional and distinguished service in any field including service rendered by Government servants. The recommendations for Padma Awards are received from the State Governments/Union Territory Administrations, Central Ministries/Departments, Institutions of Excellence, etc. which are considered by an Awards Committee. On the basis of the recommendations of the Awards Committee, and after approval of the Home Minister, Prime Minister and President, the Padma Awards are announced on the eve of the Republic Day.
Gallantry Awards Independent India saw the introduction of awards such as Param Vir Chakra, Maha Vir Chakra, Ashoka Chakra, Shaurya Chakra etc. Ashok Chakra The Ashok Chakra series of awards are open to civilians also. Recommendations received in respect of civilians from the State Governments/Union territory Administra-tions and Ministries/Departments of the Central Government are processed by the Ministry of Defence for the consideration of the Central Honours and Awards Committee chaired by the Defence Minister. These awards are biannual and are given on the Republic Day and Independence Day.
Shaurya Chakra This is awarded for gallantry other than in the face of the enemy. This award may be granted to civilians or to military personnel and may be awarded posthumously.
Bravery Awards The national awards for bravery was started in 1957 by the Indian Council for Child Welfare (ICCW) (External website that opens in a new window) to recognise and honour children who have performed outstanding deeds of bravery and selfless sacrifice. Every year the ICCW confers these awards to children below 16years of age.
Jeevan Raksha Padak Series of Awards The Jeevan Raksha Padak Series of awards are given for courage and promptitude under circumstances of great danger to the life or bodily injury of the rescuer, displayed in an act or a series of acts of humane nature, in saving life from drowning, fire, rescue operations in mines, etc. Recommendations for Jeevan Raksha Padak series of awards are received from the State Government/Union Territory, Administrations and Ministries /Departments of the Government of India.
[2] --Sachin 07:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachinpandhare ( talk • contribs)
Bharat Ratna Award Bharat Ratna is the highest civilian honour, given for exceptional service towards advancement of Art, Literature and Science, and in recognition of Public Service of the highest order. India has produced a legacy of brave hearts since times immemorial. Probably there is not enough space to measure their sacrifices. However, we cannot close our eyes to those people who have made our country proud by excelling in their own fields and bringing us international recognition.
Param Vir Chakra (PVC) Param Vir Chakra (PVC) is the highest gallantry award for officers and other enlisted personnel of all military branches of India for the highest degree of valour in the presence of the enemy. Introduced on 26th January 1950, this award may be given posthumously.
Padma Awards Padma Vibhushan, Padma Bhushan and Padma Shri Padma Awards, namely, Padma Vibhushan, Padma Bhushan and Padma Shri are given for exceptional and distinguished service in any field including service rendered by Government servants. The recommendations for Padma Awards are received from the State Governments/Union Territory Administrations, Central Ministries/Departments, Institutions of Excellence, etc. which are considered by an Awards Committee. On the basis of the recommendations of the Awards Committee, and after approval of the Home Minister, Prime Minister and President, the Padma Awards are announced on the eve of the Republic Day.
Gallantry Awards Independent India saw the introduction of awards such as Param Vir Chakra, Maha Vir Chakra, Ashoka Chakra, Shaurya Chakra etc. Ashok Chakra The Ashok Chakra series of awards are open to civilians also. Recommendations received in respect of civilians from the State Governments/Union territory Administra-tions and Ministries/Departments of the Central Government are processed by the Ministry of Defence for the consideration of the Central Honours and Awards Committee chaired by the Defence Minister. These awards are biannual and are given on the Republic Day and Independence Day.
Shaurya Chakra This is awarded for gallantry other than in the face of the enemy. This award may be granted to civilians or to military personnel and may be awarded posthumously.
Bravery Awards The national awards for bravery was started in 1957 by the Indian Council for Child Welfare (ICCW) (External website that opens in a new window) to recognise and honour children who have performed outstanding deeds of bravery and selfless sacrifice. Every year the ICCW confers these awards to children below 16years of age.
Jeevan Raksha Padak Series of Awards The Jeevan Raksha Padak Series of awards are given for courage and promptitude under circumstances of great danger to the life or bodily injury of the rescuer, displayed in an act or a series of acts of humane nature, in saving life from drowning, fire, rescue operations in mines, etc. Recommendations for Jeevan Raksha Padak series of awards are received from the State Government/Union Territory, Administrations and Ministries /Departments of the Government of India.
[3] --Sachin 07:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachinpandhare ( talk • contribs)
Bharat Ratna Award Bharat Ratna is the highest civilian honour, given for exceptional service towards advancement of Art, Literature and Science, and in recognition of Public Service of the highest order. India has produced a legacy of brave hearts since times immemorial. Probably there is not enough space to measure their sacrifices. However, we cannot close our eyes to those people who have made our country proud by excelling in their own fields and bringing us international recognition.
Param Vir Chakra (PVC) Param Vir Chakra (PVC) is the highest gallantry award for officers and other enlisted personnel of all military branches of India for the highest degree of valour in the presence of the enemy. Introduced on 26th January 1950, this award may be given posthumously.
Padma Awards Padma Vibhushan, Padma Bhushan and Padma Shri Padma Awards, namely, Padma Vibhushan, Padma Bhushan and Padma Shri are given for exceptional and distinguished service in any field including service rendered by Government servants. The recommendations for Padma Awards are received from the State Governments/Union Territory Administrations, Central Ministries/Departments, Institutions of Excellence, etc. which are considered by an Awards Committee. On the basis of the recommendations of the Awards Committee, and after approval of the Home Minister, Prime Minister and President, the Padma Awards are announced on the eve of the Republic Day.
Gallantry Awards Independent India saw the introduction of awards such as Param Vir Chakra, Maha Vir Chakra, Ashoka Chakra, Shaurya Chakra etc. Ashok Chakra The Ashok Chakra series of awards are open to civilians also. Recommendations received in respect of civilians from the State Governments/Union territory Administra-tions and Ministries/Departments of the Central Government are processed by the Ministry of Defence for the consideration of the Central Honours and Awards Committee chaired by the Defence Minister. These awards are biannual and are given on the Republic Day and Independence Day.
Shaurya Chakra This is awarded for gallantry other than in the face of the enemy. This award may be granted to civilians or to military personnel and may be awarded posthumously.
Bravery Awards The national awards for bravery was started in 1957 by the Indian Council for Child Welfare (ICCW) (External website that opens in a new window) to recognise and honour children who have performed outstanding deeds of bravery and selfless sacrifice. Every year the ICCW confers these awards to children below 16years of age.
Jeevan Raksha Padak Series of Awards The Jeevan Raksha Padak Series of awards are given for courage and promptitude under circumstances of great danger to the life or bodily injury of the rescuer, displayed in an act or a series of acts of humane nature, in saving life from drowning, fire, rescue operations in mines, etc. Recommendations for Jeevan Raksha Padak series of awards are received from the State Government/Union Territory, Administrations and Ministries /Departments of the Government of India.
[4] --Sachin 09:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachinpandhare ( talk • contribs)
I find that in the infobox, where it lists India's independace from the UK, it should also stated the date of the independance of Diu, Damao, and Goa from Portugal. It is significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.186.55.223 ( talk) 10:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Should we parallelly start the nomination phase for Arts image section rotation to save time ? -- Redtigerxyz Talk 11:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Removing "Please do not nominate photoshopped images. (Cropping is fine, but not much else, especially not color changes.)". It is an absurd condition. Even Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria does not prevent digital manipulation altogether. "Typical acceptable manipulation includes cropping, perspective correction, sharpening/blurring, and colour/exposure correction". -- Redtigerxyz Talk 18:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
And nobody needs prove one's expertise by showing some diploma/degree etc. If the images look better, they are better. I see no sense in criticizing images because they have been improved. The criticism would be more palatable/understandable/logical if it was because of the reason that they were not improved. Thanks. MW ℳ 02:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC) It would be easier on everyone if you could admit that your views are Indophobic- MW ℳ 02:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Those people(s) who are most humble/halting and least assertive in their opinions tend to have the best taste—in images, prose, or whatever else. Just think of Japanese or Bhutanese architecture, culture, aesthetics compared with those of McWorld. "People get what they deserve, not what they expect". Saravask 10:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
In light of Redtigerxyz's (very understandable conundrum and) partial revert, here is a:
Just 1 observation move the "Indian cuisine" part in "Art, architecture, and literature" to Society. See [2]. Also I propose to add something about Indian art. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 14:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Nominations are now open for the India#Arts section rotation. Please read the text of that section, then submit high quality images relevant to the text. Nominations will close at 00:00 22 November 2011. I am adding rows of gallery blanks in all three subsections below. Please make more copies, if you are nearing the last row.
Let us temporarily have a rotation of images that passed in Talk:India/Archive_35#Voting_.232_.28With_47_images.29 and Talk:India/Archive 36 (Demographics voting), but were not included, citing that there will soon be a selection for a religion rotation in the culture section and images be reserved for that. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 14:49, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Fowler raises some good points here:
Fowler's excellent points regarding quality have dovetailed with the ones I've tried to make over the past several weeks—and I think I've pretty much railed against of otherwise alienated everyone here regarding image or prose quality. I hope Redtiger and others don't our criticisms personally. Fowler just wants to keep this article clean: free of shabbiness and POV. Saravask 12:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I see that no decisions have been made in my absence. Unfortunately, I'm flat out of time, and can't help much. Looking at it cursorily, all I can say is that there are too few votes and too many images. There are too many sub-standard images, nominated without thought, without care, and often without the courtesy of intelligible captions. There might have been more votes, but many people who earlier were participating in the process are now no longer doing so. I believe they have been driven away, turned off either by the bickering or by what they might see as an attempt—by the off-handed dumping of less-than-explained images—to limit the vote to a group of insiders. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 18:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Delhi is now largest country in india according to 2011 census
Gebenjam ( talk) 11:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The state Orissa has been changed to Odisha. Can you please make the change in India wiki page?
Saubhagya Nayak 19:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
|answered=
to "no" in the edit semi-protected template at the top of this section. —
Bility (
talk) 20:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)As for the posts in a previous talk page thread, Medieval history section seems patronizing?], opened while I was on Wikibreak, the sentence is well-documented. Please read the references in the footnotes. Not only were there no large-scale forced conversions of Hindus to Islam during the rule of the Delhi Sultanate (whose Turkish slave armies were vastly superior to those of the indigenous rulers of the subcontinent), but by encountering and defeating the Mongols at the northwestern borders, the Delhi sultans saved North India from the wanton destruction seen in West Asia and Southern Eurasia. For the former, there are many sources, among which the better known ones (with links to relevant pages) are:
For the military and technological superiority of the Turkish armies contrasted with the indigenous Indian rulers, see:
For the effective protection provided by the Sultanate against the Mongols, there are many sources as well, in addition to the ones cited. Among these are:
Which holy book from the west gives this interpretation ? RAA Ra Ra your Boat ( talk) 08:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
" An army of 12,000 under Targhi's leadership moved to Delhi in a swift attack; many governors could not send their troops to Delhi in time. Alauddin Khilji was forced to retreat to Siri for about two months. The Mongols attacked and pillaged not only the surrounding areas, but Delhi itself." Rene Grousset - Empire of steppes, Chagatai Khanate; Rutgers Univ Pr,New Jersey, U.S.A, 1988 ISBN 0-8135-1304-9 RAA Ra Ra your Boat ( talk) 09:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
You are not correctly quoting the reference which can be see on Google books here.[1] Which Part is INCORRECT ? that delhi was pillaged ? That the Sultanate ,which you and your friend here term as a bulwark ,failed to act as an effective resistance as is being painted in the main article ? If any of the above two facts are true,then terming any effective protection from the mongols by the delhi sultanate is prima facie Incorrect. RAA Ra Ra your Boat ( talk) 06:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
RAA Ra Ra your Boat ( talk) 07:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Also you are cherry-picking so while it is true that the Mongols besieged Delhi and raided India a few times, often they were defeated or held at bay.
that is true of many rulers in many parts of the world , yet nowhere is such a claim made that one bunch of invaders resulted in protection from another bunch of thugs, i mean to say, where is the differece and why this need to paint positives ? Tamarlane was a mongol , the babur and Mughals were Mongols , and neither khilji nor the marmalukes nor the lodhi's were any less "barbarian"!
RAA Ra Ra your Boat ( talk) 06:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
They could not achieve the kind of success they achieved in other parts of Central Asia due to Khiljis army and tactics and as such the Mongols could never rule over India.
"But they DID , and you forget that one century does not define the boundaries of success OR failure, I cannot for exampe say ,that the marathas succeded in keeping the westerners at bay ,because in the end , in hindsight , they Did not."
RAA Ra Ra your Boat ( talk) 06:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
RAA Ra Ra your Boat ( talk) 09:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC) Whatever the source said, it did not verbatim say what you implied and there were points which you left out conveniently.that is PLAIN WRONG!
RAA Ra Ra your Boat ( talk) 09:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
RAA Ra Ra your Boat ( talk) 09:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Delhi did fall almost a hundred years later, in 1398 to Tamerlane, who defeated the Genghisid Mongols of the Chagatai Khanate, and that too after the Delhi sultanates declined. So the Delhi Sultans stopped the Mongols from ravaging the Indian heartlands.
Exactly MY POINT , so why assign falsehood and undeserved praise to this bunch of invaders? RAA Ra Ra your Boat ( talk) 09:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
So if you imply that the Khilji's could not prevent the Mongols from coming, you need to learn more about Mongol tactics and generalship.
RAA Ra Ra your Boat ( talk) 09:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Tamerlane was from a Turkic-Mongol origins, yet he fought and defeated the Chagatai Khanate and started his own dynasty. He began his own line which later became the Mughal dynasty in India. They were of Mongol origin but were not Mongols.
RAA Ra Ra your Boat ( talk) 09:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Some historians , notably Will durant , disagree , "the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without and multiplying from within.” RAA Ra Ra your Boat ( talk) 09:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
AshLin (
talk) 10:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
U can even check on the google images, THE RAM SETU built by LORD RAMA, the hero of one of the holy books of hindus, THE RAMAYANAM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by S.R.Aniruddha ( talk • contribs) 17:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello! This is my first time doing this, so I apologize if I make a mistake or post this incorrectly, etc.
This may seem like a small detail, but as it stands, this is the sentence in the current Wikipedia article about India that I have issue with:
"The predominant religion, Hinduism, has been shaped by various historical schools of thought, including those of the Upanishads,[231] the Yoga Sutras, the Bhakti movement,[230] and by Buddhist philosophy.[232]
I understand that this is an article on India, not Hinduism, and to go into the fact of how "Hinduism" is not even a "religion" will prove to be superfluous in this particular case; however, stating that Hinduism has been "shaped by Buddhist philosophy"? Buddhism began in approx. 6th century BCE - how could it, then, "shape" Hinduism, which has been around for thousands of years before Buddhism even existed? Buddha himself was born into a royal Hindu family. The clear fact is that to state that Hinduism was "shaped" by Buddhism is an anachronism - if anything, Buddhism was shaped by Hinduism, not the other way around. My simple request is that the Buddhist mention be removed in that sentence, for it is not only misleading, but wildly incorrect.
The other mentions (Upanishads, Yoga, and Bhakti) are at least part of the 'astik' schools of Hindu philosophy (Buddhism is 'nastik' in Hindu philosophy and came after the other mentioned schools of thought). The sentence is talking about "historical schools of thought," and Buddhism "historically" came way after Hinduism. If the sentence is trying to state that NOWADAYS, Buddhist philosophy is gaining popularity within certain Hindu sects, then that is what it should say, for the sentence as it stands is very misleading. But even that would be an arguable notion - Buddhism came out of Hinduism and many of the principles (not all, of course) are similar. So saying Buddhism is "influencing" Hinduism makes no sense, because it came out of Hinduism itself. Even some concepts mostly associated with Buddhism (like "ahimsa", for example) can originally be found in certain Hindu philosophies. Like I said, it's a whole different thing to say that Buddhism is gaining popularity or that its ideals are being practiced by more Hindus. But you cannot state that it "shaped" the religion that not only came before it, but is inadvertently responsible for its creation. Simply put, it is factually and literally impossible for Buddhism to have "shaped" Hinduism.
Sorry my post is so long - I'm not trying to offend anyone, I just want to be clear. Millions of people read Wikipedia and little details like that make a world of difference in the misinterpretations that go on in society.
Thank you for reading!
Jeanniejeanniejeannie ( talk) 07:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the first sentence, there is an unmatched right parenthesis. Please change "see also the official names of India)," to "see also the official names of India,"
Jdtwood ( talk) 08:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi India now has the 9th Largest Nominal GDP not the 10th, its just a simple detail that i noticed Thanks
222.155.241.80 ( talk) 08:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The economy seems incorrect 219.89.221.106 ( talk) 03:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
i desire to continue the discussion regarding the below two lines in the medieval history section .
"By repeatedly repulsing the Mongol raiders in the 13th century, the Sultanate saved India from the devastation visited on West and Central Asia, "
&
"The Sultanate's raiding and weakening of the regional kingdoms of South India paved the way for the indigenous Vijayanagara Empire."
I continue this from archived part (archive 36),wherein somebody has cruelly culled the ongoing discussion between another interested party and myself.
I am not averse to renewing the old section, but lack the know-how to do this.
RAA Ra Ra your Boat (
talk) 08:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The Indian economy is the 9th largest and here is the source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal) 219.89.221.106 ( talk) 03:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
the religion census is not yet updated though the census has been announced muslim population should be 14.9% according to census 2010 thought it is written 13.4% which is according to the last census 2001
so , therefore there is big difference of 10 years and according to indian censuses muslims are increasing atleast 1.9% every ten years so that's why there should be updating on this article though govt. is not disclosing the correct figure of muslims .
pls take my request and aply it as soon as possible and i would appreciate you thank you
182.71.118.178 ( talk) 22:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Rvd4life has added two new sections: "Science and Technology" (with the "T" miscapitalised) and "Transport". If we arrive at a consensus to keep even one of these, it'd be best to emulate the TOC at Canada, which is a well-maintained FA. They have S&T under "Economy". Also, they don't have a "Transport" section. Maybe Rvd4life is looking at the structure of United Kingdom, but that article is oversized and not featured. Also, there are the WP:COUNTRY and WP:MOS guidelines. Saravask 05:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
In the Politics Heading, under the "5.2 subdivisions", there is a lot of white space surrounding the map. Can we move the map to the right and have the states and UTs to the left rather than having the map below the states and UTs. -- Anbu121 ( talk me) 11:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Why is "Most historians also consider this period to have encompassed several waves of Indo-Aryan migration into the subcontinent from the north-west" written under the history section of this page? This has never been proven and many MODERN historians have actually de-bunked this outdated theory. For this reason, I'm not sure why this is written under the "history" section -- it's unproven, and the "indo-aryan migration" theory already has its own wiki page for those who want to inquire about these colonial beliefs. I just don't understand what it's doing under the history section of this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zondrah89 ( talk • contribs) 21:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The political map shows the wrong information about the disputed territories. It says these territories are pakistan & chinese territories but in actual these are Indian territories claimed by Pakistan & China.
121.244.160.219 ( talk) 04:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Not done: Please be specific about which information is incorrect and provide a reliable source for the change. Thanks, Celestra ( talk) 06:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
i desire to continue the discussion regarding the below two lines in the medieval history section .
"By repeatedly repulsing the Mongol raiders in the 13th century, the Sultanate saved India from the devastation visited on West and Central Asia, "
-
"The Sultanate's raiding and weakening of the regional kingdoms of South India paved the way for the indigenous Vijayanagara Empire."
I continue this from archived part (archive 36),wherein somebody has cruelly culled the ongoing discussion between another interested party and myself.
I am not averse to renewing the old section, but lack the know-how to do this. RAA Ra Ra your Boat (talk) 08:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
RAA Ra Ra your Boat 09:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chimesmonster ( talk • contribs)
"The Brahmanical tradition was paralleled by the non-Vedic Shramana movement. The Buddha was a member of this movement. [1] Shramana also gave rise to Jainism [2], yoga [3], the concept of the cycle of birth and death, the concept of samsara, and the concept of liberation. [4] The Shramana movement also influenced the Aranyakas and Upanishads in the Brahmanical tradition. [5] " SaibAbaVenkatesh ( talk) 03:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I would also like to replace some currently existing sentences, since they don't seem to be supported by the respective sources. SaibAbaVenkatesh ( talk) 03:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
So whats the verdict? SaibAbaVenkatesh ( talk) 00:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
(od) I'm going to have to look at the reference for that. Meanwhile, I've simplified the text further until we can clarify "orthodoxies". -- regentspark ( comment) 22:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
All parties interested see Dispute Resolution Noticeboard at " India". Thank you! SaibAbaVenkatesh ( talk) 05:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi,
This is Shiny Kumar Das from Mumbai, India. I would want to change the Indian National Anthem loaded on this portal, which does not have words in it. The Anthem consist of music and words. The words define India in its own beauty and culture. Please load the Anthem given on the Indian Government site http://india.gov.in/knowindia/national_symbols.php?id=6
Thanks & Regards,
Shiny Das. Shinydas ( talk) 00:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Not done: That website is very clear that the anthem can be played or sung. It may be better for the typical reader to leave off the words. Either way, you would need to upload the file using the tool to the left. Thanks, Celestra ( talk) 01:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
The lead currently has a footnote next to Pakistan when mentioning bordering countries, in which Afghanistan is claimed as a bordering country according to the Government of India's claims. My question is, is this really appropriate per WP:NPOV and WP:DUE? Looking at the ground realities, it's unrealistic to say that India shares an imaginary border with Afghanistan because the Gilgit-Baltistan region is as much a part of Pakistan as Jammu and Kashmir is claimed to be a part of India. And also, what are the viewpoints of other nations on this? Pakistan considers the entire of Kashmir as its own territory, including the state of Jammu and Kashmir. China, the other party in the Kashmir dispute, has its own issues with the Indian claim too. And most importantly, what is the Government of Afghanistan's stance on Gilgit-Baltistan? Or the international community, such as the United Nations, which as per status quo regards Indian-administered territory to cease no further than the Line of Control? Where then, does India bordering Afghanistan come into the equation? And how come the Pakistan article lead does not have a similiar footnote claiming its borders to stretch beyond the Line of Control, to include the disputed territory of Jammu and Kashmir? Mar4d ( talk) 08:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
According to me, the foot note has been written from a very neutral point of view. It does not say "India shares border with Afghanistan", it only says "Government of India considers Afghanistan to be a bordering country", which is a fact. -- Anbu121 ( talk me) 09:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Let me be more clear. I am not advocating that Indian government's viewpoints to be included in India article and Pakistan government's viewpoints to be included in Pakistan article. The foot note has been written in the context of list of bordering countries of India and not in the context of Kashmir dispute. It could be reworded to be more precise, but explaining the Kashmir conflict in this foot note looks a bit out of context. -- Anbu121 ( talk me) 14:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Added an official GOI declaration ref. AshLin ( talk) 05:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In India the vehicles are driven in Right side, As per our wikipedia, its written as Left, Kindly make the changes to Right, many thanks -Paneer Selvan A, Paneerselvan ( talk) 16:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change "English East India Company" to "British East India Company" in section "History" --> "Early modern India" because "English" is incorrect.
SC 03:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I think that Regional Power in the lead section must be changed to nascent Great Power. That would really depict the real condition of India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srikarkashyap ( talk • contribs) 13:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
There may be dispute regarding status of Kashmir. But there is no dispute regarding status os Jammu. Jammu is Hindu dominated area and there is abolutely no separtist movement against India or in favour of Pakistan. Thus Pakistan has no claim over Jammu.Similarly , Arunachal Pradesh is full fledged state of India. There is neither any separatist movement against or any movement for merger in China. As far as claim is concern, even India has claim over Kailash Range and Mansarovar lake and even Tibet is disputed. Rajesh Kumar69 ( talk) 06:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Here's one:
What I am trying to say is how is this a 'dispute', the standard earlier mentioned were about UN resolution. The dispute here is not about Arunachal Pradesh at all. Therefore this should be removed.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 21:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
As there is claimed to be dispute, is Indian side presented adequately here? As an example, there are sources that quote status of Arunachal Pradesh as disputed, but is content where India has rejected any claims as a 'dispute' been presented also in the article? I already presented one source. If I can come up with other sources I will add here.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 08:27, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
"The Vedas, the oldest scriptures of Hinduism,[20] were composed during this period, and historians have analysed these to posit a Vedic culture in the Punjab region and the upper Indo-Gangetic Plain.[19"
Nowhere except Mr. Upender Singh's book, is there a mention of date of composition of Vedas. Vedas were part of "Shruti" (heard knowledge) and was passed from generations to generations like that; until it was finally put on papirus leaves somewhere around the time quoted by Mr. Upender's book.
What is the verificity of the content of Mr. Upender Singh's book and how is it being treated as the reliable source of information?
- Prateek Mohan (mohan.prateek@gmail.com)
Well, Christianity arrived in what is now Kerala hundreds of years before Islam even existed, in the first century AD, by strong tradition through personal arrival of the Apostle St Thomas, one of the twelve disciples of Christ. Early converts were the many centuries-long established Jews, who barely survive as a community in Kerala, the vast majority of their ancestors having converted to Christianity nearly two millenia ago. It has not been established what proportion of the dwindling community of Xians -- because of their extremely low birthrate down to 20% of the state's population -- are descended from ancient Jews, not Hindus. Apart from enough ethnically indigenous fathers -- Jews only needing to have Jewish mothers -- to have given both Jews and Christians of Kerala a look of entirely local ancestry. A curious but authentic historical fact, especially ironic in that when Kerala Jews migrate to Israel they are not enthusiastically received and generally move onwards to North America because they look Indian, as Ethiopian Jews look African and are forced to "convert" to Judaism if they wish to remain in Israel. To Israelis they do not look Jewish, not being German, Polish or Russian. An ironic answer to one of the Biblical mysteries as to what happened to the ten supposedly lost tribes of Israel, three of them in fact having arrived in Kerala, Ethiopia (odd being a mystery given that the Bible is full of references to Ethiopia) and Afghanistan, the latter having centuries ago converted to Islam as did Parsis both there and in Iran where Christians were also obliged to do so. Kerala Christians themselves are often ignorant of this historical fact. Masalai ( talk) 03:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Please don't Play with the integrity of nation by showing wrong map of country India has been a peaceful and vary gentle country in world community and it has a history of not starting wars with it's neighbours.
Other countries have tried to take banifite of this and claiming some areas from india. Please make it sure if your Images showing the correct maps of India which is identical to Indian official maps.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.115.95.44 ( talk) 05:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Which is the NATIONAL LANGUAGE OF INDIA? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunnbio87 ( talk • contribs) 23:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Please read this -- Anbu121 ( talk me) 10:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
this is so very confusing!! i always thought Hindi is termed as the national language of India. why isnt it mentioned in here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taief631 ( talk • contribs) 21:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Hindi and English are the two official languages of the Republic of India. There are also several other regional official languages. However, there is no National language per se. You might be confusing "official language" with "national language". 11achitturi ( talk) 22:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
In the last paragraph of the section ""Foreign relations and military" (change and update facts and figures):
FIRSTLY:
SECONDLY:
So I noticed that both the introduction to this article and the infobox give India's official name in English (Republic of India) and in the other Indian languages (Bhaarat Ganaraajya). The infobox also gives a provision to add the native name of the country in that country's official language - and according to Article 343(1) of the Constitution of India, [7], that language is Standard Hindi in the Devanagari script. So why is भारत गणराज्य not listed as the name of India, either in the infobox or in the introduction? India seems to be the only country article where this occurs.
In Wikipedia:Countries, it states that "The official long-form name of the country in the local language is to go on top as the caption. If there are several official names (languages), list all (if reasonably feasible). The conventional long-form name (in English), if it differs from the local long-form name, should follow the local name(s)." Hindi in the Devanagari script and English in the Roman script are the two official languages of India, with Hindi being "the principal official language of the Union" (all the other languages of India are regional languages recognized by individual states, which I am assuming is different). Thus, the question becomes: Why is भारत गणराज्य not listed in the infobox? 11achitturi ( talk) 17:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the second paragraph of the article, please correct sentence that indicates that Islam arrived to India in the 1st century C.E. (obviously incorrect for a religion that began five centuries later) 98.216.133.228 ( talk) 21:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I know that the majority of India was held by the British and obviously thats why independance is listed as being from them, but the Portuguese were in India longer and held it more recently than the British. Granted, the most recent Portuguese India was quite small, but it should not at all be forgotten. Its date and independance should be noted in the infobox alongside. If there are no objections or conversation over this move by a week after this post, I shall add it. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás ( talk) 04:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
do see your point on the independence issue, and perhaps you are right, footnotes would be more accurate. This being said, I still strongly stand against the fact that the longest European presence in India is only mentioned once in the entire article. Not a single sentence mentions Vasco da Gama, perhaps one of the most influential characters in both Portuguese and Indian history. I find this lack of information a tragedy and it should be corrected. I do not wish to add it myself for I am no expert on Indian history as a whole, and I have not written at all for this article and I do not wish to meddle in other people's works. I am afraid that if this problem is not solved, perhaps this article is not truely suitable for a featured article. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás ( talk) 05:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot about this. I tend to agree with RegentsPark about not mentioning names. I checked some textbooks, and I feel that we should mention the opening of the sea route between Europe and India to provide context for the East India Company paragraph. The paragraph currently reads:
By the early 18th century, with the lines between commercial and political dominance increasingly blurred, a number of European trading companies, including the English East India Company, had established coastal outposts.
We could change this (if there is consensus) to:
By the early 18th century, some two centuries after the establishment of regular sea routes between Europe and India, a number of European trading companies, including the English East India Company, had established coastal outposts.
I believe this addition provides more context for the transition from the Mughal Empire to the EIC. Note "sea routes" is linked to Portuguese India Armadas. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 03:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
The sentence in the history section(ancient history) "Most historians also consider this period to have encompassed several waves of Indo-Aryan migration into the subcontinent from the north-west" is not required according to me as the theory of Aryan invasion has been challenged by many historinas -- sarvajna ( talk) 14:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
(od) It says 'most' because most is the correct term. Only a few nationalist elements in India have other ideas and those ideas are on the fringe. The current version is accurate. -- regentspark ( comment) 17:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Requesting a summary of the state of the issue from Fowler&fowler please. AshLin ( talk) 05:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
There is a good reason why we value the content of widely used textbooks published by internationally known academic publishers. It is that these books have been vetted for balance by scholars. In contrast, journal articles or monographs can espouse one particular viewpoint or emphasize one particular nuance. The widely-used texts are unanimous in broadly accepting the Indo-European (Aryan) migration theory. Ms. Upinder Singh's book has already been cited for the sentence. Here are two four other widely used texts:
There is no reason to change anything in the sentence. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 17:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC) Updated Fowler&fowler «Talk» 05:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
"Most historians also consider this period to have encompassed several waves of Indo-Aryan migration into the subcontinent from the north-west" - The word most should be replaced by some. As there are many historians who claim that Indo-Aryan migration theory is completely false. There is no-one to decide whether a majority (most) of the historians support this theory or a minority. So the word some historians would be more neutral and appropriate. Raghu-holkar ( talk) 13:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
@ RegentsPark
Again there is no-one to decide whether those who have given 'Out of India' theory are 'proper' historians or not. And no-one can decide whether Indo-Aryan migration theory is mainstream theory or not. If it is mainstream theory, then 'Indigenous Aryans' theory is also one mainstream theory. So, some should come in place of most. Raghu-holkar ( talk) 11:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
The question remains same : who is to decide whether its majority or minority of historians. Most is too subjective. If not some, then many can be more appropriate. It should be Many historians, not most. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raghu-holkar ( talk • contribs) 11:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Not Hindu nationalist groups, but non-Indian historians were the first to give 'Indigenous Aryans theory'.
Bryant, Edwin (2001), The quest for the origins of Vedic culture: the Indo-Aryan migration debate,
Oxford University Press, p. 6,
ISBN
0195137779, "It must be stated immediately that there is an unavoidable corollary of an Indigenist position. If the Indo-Aryan languages did not come from outside South Asia, this necessarily entails that India was the original homeland of all the other Indo-European languages."
A recent genetic-based research conducted by Harvard also claims that Aryan invasion is nothing but a myth. [8] By the way, whats the problem with Many ? It would be more neutral. Raghu-holkar ( talk) 12:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
1. There are other accepted view, I feel the debate here is how many accept the other theory 2. Making it as just "Historians" without any qualifications would mean that there are no other theories. Which would convey a very different meaning. -- sarvajna ( talk) 13:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I feel that there is some kind of vandalism here. These two user
Fowler&fowler and
regentspark are continuously trying to force their own views in the article.
sarvajna had a valid point here. This is a fact that Aryan Migration is a theory just like Indigenous Aryan theory. Both of them have not been accepted as such. The use of word 'Most' gives an impression that Aryan migration theory is true and others are false.
I was going to as for Administrators' intervention regarding
vandalism in this article, but I was surprised to know that
regentspark is himself an admin.
@ sarvajna : Its not worth wasting time here in requesting any change in the current article as some admins themselves seem to be involved in vandalism. regentspark seem to be an advocate of that old western ideology of defaming India. I didn't want to disrespect the admins of this reputed encyclopedia. But this is too much. Any neutral person will say that Most inappropriate here. Raghu-holkar ( talk) 13:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
The original poster is correct. There is no reason to remove the Hindi script. The name of India has been in the Devanagari script for years, but it was suddenly removed recently. This is odd, since Bharat Ganarajya is still there. That is the name of the country in Hindi. The name of India is different in other languages such as Bengali and Tamil. The general consensus is if a non-English word is mentioned in an article, it is also written in parenthesis in its native script after the mention. In any case, the government of India also uses both Hindi and English officially: on passports, its website, for laws, and so on. It is true that the Indian constitution does not stipulate a national language; however, both Hindi and India were declared co-official languages in 1950. The national language controversy has been stroked by a specific, small group of people with an agenda and does not represent a reason to remove Hindi. Finally, I'd like to point out that in the last few months, it seems as though a concerted effort is being conducted on the part of a group of people, primarily Tamil nationalists, with an agenda to remove the Hindi script from a variety of India related articles- even if the people or place in question is a native Hindi speaker or in a Hindi speaking area. For example, the names of several Bollywood actors, Hindi movies, and the state of Himachal Pradesh (where Hindi is the official language) have had the Devanagari script removed from there. This is not standard procedure with how to deal with languages in articles. Likewise, just how Tamil Nadu is in the Tamil script, Hindi speaking states ought to have their names written out in their script. This super-edit has mostly effected Hindi areas (such as the city of Delhi), but also come other areas, such as the city of Mumbai, where the native name in both Marathi and Hindi have been removed.
I've done a through check in the article history and have identified one particular person who is responsible for many of these edits. I would like to request this person to stop doing this, on the basis that it is against Wikipedia policy and it as done unilaterally rather than by a consensus discussion. He should wait for a consensus to build up, or follow the current policy, and if he has an issue, we will request mediation from Wikipedia editors.
One way to deal with the issue is to look to the South Africa article. South Africa has a similar linguistic situation to India, with a variety of official languages. All of them are inserted into its box. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa
By the way, to avoid accusations of self-interest, I will state that I am not a native Hindi speaker and am not trying to promote or "impose" a language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akhipill ( talk • contribs) 01:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I feel that you should write the capitals of the states of india mentioned. 122.167.81.221 ( talk) 15:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Probably these things have been discussed in history. You may very well point me to those discussions and save time.
As you all know India is facing several seperatist movements who want freedom such as North east India insurgency and jammu and kashmir I believe these HUGE issues deserve a mention in the India article since its a major problem what with all the human rights abuses against the native population by the Indian army Talkd2me ( talk) 08:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
The Aryans came from central INDIA The language they spoken is still spoken today.That is HINDI.Hindi is the national language of India,today Admin RegentsPark your edit summary read to the effect TOI is not about this, please read carefully before trigger-happy undoing, there were three other references with quotations, don't edit war, that the AI(M)T is disputed is as clear as sunlight, Byrant and Patton write "For two centuries, scholars concentrating on the South Asian data have described an Indo-European/Aryan migration/invasion into South Asia to explain the formation of Indian civilization. The conflating of language, people/culture, "race" to maintain the "myth of Aryan invasion" continues, perhaps as Leach so cogently notes, due to the academic prestige at stake. "... Renfrew ... opts to distort archeological record.... Archeological data ... does not support ... any version of migration/invasion ... population movement into South Asia". Is Wikipedia a tool for protection of the academic prestige of discredited theorists?? The theory is there and it is disputed is a known fact supported by evidence. Why is this article hijacked by faddists? Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 14:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Since you have started a new section (for no reason), here they are again (with quotes):
Fowler&fowler «Talk» 15:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC) Last updated Fowler&fowler «Talk» 04:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
The AIT is disputed. [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]
Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 15:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Here is Gavin Flood himself: (Introduction to Hinduism, Cambridge University Press. pp 33–34) THE ARYAN MIGRATIONS RECONSIDERED Both the Aryan migration thesis and the cultural transformation thesis have bodies of supporting evidence. Arguably, however, the meticulous, thorough work of Asko Parpola establishes strong evidence for the Indus valley script belonging to the Dravidian language group. His evidence is based on an analysis of language from a wide-ranging cultural sphere, from Anatolia to the Deccan; on iconographic continuities between Indus valley and Dravidian forms of Hinduism, and on discontinuities between vedic or Aryan forms and those of the Indus valley. ... A modified Aryan migration theory is therefore supported by Parpola's work. At the beginning of the second millennium BCE, Aryan nomads entered the Indian subcontinent. They were, of course, a minor-ity, and, while the Indus valley culture continues without a break, as the archaeological record shows, the Aryan culture lived and developed alongside it and absorbed elements of it. However, there is little doubt that there are continuities between the Indus valley and vedic cultures. The new groups, who possessed arya, 'nobility', formed a dominating elite speaking the Aryan language, though Sanskrit has absorbed proto-Dravidian features, such as the retroflex sound which does not exist in other Indo-European languages, as well as agricultural terms. Dravidian languages, as one would expect, have also absorbed elements of Sanskrit. Over a number of centuries bilingualism would have developed until the majority of the population adopted the Aryan language, a form of vedic Sanskrit, as Modern French developed from vulgar Latin." Fowler&fowler «Talk» 16:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Dear Humour Thisthat2011, Mr. Y. Khandke, has has altered the actual quotes in some places, or confused the names of the editors of a volume with the authors of the individual papers, or in some other case, selectively cherry-picked quotes, or over and over again picked quotes for authors who are critiquing the Aryan invasion theory, not the migration theory. Here are some of his examples:
The Aryans: The most commonly accepted theory to date has been that Hinduism is the consequence of incursions of groups known as Aryans into the north-ern plains of India from central Asia, via the mountain passes of Afghanistan, around 1500 BCE. Some of these groups went into Iran and there are close affinities between the Iranian religion of the Avesta (the sacred scripture of Zoroastrianism) and the religion of the Veda. (page 30)"
I would like to know if a content dispute can be taken to ANI. Per Yogesh Khandke's views it can not be.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 06:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I AGREE TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THAT MAHTMA GHANDI LED A REBELLION TO FREE INDIA DEH SHIVA BER MOHA HA SHUBH LUNKHURH YU R A FOOL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.169.115 ( talk) 20:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Due to on going dispute about the Aryan migration/invasion theory. I have added a content dispute banner regarding this to the article, please do not remove this banner until the content dispute is resolved and both parties are happy. If you believe this banner is unjustified please provide reasoning for removal here. Thank you Distributor108 ( talk) 07:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
The third paragraph of the lead article (as below):
Thanks! — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
59.178.162.100 (
talk) 11:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
It is stated in this article that Right to information is a fundamental right. I have doubt regarding it. I don't think, that it is so can someone please help in that. Thanks Yash t 101 08:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
National Language : Hindi Pratapbeh ( talk) 09:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Please express your views here Talk:Afghanistan#Pls_add_the_footnote_2. Thanks very much — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.212.88.26 ( talk) 17:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
I do not understand the necessity of this edit, if you read it the para talks about what the Indian govt claims -- sarvajna ( talk) 15:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Chipmunk. A discussion of India's northernmost point has to include the POVs of all governments involved in the Kashmir dispute, Indian, Pakistani, and perhaps even Chinese (although I doubt they have anything to say as the northernmost point is not in Aksai Chin), not just that of the Indian government. After all, where else would the Pakistani government POV be included on Wikipedia? Certainly not in the Pakistan article, for there would be no occasion there for mentioning India's northernmost point, and Pakistan's own northernmost point is much farther north (see List of countries by northernmost point). I believe India's undisputed northernmost point (in Himachal Pradesh) needs to be mentioned, if we are going to include governmental POVs. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Suggesting not to delete the note. Let us not get into baseless propaganda of forcing hands just so as to avoid inhumane ignorance of warmongering trigger-happy 'irregulars' running over territory and pillaging population. India considers the whole of J&K state as Indian as any other state. Do we need the actual official numbers from GoIndia?इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 17:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Rather ironically, fowler, the note in question was added by you in this edit (modified, slightly, by Saravask in this edit). It was expressed so well that I couldn't imagine a pov pusher having put it in (and sort of suspected you were the culprit). Regardless, I'm willing to give up the note and stick to the 'real' northernmost point. -- regentspark ( comment) 14:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
i would really like to see a section on cuisines of india. I think there is a lot to offer in this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igodspeed ( talk • contribs) 05:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to partially agree with RK on this. First is a bit overarching here. Perhaps "first significant" would be better. But, sourced or not, it is worth noting that Mahavira showed up at around the same time (likely a bit before). -- regentspark ( comment) 14:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
RP: Why don't we say, "Buddhism, based on the teachings of Gautama Buddha, whose lifetime was marked by the advent of India's recorded history, attracted followers from all social classes ...." There are plenty of sources for this. Note: I'm traveling and not reliably interactive. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 06:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
I now believe it is best to leave in the bit about "India's first historical figure." I've had time to look at the sources, and I find that there are plenty of reliable ones attesting to the truth of the statement. A culture's first historical figure constitutes a very important piece of encyclopedic information, as it tells us roughly when the first documents began to be produced in that culture. Here are the sources, with the quotes:
If someone has equally high quality sources which confer this honor on another individual, please produce them here. Otherwise, merely arguing on the basis of half remembered bits of history is not very useful. If such sources are not available, then I propose we quickly reinstate the reference to India's first historical figure. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 03:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
1. A History of Indian Philosophy, Vol. 1 Page 169, "...that a disciple of Parsva met a disciple of Mahavira and brought the union of old Jainism and that propounded by Mahavira seems to suggest that this Parsva was probably a historical figure"
2. Encyclopedia of world's religion Page 255, "..The twenty-third of these, Parsva is said to have lived only 250 years before mahavira and hence may well have been a historical figure"
3. This one suggest that Bimbisar was the first historic figure India: From Indus Valley Civlization to Mauryas Page 299, "..Both Buddha and Mahavir are said to have belonged to the time of Bimbisar....He is the first known hitorical figure" -- sarvajna ( talk) 09:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Fowler, there are two separate questions here. First, whether Buddha is or is not "the first historical figure". Second, why do we we need to explicitly name someone as that in the article. Even if it is reliably sourced, first historical figure seems to be (to me) a weak claim to make (perhaps the Narmada Man should be given that honor!) and should be stated in the article only if it is necessary. I don't see the necessity. If, as you say above, the purpose is to indicate that this is the time when India's recorded history begins, then that's what the article should directly say. -- regentspark ( comment) 12:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
A notoriously ahistorical culture such as ancient India's did not suddenly start recording history definitively and for all time. It happened in fits and starts, often aided by the visits of observant foreigners. Even after the edicts of Ashoka had been scattered along the length and breadth of the sub-continent, there was a gap of some 200 years in which little was recorded, and about which little is known. The first records in India were inextricably tied with the life of Buddha (as observed above in the quote of Burton Stein above). Later, the first scripts in India (and southeast Asia) were all derived from Brahmi and were all tied to the spread of Buddhism. So, simply saying "the onset of recorded history" is meaningless in the Indian context; some mention of the Buddha and Buddhism is needed in it. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 02:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
00:48: Comment above: Will be back later with a proposal.
05:30: No conspicuous presentation of any proposal, but the same editor reintroduces India's first historical figure as a description of Gautama B, with the edit summary: You're new to this page. I'm afraid that is how we have functioned here. Best not to play this game with me. Widely used texts have been vetted for balance.
I too am new to this page (though not to Wikipedia). I'm in no mood to play games. The previous "functioning" of this article is of little interest to me. What do interest me are Wikipedia policies. These include, but are not limited to, verifiability and a prohibition of multiple reversions.
Now, what needs to be said, and what reliable evidence do you have for saying it? Present here, discuss here. If on the other hand there's more silly nonsense in the article itself, I'll be inclined to protect it until people here have come to their senses. And maybe do some blocking as well (after all, at least one 3RR block could already be warranted). -- Hoary ( talk) 05:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Based on the inputs of RK, RP, and Hoary, I am proposing that we go with the following sentence: ""Buddhism, based on the teachings of Gautama Buddha attracted followers from all social classes excepting the middle class; chronicling the life of the Buddha was central to the beginnings of recorded history in India." The added bit will be cited to Stein-Arnold (p. 21, see bibliography upstairs). The other citations will remain the same. Please respond below. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 03:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
the wrong map of India is shown here. they are said as claimed and uncontrolled, while it is not only claimed but also controlled. and by the way Pakistan has achieved their wrong means by spreading fake maps all over the world, and control? what has Pakistan done worthy of showing that they have control? only spread a bunch of fake maps. the region was supposedly won over by Pakistan in 1984, but it was not a war or dispute, it was a group of terrorists who had illegally entered the country and made it their home, they were followed by the Pakistani army, and there wasn't even a war. at all places, in Wikipedia a wrong map of India, giving away half of Kashmir to Pakistan, and another strip to china, and a line is drawn saying it is Chinese and Pakistani territory claimed by India, and the same for Arunachal Pradesh.all these articles are protected. Why? why is Wikipedia so intent to tarnish the reputation of itself in the heart of a billion people? if it doesn't have proper maps, then I am ready to supply, but this misinformation shouldn't be conveyed, and worse of all protected, Mr. jimmy wales, answer to this and rectify your error or defend yourself, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shashwatpkumar ( talk • contribs) 11:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
It is a democracy, lets vote for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igodspeed ( talk • contribs) 06:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
I have a question similar to the one I asked at Talk:Mumbai: Why isn't the country's native name rendered in any native script?
The source of the article says: Do not add non-Latin scripts per the consensus reached at
WP:IN.
I couldn't find anything like a consensus at
WP:IN. If there was a clear consensus, there should be a clearer link to it.
The FAQ on the top of this talk page says: "Q: Why is Bhārat Gaṇarājya not rendered in Devanagari script? A: See this discussion. That discussions, if printed, will take about 20 pages. That's a lot. I tried to skim through it and couldn't find anything that looks like an answer. Maybe there is one, but it's very hard to find. Can anybody write a convincing summary of it? -- Amir E. Aharoni ( talk) 13:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Already present in Etymology section.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 13:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: The historical verdict in India. For the first time, one girl, Laxmi Sargara from Jodhpur, the court to annul her marriage. When Laxmi was only one year, her parents "married" her for a three year old boy . The phenomenon of child marriage in India is formally illegal, but many areas are still practiced. That encrease the importance of this decisions of Indian courts. 78.2.93.78 ( talk) 17:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Affiliations
Organization | Dates |
United Nations | since Octoberer 30, 1945 |
International Olympic Committee | since 1927 |
Asian Development Bank | since 1966 |
Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation | Founding member June 6, 1997 |
International Olympic Committee | since 1927 |
IMF | since December 27, 1945 |
Interpol | since October 1949 |
World Trade Organization | since January 1, 1995 |
Neo656 ( talk) 05:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)neo656
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
|languages=none [1]
Maulikbharat2 ( talk) 10:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
|languages=Hindi [1]
Maulikbharat2 ( talk) 10:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
The nationals symbols of India in this article is listed as a table with no border. Also, It does not have a distinguishing color. Is that actually intended?→ Vanischenu T M 09:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
My issue is with the following phrase: "..whereas Zoroastrianism, Christianity, and Islam arrived in the 1st millennium CE and also helped shape the region's diverse culture." While mentioning the religions born in India is understandable, why would an encyclopedia article have such a phrase so weasel and aimless that it says "also helped shape the culture". I just looked around about some articles to see how they have mentioned non-indigenous religions that have impacted its culture. Neither United States nor United Kingdom articles mention "Christianity" in the lead section. Without a tinge of doubt, the influence of Christianity on both of these countries are more profound than the influence of Zoroastrianism, Christianity, or Islam on India. So i request we remove that phrase and stick with just mentioning indigenous religions in the lead section. Thanks 117.214.20.149 ( talk) 09:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Too god to be improved?-- Sunil of India ( talk) 00:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
May someone confirm, Is this source reliable to claim "India has the world's largest Hindu, Sikh, Jain, population" in Demographics section. Regards :)-- Omer123hussain ( talk) 23:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Too god to be improved?-- Sunil of India ( talk) 00:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
May someone confirm, Is this source reliable to claim "India has the world's largest Hindu, Sikh, Jain, population" in Demographics section. Regards :)-- Omer123hussain ( talk) 23:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would request an edit request. I would request that the term "mythology" is removed when referring to Hindu scriptures or text. I appreciate your assistance in allowing me to update/make this change.
Thank you
Sharma103 ( talk) 16:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Sharma103 ( talk) 16:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
<!national language=HINDI>
Iravi9 (
talk) 17:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Too god to be improved?-- Sunil of India ( talk) 00:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
May someone confirm, Is this source reliable to claim "India has the world's largest Hindu, Sikh, Jain, population" in Demographics section. Regards :)-- Omer123hussain ( talk) 23:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would request an edit request. I would request that the term "mythology" is removed when referring to Hindu scriptures or text. I appreciate your assistance in allowing me to update/make this change.
Thank you
Sharma103 ( talk) 16:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Sharma103 ( talk) 16:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
<!national language=HINDI>
Iravi9 (
talk) 17:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry this page accidentally went off my watchlist and I forgot about the consensus reached in the archived section: Talk:India/Archive_36#Proposal_3 and discussed in the sections immediately before that. I have now added the consensus wording on Buddhism and the beginnings of recorded history in India. Regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 12:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I have deepest respect and sympathy for the Jains and Sikhs and their culture and customs, but I am not sure if we should refer to them as being among the world's "major religions". 134.155.36.48 ( talk) 20:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Hummmm if you think Sikhism is not a major religion then you might need to recheck few facts UK's official second language is PUNJABI 6% people in America are Punjabi 9% people in Australia are Punjabi 12% in Italy are Punjabi Punjab is the worlds largest agriculture Producing state(are wise) and to achieve that Sikhism is the worlds youngest religion its only about 400 years — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamaljits.77 ( talk • contribs) 19:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I added a line on Medieval History, beginning of sixteenth century role of local warriors, the Afghan Suri kings and their adviser, Chief of Army and Prime Minister, the Hindu king 'Hemu' (Hem Chandra Vikramaditya) who later acceeded to the throne of Delhi defeating Akbar's army at Agra and Delhi , but it is removed. Local Afghan rulers and Hindu king together had a rule of 16 years from 1540 to 1556 in North India after Sher Shah Suri defeated Mughal king Humanyun in battle of Chausa and forced him to flee to Kabul. It was only in 1556 that Mughals could recapture Delhi and North India when 'Hemu' the last Hindu emperor of India was defeated and killed in the 'Second battle of Panipat' by Akbar's army. This 16 years period was an important period of India's history and a line on it should be placed on the page. Sudhirkbhargava ( talk) 11:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Text says in the beginning of sixteenth century, If we analyse the period Mughal ruler Babur invaded and won Panipat war in 1526, could rule portions of north India before he was defeated by the local Afghan king Sher Shah Suri in 1540 whose period was considered native.Then from 1540 to 1556, North India was under local Afghan kings and Hindu king Hemu who had the support of all Hindu kings also. In 1556, the Mughal king Akbar defeated Hemu in second battle of Panipat and established Mughal rule in North India. So Mughal rule should be counted from 1556 and not from the beginningof 16th century. Moreover, the line I have added talks of two native Indian kings who deserve mentions in their country's page. I hope you are understanding the difference between Mughal invaders and Muslim rulers. Afghans Muslim rulers were considered natives while Mughals were considered invaders. I think the line added on native king is approprite. 117.198.128.16 ( talk) 03:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
......My intention of describing and differentiating various terms is to put facts and background of sixteenth century beginning political situation. I have given mathamatical figures to justify my point that Hemu and Afghans played an important role in librating India in the beginning of sixteenth century. And that is the reason a line about them should be put on the page India. I wonder why you should call facts as garbage. 117.198.121.155 ( talk) 04:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
..Well ! Facts are different. Hemu's behind was not whupped by 13 year old Akbar as you claim, as Akbar did not come to the battle field in Panipat at all and stayed 8 miles away in a camp fully protected. However, after the war, almost dead Hemu was captured in battle field and presented before Akbar (described as divine on this page) at his camp who formally beheaded him to earn the title of Ghazi. This is also true that Hemu, who was associated with Afghans since 1540, had won 22 battles from Punjab to Bengal in between 1553-56 and was defacto king as per Abul Fazal's version in 'Akbarnama', and accedeed to Delhi throne independently on 7th Oct. 1556 after defeating Akbar's forces at Agra and Delhi. So his importance. You rightly say there is paucity of space and many kings do not find space here. I thought 16 years of rule could be mentioned. You are a better judge. 117.198.121.155 ( talk) 07:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In Subdivisions map, There is Indian map with Title - A clickable map of the 28 states and 7 union territories of India. Parts of Indian territories have been categarized as "Chinese territory claimed by India" & "Pakistani territory claimed by India" As an Indian it offends me this disputed territories have shown as part of other/foreign country. I truely believe that these territories are integral part of India. Kindly correct it to "Disputed Foreign territory (India & China)" & "Disputed Foreign territory (India & Pakistan)"
Shekhar9k ( talk) 18:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Why doesn't the lead of this article state that Bharat is an official English name of India? For evidence I have provided this reference from the Indian Government. MadWrites ( talk) 14:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The info-box should have an Establishment/Formation section, not merely an 'Independence' section.
The British occupation and end thereof are a miniscule portion of the history of India. 'Independence' from the British and Islamic occupations are signposts not beginnings or ends in themselves.
India as an entity has been in existence for thousands of years. It seems silly for this page to subscribe to the nonsensical notion that India is a recent construct or that it came into existence at the end of the British occupation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.143.115.163 ( talk) 05:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
If it is about the 'modern country of India' then why is there a History section that mentions 'Ancient India' and 'Medieval India'? By your logic there shouldn't be a single shred of information about anything that happened before the end of the British occupation. Governing systems, dispensations and even geography may change but the page is about the cultural and geographic entity that has been known as India for millennia. [Side note: I find it amusing that an Englishman is the presiding judge deciding on matters concerning the India page.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.143.116.232 ( talk) 16:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Also, if this page is solely about the 'Republic of India' then there cannot logically be a mention of 'independence', because it was not the present republic that gained said independence. If we are confining ourselves to the republic then surely we must state that it came into being (once again we must use the word formation) on August 15th 1947. Sticking to the logic of this page the entity that gained independence was not the current republic but that thing which preceded it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.143.116.232 ( talk) 18:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Was the People's Republic of China established in 221 BCE? Was the current Federal Republic of Germany formed in 962 CE? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.143.116.232 ( talk) 18:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Like I said earlier geography and dispensations may vary but the entity in question remains unchanged. The present 'Germany' in the article on that country didn't exist in 962 did it? The India before 1947 may have been larger or smaller but it wasn't different and that is the point. This is clearly a serious matter that calls for a serious discussion and a re-think on the very nature of the India page. I think we need some higher level people involved here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.143.116.232 ( talk) 18:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't threatening to go over your head on anything. I just meant if this is a change that you are not authorized to perform then a higher-level editor might be called for. I would like more people joining in on this that is all. As for making myself clearer on what I want, I would request you to peruse some of the other country pages, the China and Germany ones that I mentioned for instance. It is simple fact that the 'current' Germany was not formed in 962 CE but that is what the infobox says. It is simple fact that the current China was not formed in 221 BCE but that is what the infobox says. I am sure those countries also have separate 'History of' pages - that is not the issue at hand. The point is that India, China, Germany, Russia (formed in 862 apparently) have all been in existence in one form or another for eons. The current form of these countries is just that, the current form, of entites, be they geographic, cultural, and/or ethnic that go back a long way. What a country page should do is form a thread backwards starting with the current entity, It should not regard the current entity as a standalone. Moreover what I am calling for is uniformity and the application of similar standards across all country pages. 114.143.116.232 ( talk) 19:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
No, I am not arguing that those dates are wrong. Of course there can be different points of view on what constituted the beginning of a nation but those dates for are more in keeping with the spirit of what I am saying. Which is that these current entities are merely the latest form of nations that have been around in one form or another for a long time. For India it might be worth considering the time of Ashoka as some sort of establishment date. Albeit that too will surely be contested with some saying it should be earlier. If for example it is decided to use 265 BCE (the Maurya Empire at its peak under Ashoka) as the date when the India that we recognize today truly came into being, then that would be the first date in the infobox and the significant subsequent periods could be mentioned under it, such as the Kushan Empire which followed the Maurya Empire, or the various Islamic ocupations, or the Maratha Empire, or the Sikh Empire, or the Company occupation, or the British occupation, etc. 114.143.116.232 ( talk) 04:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand why people keep repeating the 1947 date. That the British occupation ended on that date is simple fact beyond dispute. That is not what I am arguing about. I thought I was fairly clear on what I was trying to convey, which is that 1947 does not mark the beginning of the entity known as India. As for the specific point of this article referring to the 'political entity', that is precisely why I have drawn everyone's attention to other country pages, which even though are also about current 'political entities' use ancient dates for establishment/formation. I would like to put forward the date of 265 BCE as my contribution for a possible 'first date' in the infobox. 114.143.119.26 ( talk) 06:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
We could use the same source(s) that establishes the extent of Ashoka's empire in the year 265 BCE. I don't think there is any doubt that Ashoka's Empire covered all of India at that time is there? 114.143.119.26 ( talk) 15:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Kievan Rus' was a lot smaller than modern Russia. The Holy Roman Empire was a lot larger than modern Germany. Yet anyone with the slightest knowledge and understanding of history will recognize that those two entities were precursors to modern day Russia and Germany respectively. The area that is today Pakistan (and Bangladesh) has always been a part of India. Even the Mughal occupation at its peak did not cover the southern tip of India. The notion that Ashoka's India does not qualify as India because it included present-day Pakistan is ludicrous. I have already covered the greater/lesser argument. The logic of what I am saying should be abundantly clear to any unbiased listener. It is fairly evident that what we have here is merely good old-fashioned India hatred. I believe I have sufficiently made my point. I will not press this matter any further. This issue can now be considered closed. 114.143.119.26 ( talk) 04:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
That fowler is heavily biased is fairly clear. An earlier participant had asked me what I believed should be the first date in the infobox and I had merely offered 265 BCE as my suggestion. I was not claiming it to be final in any way. It just seems like a strong candidate. If you take a look at one of my earlier comments you will see that I had guessed that others might offer even earlier dates. All I wanted was a discussion and for uniformity in the infoboxes of various countries. Fowler's warped logic seems to be that because India was under British occupation for 190 or 90 years depending on how one views the situation, it was a colony, and therefore a 'lesser' country than a Germany or a Russia which were never colonies. That is the core of his argument. It is risible, crude and not worth entertaining. Those genuinely interested in this matter should carry-on this debate about what would make a good first date in the infobox. A good way to start would be to look at other country pages and get a sense of the logic of my argument. 114.143.119.26 ( talk) 11:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I am trying to figure out if you are genuinely interested in the discussion or simply want to annoy all concerned. Can you not see that I have mentioned the date 265 BCE half a dozen times. As for the source for that date we could use the same source(s) that establishes beyond dispute the extent of Ashoka's Empire at its peak. 114.143.119.26 ( talk) 12:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)