![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
This link talks about only two official languages according to the constitutional provisions. Unless anybody knows otherwise, I will change the no. of official languagues to two. Lost 05:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Home to one of the four major ancient civilisations
The above sentence in the second paragraph needs corroboration. Is there a list that catalogoues the other three major civilizations? Can something be cited to support this? I have requested citation in the article Chancemill 12:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Your comments are welcome on this article, re-written by me: Hindustan. Basic refs are from Webster's New World dictionary. Cygnus_hansa 00:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be a debate about the usage of svg maps as i noticed that the one on this page has been reverted to the old png one. Now if some good soul can tell me where all the action is taking place, id like to add to the discussion -- PlaneMad| YakYak 09:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
In the introduction area " Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, and Sikhism–all have their origins in India," was placed in the sense that All this highly potential and complex religions took their origins in India and by which meriting India. They were not placed in accordance to the number of followers antience etc.. So Iam placing Ayyavazhi here in the introduction area because it too took birth in India and was complex
London Missionary Society report (LMS Report) for the year 1843 describes it as one that created "so much excitement" in the contry
G.Patrick's Religion and Subaltern Agency, Published from University of Madras, Chapter 5, page 92"The religious experience of AV (Ayyavazhi) found expression in many ways as in the type of relegiosity, the rituals, and beliefs, the festivals, the ritual symbols, etc."
And many more - Vaikunda Raja
I've been looking into these pages, which seem amazing, but also shows how one motivated person can inflate a non-notable topic into a major phenomenon, and flood the Internet with that. To show an example of how this inflated information creeps everywhere, I was today looking into a news story about 10 greatest nations on earth. Under the India entry, the author somewhat copied content from the lead of this page, when it was stuffed with Ayyavazhi inflation. So, it cited India as the birthplace of major religions such as ... you can guess Ayyavazhi appeared there.
I have full respect for Vaikund Raja's religious beliefs. However, when people from the same region express total ignorance of the phenomenon, questions are raised about the strength of assertions. The proselytizing nature of these pages are inherently non-encyclopedic, and the constant attempt to insert it as a major religion makes the editors intent seem dubious.
Anyway, since I'm not from the area, I'd request the south indian wikipedians to look into the vast array of articles and take proper actions under the policies of notability, verifiability, and references. Thanks. -- Ragib 07:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
IMO, it is OK for Ayyavazhi to have not one but many pages, a whole category to itself, so long as it does not spill over hundreds of other pages. Trouble is that all possible pages concerning Ayyavazhi have already been assiduously created, and these pages are now being linked, cross-referenced into every imaginable nook n cranny on Wikipedia. It is this insistant, clamouring ubiquity that is distrubing, because it simply is not representative of ground reality. This amounts to using Wikipedia as the medium for propogation of a new and otherwise entirely unknown denomination. The fact that these efforts are essayed by civil and apparently good-faith editors only makes it the more difficult to contain, but this is something that needs to be done in the interests of sheer veracity, which is what an encyclopaedia is about.
Unfortunately, this tendency to "use" Wikipedia is not confined to Ayyavazhi. All the Gods know that I don't wanna get into further issues, but the cult-propoganda business is quite out of hand on WP's India-related pages. A rare "Hindu" page is it which lacks a distinctly ISKCON snap and write-up from their perspective, which is that Krishna is Godhead, Chaitanya was his 8th avatar, and Balarama the 9th. Not even the non-Gaudiya subsects of the Madhvas (a Vaishnava sect) subscribe to this, but it rules. Then there is Akshardham, refer this discussion. All this only serves to undermine WP's credibility. Something must be done on a defined, concerted basis. ImpuMozhi 22:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Your comments are welcome on this article, re-written by me: Hindustan. Basic refs are from Webster's New World dictionary. Vaikunda Raja 00:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Any particular reason why citation templates are used in the external links section? -- thunderboltza.k.a.D eepu Joseph | TALK05:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
This is wikipedia...You are supposed to let people add things that are factual. I keep trying to add that India is one of the oldes countries in the world and u keep deleting it....why? 71.107.54.199 01:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
No your going by a technicality and your basicall insulting me because im Indian. India became Independant in 1947....INDEPENDANT...that does not mean it didnt exist before....It was called INDIA by the Greeks....Hindustan by the Persians....Land of the Aryans in Veic times....These are not opinions these are facts....IM dying to see your response to this because I really dont think u have any idea how uneducated u are on this matter 71.107.54.199 05:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. According to [ this, the anon user is our old friend ARYAN818 ( talk · contribs), who has previously vandalized this page. ARYAN, why don't you log in under your user name? You've been unblocked according to the logs. -- Ragib 06:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Im not sure why you guys are picking on this Aryan fellow but he is right. India is one of the oldest countries , or at least oldest civilazations in the world. Yes I agree the country became offical in 1947...but so what?.....India was recgonized by the Greeks, Muslim invaders, the British, and even the local people....I mean read up on any history book and I cant think of one that says India is not one of the oldest countries in the world....Somebody wrote down that they wanted a link. Well look on the CIA world factook website for the country India....The first sentence says that it is one of the oldest civalizations in the world 204.102.210.1 19:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
According to me, this addition seems out of place. Though I have immense respect for Subhas Chandra Bose, these comments seem highly exaggerated. I have left a message at Soman's talk page, but would also like to hear others' views as the additions may soon be lost after other edits. -- Lost 13:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
The first paragraph of the economy section reads:
How did something like this ever become a featured article? Unbelievable. – Timwi 12:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
The addition must have come after the FA. I also see that the last sentence of the para is redundant. Also, the table in the beginning states India's per capita rank as 122. I am not very knowledgeable on this subject. Would request somebody with more knowledge to rectify. -- Lost 12:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Trying to remove the "citation needed" for the 23 languages recognized by the constitution, I managed to track down the 8th schedule of the constitution which lists the recognized languages and I found a copy here [14]. It mentions only 18. But it might be out of date and stuff. If someone can track down the up to date copy, correct the number of languages and cite it, I will be much gratified. — Ravikiran 14:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the term British Crown, as India was not colonialised by the crown but by British East India Company. I have also removed phrases trying to highlight that British meerly served India in its unification.
Please see: /Picture selection to select images for the India page. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
The South Asia Free Trade Agreement should be added to this box, I would've done it myself but I don't know how to. If you look at the International Ties to Pakistan on the Pakistan page you will see what I'm talking about. Gsingh 16:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
According to this, Varanasi is not the oldest continuously inhabited city. Rather it comes out as 8th. Damascus is the oldest continuously-lived city. -- Ragib 17:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I've noticed 3 images have been put up in the recent past with unacceptable/dubious copyright statuses.
=Nichalp «Talk»= 18:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry guys, I reverted the Time image back without looking at the lengthy discussion here. I only saw that the anon user had received some warnings and therefore reverted his change. Please feel free to remove if the image is a copy-vio. -- Lost 11:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I just want to point out that the insertion/removal of the Times cover is causing some possible
WP:3RR violations. So, let's resolve the issue in the talk page. Personally, I think it is better NOT to use such Times covers, as the justification for fair use is a bit far fetched. As pointed out by Ambuj, the image is not critical, and there are free alternatives. --
Ragib 15:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I have strong objections to this statement: According to "Time magazine", India is now becoming a global power. Why is only one magazine singled out? Global power in what sense? If it is economic, then why not use the official credit ratings like the World Bank and IMF? Yes, Time is a reputed magazine, but does the emergence Indian economy need to be attested by a single American magazine? Why can't statistics do the talking? =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I completely agree with Nichalp. The reference to time magazine is too light in the context of the country. I am also surprised at the sentence: India's large English middle-class has contributed to the country's growth in Business Process Outsourcing (BPO). The editor means “English Speaking” Middle Class hopefully. -- Bmanisk 09:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi, is there an official (Government of India) site which states that it is illegal in India to publish the India map with the PoK as not belonging to India? Thanks for the help -- Wikicheng 06:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I am not disputing the dispute :-). I wanted this info for some other purpose. I am looking for the the statement by the India government that it is illegal to publish such maps in India. -- Wikicheng 07:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Here's the official map. It does acknowledge POK. -- Lost 07:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Why does this matter? Wikimedia's servers are not located in India, they are so in Florida, and hence do not fall under Indian jurisdiction. Also, like ImpuMozhi said above, foreign publications are allowed in India with that note, I think most of the location maps showing kashmir/India/Pakistan, by now, have that note added. -- Ragib 02:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Sundar \ talk \ contribs 05:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
MEh, they don't want to seem too rigid, they aren't going around banning everything with PoK as part of Pakistan (Although, pakistan calls it Azad (free) even though it's in thier control, odd). Anyway, I doubt you'll find such a statement, its more about patriotic nationalist rhetoric more than anything. -XK
As and independent observer, I believe its necessary that the disputed regions of Kashmir be clearly demarcated as such. This has no regard to either India's or Pakistan's claim to the territory but rather should be done in regard to maintaining impartiality. Also as regard to Azad Kashmir (which was also shown in the map displayed as part of India),it is a autonomous region with its own government, thus can not be stated as being apart of either India or Pakistan.
I strongly object to the opening statement of this article "India, officially the Republic of India, is a country and emerging superpower located in South Asia". By merging fact with what is at best opinion, we oversimplifying issues. I don't mind if it says a ways down in the article that according to whatever magazine/experts that India is an emerging superpower, but the inclusion of that phrase in the context that it's presented in will just not do. AreJay 00:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Let statistics and growth rates do the talking rather than speculating if it is an emerging superpower or not. This "superpower" bit is a quite a POV despite having references. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Blog Mav Rick ( talk · contribs) reverted my edit, requesting me to take a look at Emerging superpower. I did, and found the article to be an example of original research. Who decides which country is a superpower or not? Who terms some countries "emerging superpower"? The article you referred has no references (the link is just an equally uncited list from a Harvard Magazine).
Of course, India as an emerging superpower has better references, but still I find it POV to stamp that label at the intro paragraph.
Thanks. -- Ragib 23:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Country | Number of Undernourished (million) |
---|---|
India | 212.0 |
China | 150.0 |
Bangladesh | 43.1 |
Democratic Republic of Congo | 37.0 |
Pakistan | 35.2 |
Ethiopia | 31.5 |
Tanzania | 16.1 |
Philippines | 15.2 |
Brazil | 14.4 |
Indonesia | 13.8 |
Vietnam | 13.8 |
Thailand | 13.4 |
Nigeria | 11.5 |
Don't let someone put that word back into the article. Its not English and, according to someone on the Italian wikipedia IRC channel, means something along the lines of 'dickheads' or 'dumbheads'. As such, its almost certainly a form of vandalism. Kevin_b_er 22:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Their is no mention of India being one of the oldest countries in the world or one of the oldest civilazations in the world. I understand that it gained independance in 1947, but India existed well before 1947, and well before the British came. It was known as Bharat, Hindustan, or Land of the Aryans. It is mentioned in the Vedas and other Indian text books. Even the CIA world factbook website says that India is one of the oldest civalaztions in the world. I dont know how mu ch more evidence you want from me. Are you open minded or does this page belong to you only? ARYAN818 01:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Here is an edit introduced by
ARYAN818 (
talk ·
contribs)
Now, let's see why this sentence is extremely misleading. Here, you are saying that "Republic of India" (the subject of the page), is a very old country. That, technically is not correct. What you may be implying is that the civilization in the region is one of the oldest. The country itself is 59 years old. Under your logic, every country that is part of the Indian subcontinent can claim to be so (there is no reason why we can't write " Pakistan is one of the oldest countries in the world", under your logic). As Luna above wrote, you are confusing the Civilization with the country. *This* article is about the country, not the civilization or the region. Thank you. -- Ragib 05:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm unsure of whether this is a problem for other users, but for me, the sections from 12 onward don't appear as distinct from the table. i.e. they seem to be part of the table format and thereby get extended in their length. Does this seem to occur for anyone else?-- Kaushik twin 19:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I think this sentence is bad. "Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism and Jainism all have their origins in India, while Islam and Christianity enjoy a strong cultural heritage."
Why? Because the sentece before that is, "Home to the Indus Valley Civilization, a centre of important trade routes and vast empires, India has long played a major role in human history." Taken together, these sentences say (at least until the final phrase), "India is a really old and important place. For example, major/influential religions like blah, blah, and blah, started here." But what does it mean to say, "while Islam and Christianity enjoy a strong cultural heritage"? I know there are lots of Muslims and Christians in India, but I am pretty sure that India's influence on these religions (especially Christainity) is minimal-- certainly not of the same magnitude as the other religions mentioned in the same sentence.
Therefore, I propose we delete that last phrase from that sentence. Rangek 18:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
If anyone knows.. please provide a link...PLEASE..........
A S
What was the exact, formal name given to India when it was a British colony? For example, Palestine was "The British Mandate of Palestine". Many thanks. -- A Sunshade Lust 03:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
The maps of India in this article are not consistent. Pakistani administered Kashmir is shown as a part of India. In case of map of India, line of control is shown as boundary. Following explanation is provided at note 4 for the map of India:
“^ The black line is the boundary as recognised by the government of India. The northern region of Kashmir is currently administered by India, Pakistan, and China (and coloured in as such). The delimiting of the three administered regions is not the international boundary but a ceasefire line demarcated in red. The boundary separating India and Pakistan is known as the Line of Control, that separating India and China as the 'Line of Actual Control'. Most of the state of Arunachal Pradesh is still claimed by China.”
However, in case of States and territories of India, Pakistani administered Kashmir is shown as a part of India.
Why this inconsistency exists?
There is pro-Indian bias in case of map used to show “States and territories of India”. —Preceding unsigned comment added by maakhter ( talk • contribs)
In the newspaper I have just read that the UN has agreed over debate Kashmir and all of its territory is a part of the Indian Union. I think the Indian map with all of Kashmir is appropraite now
Just wanted to note the frivolous "dispute" as noted by Maakhter ( talk · contribs), a one time commenter on this talk page, who has found it better to go straight to Requests for mediation (with me) regarding this page. (see Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/India). Since there doesn't seem to be any discussion, let alone a dispute, I've rejected the frivolous RFM. I suggest other users advise Maakhter ( talk · contribs) on abuse of wikipedia's processes, and request him to voice his comments/opinions here first. Thanks. -- Ragib 18:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Here are more links to show that inconsistent approach is used to show Indian and Pakistani maps. It is the case with other issues as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pakistan#Pro-Indian_Bias
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pakistan#Tagging_of_Articles_by_Maakhter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pakistan#United_Nations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pakistan#Repetition_of_Same_Mistakes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pakistan#Map_of_Pakistan
Maakhter 19:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
You can see that this is not just one example.
I have given you numerous instances in favour of my arguments. Please see above links.
Maakhter 19:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
What is the standard practice of Wikipedia to show maps of countries? How it handles the maps of countries where there is a disputed territory? For example, Kashmir is a disputed territory among Pakistan, India, and China.
In case of Pakistan, ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan) the Line of Control (LoC) is shown as a boundary. Here is the URL for the map used:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PakistanNumbered.png
However, in case of India, ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India) (map used for States and territories of India) Line of Control is not used as a boundary and Pakistani Administered Kashmir is also shown as a part of India. Here is the URL for the map used:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:India-states-numbered.svg
Please correct above anomalies to improve the image of Wikipedia as an impartial organization.
Maakhter 19:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
It is a matter of consistency.
There is no need to confuse this issue with the formalities and procedures. The issue is how the reputation of Wikipedia as an unbiased source can be preserved.
The above links show that inconsistent approach is used to show Indian and Pakistani maps. It is the case with other issues as well.
Maakhter 20:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I found an area marked as disputed between Orissa and Andhra, between Koraput and Vishakapatnam (Screenshot) from the Survey of India map server. Anyone have anymore info on this? -- PlaneMad| YakYak 10:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Please forward the following message nationwide. Against per capita food intake of 700 kg or more in USA, 500 kg in EU, 300 kg in China but is only 148kg in India. The figure 212 MT I gave in the message was for best year average is around 195 MT and losses are at least 10% to 15%. The real per capita food consumption could be even less than 148 kg. This is average, poor may be getting much less than 100kg. – Ravinder Singh
Majority of Indians live in poverty and a big segment(35%) live in extreme poverty. After all poverty in India does not have the same meaning poverty in say the UK. I think that needs to be included in this article as well as some pictures. Currently the article presents too pretty a picture of India, and I think that is deceitful. According to the new World Bank figures, India's poverty rate is exactly at 35% which is more than what piety Indian politicians claim. Thank you very much. Here is the link: Economic Report Card- Advil 1:52 am, 04 August 2006
Oh and keep your inshallah mentality out of this. jai mata ki india has cracked pakistan in all the wars causing economical crashes which you just get out of because of the middle east and the US. Indian made it on their own, and unlike Pakistan India has balls so keep your mouth shut. you Pakistanis talk big but when you have to do something you cant do it for shyt
O and dont forget to add that the US is currently a failing superpower & the middle east is running out of oil hahahaha pakistan overtake India....what a fucking crackhead you are
India actually is second in movie production behind Nigeria's Nollywood (so I made the appropriate changes). I didn't believe it too but its true, Nigeria produces on the order of 3000 movies a year.
Can you back this up with proof? Where did you hear this? Hammer Raccoon 22:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I reverted your edits. [18] [19] [20] suggest otherwise. Hammer Raccoon 22:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't have the journal with me but here is another source, http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7226009
Its not my fault you don't have the subscription, but the article clearly states Nigeria's as number one. But I'm not going to get into an idiotic war with you. You think India makes more films based on a half year old article in the Guardian (which is a far less reputable source in this area then the Economist) so be it, just one more wrong fact on wikipedia -- Hokiefan 04:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
In the introductory sentence, India is rendered as ‘इंडिया’ in Hindi. Wouldn't the Hindi name of the country, ‘भारत’ be a better choice?
Note that, I've commented out the verbatim content of the news as the news item is copyrighted, and hence can't just be pasted here. -- Ragib 17:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
from the time of independence of india to the current day the indian leaders have said that the muslim population of india is greater than that of pakistan. we should remember that bangladesh was also a part of pakistn before 1971.and in that year the population of west pakistan (that is the current day pakistan) was 80 milliom and that of east pakistan (that is the current day bangladesh) was 90 million if we add that we get apopulation of 170 million in 1971 of which 90% were muslim or 153 million . so how many muslims are today in india ?
Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Islam_by_country" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.29.194.169 ( talk • contribs)
Please vote for the Kamal Haasan article to become an article to be improved to be featured here, Wikipedia:Article Creation and Improvement Drive#Kamal Haasan Thamizhan 14:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Vkvora. India is not a truly secular nation considering the religous sanctions & holidays observed by the government itself. However this issue of official policy vs practice should be handled as criticism - as it is. Vkvora has has brought to wikipedia valid criticism. This is being censored by users with extreme nationalism for India from within the wikipedia community. India's Secularism has been debated by minorities for years now. If only some of you (presumably hindu's) could wear the shoes of a person of religious minority in India. Nack75 16:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
um hi
How many does India have? The info table states "Hindi, English, and 21 other languages" where as the number rises to 24 at List_of_national_languages_of_India#Recognized_national_languages_of_India_.28Scheduled_list_for_official_use.29 -- Wotan 05:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Wondering what are the official languages of India? How many are there, and which ones? Are all state recog off languages also off languages of the Republic of India. What about Part XVII of the Indian constitution? Any pointers to sites outside wikipedia which point to the exact number of official (not recognized) languahes? Pizzadeliveryboy 00:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
--source; Manorama Yearbook 2006, pg 507, ISBN 8189004077 =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
This link talks about only two official languages according to the constitutional provisions. Unless anybody knows otherwise, I will change the no. of official languagues to two. Lost 05:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Trying to remove the "citation needed" for the 23 languages recognized by the constitution, I managed to track down the 8th schedule of the constitution which lists the recognized languages and I found a copy here [14]. It mentions only 18. But it might be out of date and stuff. If someone can track down the up to date copy, correct the number of languages and cite it, I will be much gratified. — Ravikiran 14:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
User: Sukh removed the names of the languages in non-roman script. There seems to be no authority for that removal. I have restored them. How do people feel? Signed: Bejnar 21:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Ethnologue lists 415 living languages for India, along with estimated populations for each of these languages. I personally have found that Ethnologue has a tendency to use inflated numbers when counting speakers, but that they are nonetheless very reliable in terms of counting numbers of languages. It seems that it would be good to have a number between 1,652 "dialects" (the 1961 census actually uses the term "mother tongues" which could mean languages or dialects) and 22 official languages. I would recommend listing the ethnologue number as well as the number of languages with over a million speakers (a little over 50). kerim 07:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the term British Crown, as India was not colonialised by the crown but by British East India Company. I have also removed phrases trying to highlight that British meerly served India in its unification.
~rAGU
Muslim population of india is given incorrectly ( i can't login to correct it at the moment).
It is 13.43% according to 2001 census. 16% is incorrect. you can confirm it by adding the numbers given for different deographic groups.
Percentages given are
80.5% 16.2% 2% 2.43% 0.76% 0.4%
which sum up to 102.29% !
(census figures also include those people in addition to these who didn't state their religion in the census). So please correct these figures immediately.
Thanks
India with world's second largest HIV/AIDS patients surely this deserves mention in the main page! I remember that it used to include it in the article and obviously some people removed it.
India has announced that it will verify UN estimations that it has overtaken South Africa as the country with the highest population living with HIV/AIDS in the world.
So India is either number 1 or number 2 with regard to largest HIV/Aids Population.
Source and evidence:
http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/3753.asp http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3886883.stm http://www.kaisernetwork.org/health_cast/hcast_index.cfm?display=detail&hc=919 http://www.christiantoday.com/news/south-asia/india.to.verify.uns.hiv.aids.figures/361.htm http://www.health-now.org/site/article.php?articleId=412&menuId=12 http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/fromthefield/216872/16a04d769c9c08a0ff5ecbbae83e4062.htm
I have listed half a dozen links and sources to back up this fact. I will take wikipedians into condfidence before making any changes in the article.
thanks
Formation 3300 BCE
Indus Valley Civilization
How can Indus valley have been indian civilization when the entire Indus valley lies in pakistan not India, Its like Sudan claiming the Egyptian civilization as its own despite the fact that the pyramids, the nile, the pharoes are all located in egypt.
there is a real flaw in the article here. Please correct this error. because pakistan was in india first so people still call it indian
thanks. The preceding was an unsigned comment left by an anonymous user
I beg to differ, both India and Pakistan were "only" formed in 1947, Afterall both countries got independence from the UK. Therefore for India to lay claim to the indus valley civilization is like I mentioned Sudan claiming the phaoroes of egypt, the pyramids, and the entire egyptian civilization is sudanese despite the fact that none of the pyramids, most of the nile valley is not even located in sudan. For instance if Egypt changed its name to Arabistan, the name only changed of the country but the history of the land before Arabistan is still part of this new Arabistan, not any other country.
Take Iran for example, It was known as persia for thousands of years and is now called Iran, this does not mean that persian civilization now belongs to Iraq or that persian civilization is not part of the history of Iran , its still Iranian history by all means.
Indian civilization like you mentioned is based along the banks of the Ganges, Egpyt the nile, Pakistan the Indus, Also note that the river indus originates in Tibet not India.
thanksThe preceding was an unsigned comment left by an anonymous user
Hey, im sorry noble eagle, that comment wasnt directed at you, it was the directed at the pussy who refuses to sign. Perhaps he actually believes the bullshit that he is saying, or he is just trying to escalate things. I am also surprised that he is an indian - more like an muslim pakistani trying to get credit for a country ( pakistan) which has to leech of others hsitory, religion, culture, food and name- India. By the way, i am Kumarnator.
The above message was illegally removed by user user:Nadirali and is now being restored.
My cheers to the guy who stood up and defended our Pakistani heritage.You are absoloutely right.We dont call our land what foriegners call it and never did.INDUS IS PAKISTANI HISTROY.Pakistan zindabad!!!!!! This unsigned message was left by user user:Nadirali.
Corrected by: Fowler&fowler 01:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Although both India and Pakistan were created at the same time out of British Raj, Indians desperately try to steal Pakistan's heritage, particularly the Indus Valley Civilization! This Indian hegemonic agenda is based on myths and false propaganda for religious and nationalistic imperialism. Also, there are some Pakistanis, particularly Islamists, who narrow-mindedly deny/ignore Pakistan's glorious pre-Islamic past. Harappans were certainly the ancestors of most Pakistanis, who absorbed or adopted the many waves of invaders/migrants through out the centuries.
Indus Valley Civilization was mostly based in the region of Pakistan. The names used for the Civilization are "Indus Valley" or "Harappan", both in Pakistan. The most largest and important cities are Harappa and Mohenjodaro, both in Pakistan. Even in the case of Hakra/Ghaggar river (extinct), a tributary of Indus itself, it has far more mature Harappan sites on the Pakistani side than on the Indian side. The proto-Indus site is also located at Mehrgarh in Pakistan. Indus Valley Civilization, at its peak, had colonies stretching from Turkmenistan to northern Maharashta, and from southeast Iran to western UP. About 85% of Indians (i.e. outside of northwest India) have nothing to do with Indus Valley Civilization, where their ancestors were nomadic forest-dwelling hunters and gatherers at a time period when the sophisticated Indus Valley Civilization was flourishing.
Indus/Harappan religion was not Hinduism. Not a single Hindu temple, idol, or statue has been found at excavated Indus sites. Harappans buried their dead, ate beef, and were not Vedic.The "Great Bath" was common in many civilizations such as among the Graeco-Romans and Mesopotamians. Depicted on some Indus seals, the "deity" wearing the horned head-dress looks nothing like Hinduism's Shiva, and similar deities were common in other civilizations like the Celtic "Cernunnos". Bull seemed to be sacred among Harappans similar to Mesopotamians and Minoans, but not the cow.
A people may evolve by adopting new ideas/beliefs, change with political environment, and racially get mixed with other peoples, but that does not erase their history. Pakistan -- the land and people of Indus directly inherits one of the greatest ancient civilizations of the world, just the same way present-day Iraq, Greece, and Egypt (all three countries and names also recent in origin) inherits their own great ancient civilizations. It is irrelevant that the descendents of Harappans are now mostly Muslims (Pakistanis). Descendents of ancient Mesopotamians and Egyptians are also now mostly Muslims, descendents of ancients Greeks and Romans are now mostly Christians. It is time that all Pakistanis take pride in their past, and protect it from thievery of other countries like India. The preceding message was illegally inserted in another message above in the talk page by an anonymous user from IP address 74.98.240.170 Corrected by Fowler&fowler 01:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
The racial statistics from the CIA World Factbook are in disagreement with the numbers given on the article Historically-defined racial groups in India, so I added the accuracy disputed tag. Currently the statistics do not represent all points of view, so I added the NPOV tag.-- Dark Tichondrias 06:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
[reindenting]Hi! You've mentioned that BS Guhu is a reputable source. If so, he must have published some of his works on the subject. To ascertain credibility, you need to cite his works along with the ISBN numbers. Notability may not be official policy, but Wikipedia:Reliable sources is considered to be an official guideline. There it mentions primary sources and the fact that We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a reliable publisher. hence I am removing the NPOV tag as the sources which you cite the dispute arising from have no means of ascertaing notability or credibility as prior published peer reviewed work. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Ideas about race have changed quite a bit since 1870 - we are probably better off to stick with more recent sources (roughly, post-WWII?). If we cite something over a century old on this, it might be best to frame it as of "historical" (rather than currently-accepted) interest. -- Writtenonsand 06:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Southeast Asia's landmass is approximately the same as India's landmass. Why is India's population is so much bigger than the whole population of Southeast Asia? Sonic99 13:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I am rather surprised that I could not find a section on the Indian people, or on the people of India. On the other hand, I suspect this subject could be rather extensive, and may deserve a Wiki article of its own. Or, perhaps, none at all, to be safe. Splashprince 06:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Map of India used in this page is not correct. If Wikipedia fails to post correct map published by government of India, we Indians are going to protest and will pursuade Indian governoment to block wikipedia. The territory of Kashmir is not shown as part of India, though it is disputed by terrorist stare of Pakistan, wikipedia needs to be nuetral on this issue and should not support illegal occupants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abnaren ( talk • contribs)
You gotta be kidding me, if you have any complain, well... fix it yourself, if you're saying that the map is wrong, then get the proper one, but please stop saying that you will persuade the Indian government to block Wikipedia. that just made me laugh. hahaha
Watch who you call "terrorist state".That was a personal attack on us and directly violates wekipedia's rules.The guy who wrote that can be blocked easily.
This page needs a FAQ section on top. It's getting a bit annoying replying the same things over and over again. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Delhi is listed as 6 under states when it should be listed as G under Union Territories. This is throwing all later states off by 1. I'd edit it, but was unable to determine how. Samadhi69 00:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Someone's messed up with the 'formation' field in the infobox. I'm hard pressed for time, so could it be fixed ASAP?
Northeast India is troubled by violences and insurgent groups. The locals and the migrants from Western India are killing each other. It can even get worst like the Rwandan Genocide. Western media should go and cover a story about the trouble in Northeast India, but they don't. I wonder why. 72.140.235.202 00:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
This article states India is 3,287,590 km² in size. This article states it's 3,287,2632 km² (inc. disputed areas) in size. Which is correct? Lugnuts 07:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
From what I can currently see (and that is all I can go on as a first order approximation to 'truth'), it appears to me that the 2 numbers gives are out by a factor of 10 (so it shouldn't be too difficult to see which one is correct.....Though, on the internet, you never know.....).
Nukemason 10:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
The Indian Union redirect should point to the Political Integration of India article. rohith 20:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Billions of blue blistering barnacles! What reasoning is responsible for calling Thailand an island nation? That thundering nation is lodged firmly in a peninsula in South East Asia! Rama's arrow 02:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking of reading up on India, but after reading the introduction, it occurred to me that the rest of the article may be biased too. The introduction uses a lot of adjectives that I think do not belong in an encyclopedia. For example: "advanced civilization", "major role in human history", "Indian culture and society has been so resilient", "in an intense movement of social reforms", "restoring the glory of the past Indian empires", "among the most diverse in the world" and finally "be an emerging superpower". This all seems a little too subjective. Vince 09:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
In this Article is says that India has the secodn largest muslim population in the World. The population of India is stated as 1.1 billion with 12.2 % muslims.
However, in the wikipedia article for Pakistan, it states that Pakistan has a population of 185 million with 96% muslims.
96% of 185 million is greater than 12.2% of 1.1 billion. There is an inconsistency, can someone ex[plain which source is to be believed?
Surely it is only pragmatic and proper for some of the extreme levels of poverty within India to gain a mention? Would it not be a good idea to create a link to such pages for statistical information? Perhaps it would also be a good idea to avoid political bias on these issues? User:Nukemason 18:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Is it not a good idea to have the South India article re-directed to the India article? The last thing that we would want anyone to think about is that there are 2 separate countries within that part of the world. User:Nukemason 18:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
somehow my edits were reverted, I added them again. Digitalfunda 06:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
why delete this map?!-- Apengu 16:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Another question is, is this map representing official languages of states, or really the local languages? Although states were created roughly on linguistic basis, linguistic borders can be very different from the state borders. See
this map for example. I just forgot this map was about scripts.
deeptrivia (
talk) 21:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
(crossposted to Noticeboard for India related topics) Wouldn't that be a big mess? Also, if an area has two or three different languages spoken by the people, does it mean all 2 or 3 scripts will be used? Who decides which script gets chosen at the expense of which other script? This is, after all, the *English* wikipedia, and maps, images, etc. needs to be in English. Having 4 or 5 names for each small chunk will be a horrible mess. Besides, I don't see any real purpose of such a map. People coming to this wikipedia are looking for English articles, and a map is supposed to convey information, not to cater to each and every language group. -- Ragib 22:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I am listing some images that I found:
Any more suggestions? I recently reverted several good faith edits to add a picture in the section. I thought might as well get a consensus. I like the Bangalore one, would rather not add a map since the article already has plenty of them. Naga one is of poor quality. Please comment. Regards, Ganeshk ( talk) 23:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I hope everyone will like this.
The caption can be anything that is interesting. Chanakyathegreat 11:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Show some pictures of the Bodo people in India too. The World needs to know about them like the Nagas. 72.140.235.202 03:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
No one is preventing you from adding images of Bodo people. Just add good images to the list (don't worry about community caste or creed) and at last, we will collectively select one to put it in the demographic section. If you want you can also add the images in the Bodo article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodo_people
Chanakyathegreat 16:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Afghanistan is a neighbours of India because India has never recognised the occupation of Kashmir by Pakistan. Hence it need to be added in the list. For NPOV the information that the area bordering Afghanistan is under the administration of Pakistan can be added. Also there is another historical reason to add afghanistan as a neighbour. It is the cultural link that exist from the very historical times that is still relavant in recent times. http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/archives_roll/2001_10-12/cotter_mideast/cotter_mideast.html
Another neighbour is Thailand. It is an island nation and the distance between India and Thailand is only a few miles (distance between phuket and Nicobar islands). http://go.hrw.com/atlas/norm_map/thailand.gif
Chanakyathegreat 12:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
the independence of the Republic of India doesn't date to 3300 BC, any more than the independence of the Republic of Turkey dates to 1800 BC or 7000 BC [26], the independence of Iraq to 4000 BC or the independence of Peru to 3000 BC. dab (ᛏ) 06:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Fowler&fowler 22:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I think this is POV as Russia, China, United States, Brasil and Australia have larger area.-- Nixer 10:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
To user ARYAN818 above: Please be aware that comments on a talk page are posted at the end of an ongoing discussion. Inserting comments in the middle (especially when they are redundant and have already been covered by other respondents) is considered bad Wikietiquette and, if persisted in, can be considered vandalism Fowler&fowler 00:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
To User: Apengu Please be aware that comments on a talk page are posted at the end of an ongoing discussion. Inserting comments in the middle (especially when they are redundant and have already been covered by other respondents) is considered bad Wikitiquette and, if persisted in, can be considered vandalism. If you read the discussion, you will realize that the change in terminology from "largest democracy" to "most populous liberal democracy" was driven by the same concerns you voice in your message. Fowler&fowler 16:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
THe article used to say worlds largest Democracy....NOw it has been changed to worlds most populous liberal Democracy.....I think thats a joke....I mean why do people on wikipedia insist on making things sound so complicated....When people read an article, its much more easier to understand "WORLDS LARGEST DEMOCRACY" instead of writing "WORLDS LARGEST POPULOUS LIBERAL DEMOCRACY"....I mean come one the latter version is longer, and many people dont even know what POPULOUS means or LIBERAL DEMOCRACY means.......Just keep it simple.....Worlds largest Democracy ARYAN818 05:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I reverted a previous edit which had added "concept of zero" to the "decimal number system" listed in the second paragraph of the introduction. This was done for the following reasons:
I hope this seems reasonable. Fowler&fowler 11:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
looking at the formatting and number of references in the introduction makes me not want to read it at all. explains why it is the 25th most edited article, but only the 79th most popular page.
1. is it necessary to give so many references/crosslinks in the introduction?
2. all the statistics in the third paragraph of the intro - we could do away with most of them. 2nd fastest growing economy, 124th undernourished blah blah united nations blah blah. we can point out strengths and weakness with a few subjective sentences, and move these numbers to sections like economy, demographics, etc.
look at japan, france, People's_Republic_of_China - they dont have so much clutter in their intros.
-- ti 21:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Cheers. -- Ch e z ( Discuss / Email) • 23:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and describing its notable controversies, if there are any. ... (the lead) should be carefully sourced as appropriate...
I've added a line which states that the events of 1857 are often collectively termed as "The First War of Indian Independence" in Indian text-books. I have been engaged in a very tedious discussion on the Rebellion page about the correct term. However, from the discussions I have had - users there have stated that it was not a nationwide movement. However, this article does state otherwise. Which view is correct? I didn't wish to unilaterally delete anything. Hence, the question. ( Jvalant 04:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC))
The country infobox was replaced by a country or territory infobox, with the edit summary "not a country". I apologize if this has been discussed before, but could someone explain this change to me? Thanks -- BostonMA talk 19:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I think this part of the article is highly flawed, the link to the section islam by country itself has a netural pov tag and I think it would be highly erroneous to claim that India has the worlds second largest population of muslims.
The phrase 'second largest' should be removed and just left with the percentage figures, or rather it should say 'one of the largest'. S Seagal 02:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that a number of people have changed the sentence "with four-fifths of the population living on less that $2 a day," (in the lead) to "25% below the poverty line." Although I agree that a dollar can go much farther in India, I still feel that poverty lines set by individual countries are not good economic indicators. The Indian poverty line (which is the inflation-adjusted amount that would have bought 2400 calories in food per person per day in rural areas and 2100 calories in urban areas in 1973) is now Rs. 540 per month, or $12 per month (at the Rs 45 = $1 exchange rate), or 40 cents per day. This assumes that the entire income of Rs. 540 is being spent on food. With this definition of the poverty line (ie. 40 cents per day), the proportions of Indians below the poverty line is 23% or 25% (depending on what statistics one quotes). I am happy to replace the UN Human Development Index figure of "79.9% living on less than $2 per day" by "23% below the poverty line," but I feel that the latter doesn't convey any information unless one says, "23% below the poverty line of $0.40 per day." I'd like to hear what other people think. Fowler&fowler 22:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Abt the information posted in infobox. Did India get independence from UK or from British Empire
Am I the only one who feels that the article as of now has too many images? And, is The Tibet Autonomous Region an officially acknowledged entity to be said bordering India? -- Sundar \ talk \ contribs 05:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
This is not a bad article, but considering the long history of India and the fact that it has the world's second largest population, it is awfully short. Of course, Wikipedia articles generally should not be too long, but important topics like this one are allowed more length. I like the pictures, although perhaps some of them could be smaller. I might try to help on this article if I get time. HeBhagawan 21:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
The economy section of this article says that India is the fourth-largest in the world by PPP. The Economy of India article states that India's economy, by PPP, is third-largest. This is a contradiction. What should be done about this? -- Tuvok^ Talk| Desk| Contribs 23:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC) 23:08, 3 November 2006 (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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
This link talks about only two official languages according to the constitutional provisions. Unless anybody knows otherwise, I will change the no. of official languagues to two. Lost 05:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Home to one of the four major ancient civilisations
The above sentence in the second paragraph needs corroboration. Is there a list that catalogoues the other three major civilizations? Can something be cited to support this? I have requested citation in the article Chancemill 12:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Your comments are welcome on this article, re-written by me: Hindustan. Basic refs are from Webster's New World dictionary. Cygnus_hansa 00:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be a debate about the usage of svg maps as i noticed that the one on this page has been reverted to the old png one. Now if some good soul can tell me where all the action is taking place, id like to add to the discussion -- PlaneMad| YakYak 09:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
In the introduction area " Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, and Sikhism–all have their origins in India," was placed in the sense that All this highly potential and complex religions took their origins in India and by which meriting India. They were not placed in accordance to the number of followers antience etc.. So Iam placing Ayyavazhi here in the introduction area because it too took birth in India and was complex
London Missionary Society report (LMS Report) for the year 1843 describes it as one that created "so much excitement" in the contry
G.Patrick's Religion and Subaltern Agency, Published from University of Madras, Chapter 5, page 92"The religious experience of AV (Ayyavazhi) found expression in many ways as in the type of relegiosity, the rituals, and beliefs, the festivals, the ritual symbols, etc."
And many more - Vaikunda Raja
I've been looking into these pages, which seem amazing, but also shows how one motivated person can inflate a non-notable topic into a major phenomenon, and flood the Internet with that. To show an example of how this inflated information creeps everywhere, I was today looking into a news story about 10 greatest nations on earth. Under the India entry, the author somewhat copied content from the lead of this page, when it was stuffed with Ayyavazhi inflation. So, it cited India as the birthplace of major religions such as ... you can guess Ayyavazhi appeared there.
I have full respect for Vaikund Raja's religious beliefs. However, when people from the same region express total ignorance of the phenomenon, questions are raised about the strength of assertions. The proselytizing nature of these pages are inherently non-encyclopedic, and the constant attempt to insert it as a major religion makes the editors intent seem dubious.
Anyway, since I'm not from the area, I'd request the south indian wikipedians to look into the vast array of articles and take proper actions under the policies of notability, verifiability, and references. Thanks. -- Ragib 07:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
IMO, it is OK for Ayyavazhi to have not one but many pages, a whole category to itself, so long as it does not spill over hundreds of other pages. Trouble is that all possible pages concerning Ayyavazhi have already been assiduously created, and these pages are now being linked, cross-referenced into every imaginable nook n cranny on Wikipedia. It is this insistant, clamouring ubiquity that is distrubing, because it simply is not representative of ground reality. This amounts to using Wikipedia as the medium for propogation of a new and otherwise entirely unknown denomination. The fact that these efforts are essayed by civil and apparently good-faith editors only makes it the more difficult to contain, but this is something that needs to be done in the interests of sheer veracity, which is what an encyclopaedia is about.
Unfortunately, this tendency to "use" Wikipedia is not confined to Ayyavazhi. All the Gods know that I don't wanna get into further issues, but the cult-propoganda business is quite out of hand on WP's India-related pages. A rare "Hindu" page is it which lacks a distinctly ISKCON snap and write-up from their perspective, which is that Krishna is Godhead, Chaitanya was his 8th avatar, and Balarama the 9th. Not even the non-Gaudiya subsects of the Madhvas (a Vaishnava sect) subscribe to this, but it rules. Then there is Akshardham, refer this discussion. All this only serves to undermine WP's credibility. Something must be done on a defined, concerted basis. ImpuMozhi 22:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Your comments are welcome on this article, re-written by me: Hindustan. Basic refs are from Webster's New World dictionary. Vaikunda Raja 00:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Any particular reason why citation templates are used in the external links section? -- thunderboltza.k.a.D eepu Joseph | TALK05:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
This is wikipedia...You are supposed to let people add things that are factual. I keep trying to add that India is one of the oldes countries in the world and u keep deleting it....why? 71.107.54.199 01:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
No your going by a technicality and your basicall insulting me because im Indian. India became Independant in 1947....INDEPENDANT...that does not mean it didnt exist before....It was called INDIA by the Greeks....Hindustan by the Persians....Land of the Aryans in Veic times....These are not opinions these are facts....IM dying to see your response to this because I really dont think u have any idea how uneducated u are on this matter 71.107.54.199 05:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. According to [ this, the anon user is our old friend ARYAN818 ( talk · contribs), who has previously vandalized this page. ARYAN, why don't you log in under your user name? You've been unblocked according to the logs. -- Ragib 06:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Im not sure why you guys are picking on this Aryan fellow but he is right. India is one of the oldest countries , or at least oldest civilazations in the world. Yes I agree the country became offical in 1947...but so what?.....India was recgonized by the Greeks, Muslim invaders, the British, and even the local people....I mean read up on any history book and I cant think of one that says India is not one of the oldest countries in the world....Somebody wrote down that they wanted a link. Well look on the CIA world factook website for the country India....The first sentence says that it is one of the oldest civalizations in the world 204.102.210.1 19:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
According to me, this addition seems out of place. Though I have immense respect for Subhas Chandra Bose, these comments seem highly exaggerated. I have left a message at Soman's talk page, but would also like to hear others' views as the additions may soon be lost after other edits. -- Lost 13:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
The first paragraph of the economy section reads:
How did something like this ever become a featured article? Unbelievable. – Timwi 12:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
The addition must have come after the FA. I also see that the last sentence of the para is redundant. Also, the table in the beginning states India's per capita rank as 122. I am not very knowledgeable on this subject. Would request somebody with more knowledge to rectify. -- Lost 12:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Trying to remove the "citation needed" for the 23 languages recognized by the constitution, I managed to track down the 8th schedule of the constitution which lists the recognized languages and I found a copy here [14]. It mentions only 18. But it might be out of date and stuff. If someone can track down the up to date copy, correct the number of languages and cite it, I will be much gratified. — Ravikiran 14:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the term British Crown, as India was not colonialised by the crown but by British East India Company. I have also removed phrases trying to highlight that British meerly served India in its unification.
Please see: /Picture selection to select images for the India page. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
The South Asia Free Trade Agreement should be added to this box, I would've done it myself but I don't know how to. If you look at the International Ties to Pakistan on the Pakistan page you will see what I'm talking about. Gsingh 16:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
According to this, Varanasi is not the oldest continuously inhabited city. Rather it comes out as 8th. Damascus is the oldest continuously-lived city. -- Ragib 17:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I've noticed 3 images have been put up in the recent past with unacceptable/dubious copyright statuses.
=Nichalp «Talk»= 18:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry guys, I reverted the Time image back without looking at the lengthy discussion here. I only saw that the anon user had received some warnings and therefore reverted his change. Please feel free to remove if the image is a copy-vio. -- Lost 11:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I just want to point out that the insertion/removal of the Times cover is causing some possible
WP:3RR violations. So, let's resolve the issue in the talk page. Personally, I think it is better NOT to use such Times covers, as the justification for fair use is a bit far fetched. As pointed out by Ambuj, the image is not critical, and there are free alternatives. --
Ragib 15:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I have strong objections to this statement: According to "Time magazine", India is now becoming a global power. Why is only one magazine singled out? Global power in what sense? If it is economic, then why not use the official credit ratings like the World Bank and IMF? Yes, Time is a reputed magazine, but does the emergence Indian economy need to be attested by a single American magazine? Why can't statistics do the talking? =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I completely agree with Nichalp. The reference to time magazine is too light in the context of the country. I am also surprised at the sentence: India's large English middle-class has contributed to the country's growth in Business Process Outsourcing (BPO). The editor means “English Speaking” Middle Class hopefully. -- Bmanisk 09:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi, is there an official (Government of India) site which states that it is illegal in India to publish the India map with the PoK as not belonging to India? Thanks for the help -- Wikicheng 06:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I am not disputing the dispute :-). I wanted this info for some other purpose. I am looking for the the statement by the India government that it is illegal to publish such maps in India. -- Wikicheng 07:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Here's the official map. It does acknowledge POK. -- Lost 07:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Why does this matter? Wikimedia's servers are not located in India, they are so in Florida, and hence do not fall under Indian jurisdiction. Also, like ImpuMozhi said above, foreign publications are allowed in India with that note, I think most of the location maps showing kashmir/India/Pakistan, by now, have that note added. -- Ragib 02:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Sundar \ talk \ contribs 05:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
MEh, they don't want to seem too rigid, they aren't going around banning everything with PoK as part of Pakistan (Although, pakistan calls it Azad (free) even though it's in thier control, odd). Anyway, I doubt you'll find such a statement, its more about patriotic nationalist rhetoric more than anything. -XK
As and independent observer, I believe its necessary that the disputed regions of Kashmir be clearly demarcated as such. This has no regard to either India's or Pakistan's claim to the territory but rather should be done in regard to maintaining impartiality. Also as regard to Azad Kashmir (which was also shown in the map displayed as part of India),it is a autonomous region with its own government, thus can not be stated as being apart of either India or Pakistan.
I strongly object to the opening statement of this article "India, officially the Republic of India, is a country and emerging superpower located in South Asia". By merging fact with what is at best opinion, we oversimplifying issues. I don't mind if it says a ways down in the article that according to whatever magazine/experts that India is an emerging superpower, but the inclusion of that phrase in the context that it's presented in will just not do. AreJay 00:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Let statistics and growth rates do the talking rather than speculating if it is an emerging superpower or not. This "superpower" bit is a quite a POV despite having references. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Blog Mav Rick ( talk · contribs) reverted my edit, requesting me to take a look at Emerging superpower. I did, and found the article to be an example of original research. Who decides which country is a superpower or not? Who terms some countries "emerging superpower"? The article you referred has no references (the link is just an equally uncited list from a Harvard Magazine).
Of course, India as an emerging superpower has better references, but still I find it POV to stamp that label at the intro paragraph.
Thanks. -- Ragib 23:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Country | Number of Undernourished (million) |
---|---|
India | 212.0 |
China | 150.0 |
Bangladesh | 43.1 |
Democratic Republic of Congo | 37.0 |
Pakistan | 35.2 |
Ethiopia | 31.5 |
Tanzania | 16.1 |
Philippines | 15.2 |
Brazil | 14.4 |
Indonesia | 13.8 |
Vietnam | 13.8 |
Thailand | 13.4 |
Nigeria | 11.5 |
Don't let someone put that word back into the article. Its not English and, according to someone on the Italian wikipedia IRC channel, means something along the lines of 'dickheads' or 'dumbheads'. As such, its almost certainly a form of vandalism. Kevin_b_er 22:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Their is no mention of India being one of the oldest countries in the world or one of the oldest civilazations in the world. I understand that it gained independance in 1947, but India existed well before 1947, and well before the British came. It was known as Bharat, Hindustan, or Land of the Aryans. It is mentioned in the Vedas and other Indian text books. Even the CIA world factbook website says that India is one of the oldest civalaztions in the world. I dont know how mu ch more evidence you want from me. Are you open minded or does this page belong to you only? ARYAN818 01:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Here is an edit introduced by
ARYAN818 (
talk ·
contribs)
Now, let's see why this sentence is extremely misleading. Here, you are saying that "Republic of India" (the subject of the page), is a very old country. That, technically is not correct. What you may be implying is that the civilization in the region is one of the oldest. The country itself is 59 years old. Under your logic, every country that is part of the Indian subcontinent can claim to be so (there is no reason why we can't write " Pakistan is one of the oldest countries in the world", under your logic). As Luna above wrote, you are confusing the Civilization with the country. *This* article is about the country, not the civilization or the region. Thank you. -- Ragib 05:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm unsure of whether this is a problem for other users, but for me, the sections from 12 onward don't appear as distinct from the table. i.e. they seem to be part of the table format and thereby get extended in their length. Does this seem to occur for anyone else?-- Kaushik twin 19:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I think this sentence is bad. "Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism and Jainism all have their origins in India, while Islam and Christianity enjoy a strong cultural heritage."
Why? Because the sentece before that is, "Home to the Indus Valley Civilization, a centre of important trade routes and vast empires, India has long played a major role in human history." Taken together, these sentences say (at least until the final phrase), "India is a really old and important place. For example, major/influential religions like blah, blah, and blah, started here." But what does it mean to say, "while Islam and Christianity enjoy a strong cultural heritage"? I know there are lots of Muslims and Christians in India, but I am pretty sure that India's influence on these religions (especially Christainity) is minimal-- certainly not of the same magnitude as the other religions mentioned in the same sentence.
Therefore, I propose we delete that last phrase from that sentence. Rangek 18:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
If anyone knows.. please provide a link...PLEASE..........
A S
What was the exact, formal name given to India when it was a British colony? For example, Palestine was "The British Mandate of Palestine". Many thanks. -- A Sunshade Lust 03:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
The maps of India in this article are not consistent. Pakistani administered Kashmir is shown as a part of India. In case of map of India, line of control is shown as boundary. Following explanation is provided at note 4 for the map of India:
“^ The black line is the boundary as recognised by the government of India. The northern region of Kashmir is currently administered by India, Pakistan, and China (and coloured in as such). The delimiting of the three administered regions is not the international boundary but a ceasefire line demarcated in red. The boundary separating India and Pakistan is known as the Line of Control, that separating India and China as the 'Line of Actual Control'. Most of the state of Arunachal Pradesh is still claimed by China.”
However, in case of States and territories of India, Pakistani administered Kashmir is shown as a part of India.
Why this inconsistency exists?
There is pro-Indian bias in case of map used to show “States and territories of India”. —Preceding unsigned comment added by maakhter ( talk • contribs)
In the newspaper I have just read that the UN has agreed over debate Kashmir and all of its territory is a part of the Indian Union. I think the Indian map with all of Kashmir is appropraite now
Just wanted to note the frivolous "dispute" as noted by Maakhter ( talk · contribs), a one time commenter on this talk page, who has found it better to go straight to Requests for mediation (with me) regarding this page. (see Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/India). Since there doesn't seem to be any discussion, let alone a dispute, I've rejected the frivolous RFM. I suggest other users advise Maakhter ( talk · contribs) on abuse of wikipedia's processes, and request him to voice his comments/opinions here first. Thanks. -- Ragib 18:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Here are more links to show that inconsistent approach is used to show Indian and Pakistani maps. It is the case with other issues as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pakistan#Pro-Indian_Bias
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pakistan#Tagging_of_Articles_by_Maakhter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pakistan#United_Nations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pakistan#Repetition_of_Same_Mistakes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pakistan#Map_of_Pakistan
Maakhter 19:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
You can see that this is not just one example.
I have given you numerous instances in favour of my arguments. Please see above links.
Maakhter 19:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
What is the standard practice of Wikipedia to show maps of countries? How it handles the maps of countries where there is a disputed territory? For example, Kashmir is a disputed territory among Pakistan, India, and China.
In case of Pakistan, ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan) the Line of Control (LoC) is shown as a boundary. Here is the URL for the map used:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PakistanNumbered.png
However, in case of India, ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India) (map used for States and territories of India) Line of Control is not used as a boundary and Pakistani Administered Kashmir is also shown as a part of India. Here is the URL for the map used:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:India-states-numbered.svg
Please correct above anomalies to improve the image of Wikipedia as an impartial organization.
Maakhter 19:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
It is a matter of consistency.
There is no need to confuse this issue with the formalities and procedures. The issue is how the reputation of Wikipedia as an unbiased source can be preserved.
The above links show that inconsistent approach is used to show Indian and Pakistani maps. It is the case with other issues as well.
Maakhter 20:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I found an area marked as disputed between Orissa and Andhra, between Koraput and Vishakapatnam (Screenshot) from the Survey of India map server. Anyone have anymore info on this? -- PlaneMad| YakYak 10:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Please forward the following message nationwide. Against per capita food intake of 700 kg or more in USA, 500 kg in EU, 300 kg in China but is only 148kg in India. The figure 212 MT I gave in the message was for best year average is around 195 MT and losses are at least 10% to 15%. The real per capita food consumption could be even less than 148 kg. This is average, poor may be getting much less than 100kg. – Ravinder Singh
Majority of Indians live in poverty and a big segment(35%) live in extreme poverty. After all poverty in India does not have the same meaning poverty in say the UK. I think that needs to be included in this article as well as some pictures. Currently the article presents too pretty a picture of India, and I think that is deceitful. According to the new World Bank figures, India's poverty rate is exactly at 35% which is more than what piety Indian politicians claim. Thank you very much. Here is the link: Economic Report Card- Advil 1:52 am, 04 August 2006
Oh and keep your inshallah mentality out of this. jai mata ki india has cracked pakistan in all the wars causing economical crashes which you just get out of because of the middle east and the US. Indian made it on their own, and unlike Pakistan India has balls so keep your mouth shut. you Pakistanis talk big but when you have to do something you cant do it for shyt
O and dont forget to add that the US is currently a failing superpower & the middle east is running out of oil hahahaha pakistan overtake India....what a fucking crackhead you are
India actually is second in movie production behind Nigeria's Nollywood (so I made the appropriate changes). I didn't believe it too but its true, Nigeria produces on the order of 3000 movies a year.
Can you back this up with proof? Where did you hear this? Hammer Raccoon 22:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I reverted your edits. [18] [19] [20] suggest otherwise. Hammer Raccoon 22:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't have the journal with me but here is another source, http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7226009
Its not my fault you don't have the subscription, but the article clearly states Nigeria's as number one. But I'm not going to get into an idiotic war with you. You think India makes more films based on a half year old article in the Guardian (which is a far less reputable source in this area then the Economist) so be it, just one more wrong fact on wikipedia -- Hokiefan 04:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
In the introductory sentence, India is rendered as ‘इंडिया’ in Hindi. Wouldn't the Hindi name of the country, ‘भारत’ be a better choice?
Note that, I've commented out the verbatim content of the news as the news item is copyrighted, and hence can't just be pasted here. -- Ragib 17:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
from the time of independence of india to the current day the indian leaders have said that the muslim population of india is greater than that of pakistan. we should remember that bangladesh was also a part of pakistn before 1971.and in that year the population of west pakistan (that is the current day pakistan) was 80 milliom and that of east pakistan (that is the current day bangladesh) was 90 million if we add that we get apopulation of 170 million in 1971 of which 90% were muslim or 153 million . so how many muslims are today in india ?
Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Islam_by_country" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.29.194.169 ( talk • contribs)
Please vote for the Kamal Haasan article to become an article to be improved to be featured here, Wikipedia:Article Creation and Improvement Drive#Kamal Haasan Thamizhan 14:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Vkvora. India is not a truly secular nation considering the religous sanctions & holidays observed by the government itself. However this issue of official policy vs practice should be handled as criticism - as it is. Vkvora has has brought to wikipedia valid criticism. This is being censored by users with extreme nationalism for India from within the wikipedia community. India's Secularism has been debated by minorities for years now. If only some of you (presumably hindu's) could wear the shoes of a person of religious minority in India. Nack75 16:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
um hi
How many does India have? The info table states "Hindi, English, and 21 other languages" where as the number rises to 24 at List_of_national_languages_of_India#Recognized_national_languages_of_India_.28Scheduled_list_for_official_use.29 -- Wotan 05:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Wondering what are the official languages of India? How many are there, and which ones? Are all state recog off languages also off languages of the Republic of India. What about Part XVII of the Indian constitution? Any pointers to sites outside wikipedia which point to the exact number of official (not recognized) languahes? Pizzadeliveryboy 00:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
--source; Manorama Yearbook 2006, pg 507, ISBN 8189004077 =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
This link talks about only two official languages according to the constitutional provisions. Unless anybody knows otherwise, I will change the no. of official languagues to two. Lost 05:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Trying to remove the "citation needed" for the 23 languages recognized by the constitution, I managed to track down the 8th schedule of the constitution which lists the recognized languages and I found a copy here [14]. It mentions only 18. But it might be out of date and stuff. If someone can track down the up to date copy, correct the number of languages and cite it, I will be much gratified. — Ravikiran 14:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
User: Sukh removed the names of the languages in non-roman script. There seems to be no authority for that removal. I have restored them. How do people feel? Signed: Bejnar 21:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Ethnologue lists 415 living languages for India, along with estimated populations for each of these languages. I personally have found that Ethnologue has a tendency to use inflated numbers when counting speakers, but that they are nonetheless very reliable in terms of counting numbers of languages. It seems that it would be good to have a number between 1,652 "dialects" (the 1961 census actually uses the term "mother tongues" which could mean languages or dialects) and 22 official languages. I would recommend listing the ethnologue number as well as the number of languages with over a million speakers (a little over 50). kerim 07:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the term British Crown, as India was not colonialised by the crown but by British East India Company. I have also removed phrases trying to highlight that British meerly served India in its unification.
~rAGU
Muslim population of india is given incorrectly ( i can't login to correct it at the moment).
It is 13.43% according to 2001 census. 16% is incorrect. you can confirm it by adding the numbers given for different deographic groups.
Percentages given are
80.5% 16.2% 2% 2.43% 0.76% 0.4%
which sum up to 102.29% !
(census figures also include those people in addition to these who didn't state their religion in the census). So please correct these figures immediately.
Thanks
India with world's second largest HIV/AIDS patients surely this deserves mention in the main page! I remember that it used to include it in the article and obviously some people removed it.
India has announced that it will verify UN estimations that it has overtaken South Africa as the country with the highest population living with HIV/AIDS in the world.
So India is either number 1 or number 2 with regard to largest HIV/Aids Population.
Source and evidence:
http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/3753.asp http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3886883.stm http://www.kaisernetwork.org/health_cast/hcast_index.cfm?display=detail&hc=919 http://www.christiantoday.com/news/south-asia/india.to.verify.uns.hiv.aids.figures/361.htm http://www.health-now.org/site/article.php?articleId=412&menuId=12 http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/fromthefield/216872/16a04d769c9c08a0ff5ecbbae83e4062.htm
I have listed half a dozen links and sources to back up this fact. I will take wikipedians into condfidence before making any changes in the article.
thanks
Formation 3300 BCE
Indus Valley Civilization
How can Indus valley have been indian civilization when the entire Indus valley lies in pakistan not India, Its like Sudan claiming the Egyptian civilization as its own despite the fact that the pyramids, the nile, the pharoes are all located in egypt.
there is a real flaw in the article here. Please correct this error. because pakistan was in india first so people still call it indian
thanks. The preceding was an unsigned comment left by an anonymous user
I beg to differ, both India and Pakistan were "only" formed in 1947, Afterall both countries got independence from the UK. Therefore for India to lay claim to the indus valley civilization is like I mentioned Sudan claiming the phaoroes of egypt, the pyramids, and the entire egyptian civilization is sudanese despite the fact that none of the pyramids, most of the nile valley is not even located in sudan. For instance if Egypt changed its name to Arabistan, the name only changed of the country but the history of the land before Arabistan is still part of this new Arabistan, not any other country.
Take Iran for example, It was known as persia for thousands of years and is now called Iran, this does not mean that persian civilization now belongs to Iraq or that persian civilization is not part of the history of Iran , its still Iranian history by all means.
Indian civilization like you mentioned is based along the banks of the Ganges, Egpyt the nile, Pakistan the Indus, Also note that the river indus originates in Tibet not India.
thanksThe preceding was an unsigned comment left by an anonymous user
Hey, im sorry noble eagle, that comment wasnt directed at you, it was the directed at the pussy who refuses to sign. Perhaps he actually believes the bullshit that he is saying, or he is just trying to escalate things. I am also surprised that he is an indian - more like an muslim pakistani trying to get credit for a country ( pakistan) which has to leech of others hsitory, religion, culture, food and name- India. By the way, i am Kumarnator.
The above message was illegally removed by user user:Nadirali and is now being restored.
My cheers to the guy who stood up and defended our Pakistani heritage.You are absoloutely right.We dont call our land what foriegners call it and never did.INDUS IS PAKISTANI HISTROY.Pakistan zindabad!!!!!! This unsigned message was left by user user:Nadirali.
Corrected by: Fowler&fowler 01:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Although both India and Pakistan were created at the same time out of British Raj, Indians desperately try to steal Pakistan's heritage, particularly the Indus Valley Civilization! This Indian hegemonic agenda is based on myths and false propaganda for religious and nationalistic imperialism. Also, there are some Pakistanis, particularly Islamists, who narrow-mindedly deny/ignore Pakistan's glorious pre-Islamic past. Harappans were certainly the ancestors of most Pakistanis, who absorbed or adopted the many waves of invaders/migrants through out the centuries.
Indus Valley Civilization was mostly based in the region of Pakistan. The names used for the Civilization are "Indus Valley" or "Harappan", both in Pakistan. The most largest and important cities are Harappa and Mohenjodaro, both in Pakistan. Even in the case of Hakra/Ghaggar river (extinct), a tributary of Indus itself, it has far more mature Harappan sites on the Pakistani side than on the Indian side. The proto-Indus site is also located at Mehrgarh in Pakistan. Indus Valley Civilization, at its peak, had colonies stretching from Turkmenistan to northern Maharashta, and from southeast Iran to western UP. About 85% of Indians (i.e. outside of northwest India) have nothing to do with Indus Valley Civilization, where their ancestors were nomadic forest-dwelling hunters and gatherers at a time period when the sophisticated Indus Valley Civilization was flourishing.
Indus/Harappan religion was not Hinduism. Not a single Hindu temple, idol, or statue has been found at excavated Indus sites. Harappans buried their dead, ate beef, and were not Vedic.The "Great Bath" was common in many civilizations such as among the Graeco-Romans and Mesopotamians. Depicted on some Indus seals, the "deity" wearing the horned head-dress looks nothing like Hinduism's Shiva, and similar deities were common in other civilizations like the Celtic "Cernunnos". Bull seemed to be sacred among Harappans similar to Mesopotamians and Minoans, but not the cow.
A people may evolve by adopting new ideas/beliefs, change with political environment, and racially get mixed with other peoples, but that does not erase their history. Pakistan -- the land and people of Indus directly inherits one of the greatest ancient civilizations of the world, just the same way present-day Iraq, Greece, and Egypt (all three countries and names also recent in origin) inherits their own great ancient civilizations. It is irrelevant that the descendents of Harappans are now mostly Muslims (Pakistanis). Descendents of ancient Mesopotamians and Egyptians are also now mostly Muslims, descendents of ancients Greeks and Romans are now mostly Christians. It is time that all Pakistanis take pride in their past, and protect it from thievery of other countries like India. The preceding message was illegally inserted in another message above in the talk page by an anonymous user from IP address 74.98.240.170 Corrected by Fowler&fowler 01:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
The racial statistics from the CIA World Factbook are in disagreement with the numbers given on the article Historically-defined racial groups in India, so I added the accuracy disputed tag. Currently the statistics do not represent all points of view, so I added the NPOV tag.-- Dark Tichondrias 06:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
[reindenting]Hi! You've mentioned that BS Guhu is a reputable source. If so, he must have published some of his works on the subject. To ascertain credibility, you need to cite his works along with the ISBN numbers. Notability may not be official policy, but Wikipedia:Reliable sources is considered to be an official guideline. There it mentions primary sources and the fact that We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a reliable publisher. hence I am removing the NPOV tag as the sources which you cite the dispute arising from have no means of ascertaing notability or credibility as prior published peer reviewed work. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Ideas about race have changed quite a bit since 1870 - we are probably better off to stick with more recent sources (roughly, post-WWII?). If we cite something over a century old on this, it might be best to frame it as of "historical" (rather than currently-accepted) interest. -- Writtenonsand 06:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Southeast Asia's landmass is approximately the same as India's landmass. Why is India's population is so much bigger than the whole population of Southeast Asia? Sonic99 13:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I am rather surprised that I could not find a section on the Indian people, or on the people of India. On the other hand, I suspect this subject could be rather extensive, and may deserve a Wiki article of its own. Or, perhaps, none at all, to be safe. Splashprince 06:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Map of India used in this page is not correct. If Wikipedia fails to post correct map published by government of India, we Indians are going to protest and will pursuade Indian governoment to block wikipedia. The territory of Kashmir is not shown as part of India, though it is disputed by terrorist stare of Pakistan, wikipedia needs to be nuetral on this issue and should not support illegal occupants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abnaren ( talk • contribs)
You gotta be kidding me, if you have any complain, well... fix it yourself, if you're saying that the map is wrong, then get the proper one, but please stop saying that you will persuade the Indian government to block Wikipedia. that just made me laugh. hahaha
Watch who you call "terrorist state".That was a personal attack on us and directly violates wekipedia's rules.The guy who wrote that can be blocked easily.
This page needs a FAQ section on top. It's getting a bit annoying replying the same things over and over again. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Delhi is listed as 6 under states when it should be listed as G under Union Territories. This is throwing all later states off by 1. I'd edit it, but was unable to determine how. Samadhi69 00:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Someone's messed up with the 'formation' field in the infobox. I'm hard pressed for time, so could it be fixed ASAP?
Northeast India is troubled by violences and insurgent groups. The locals and the migrants from Western India are killing each other. It can even get worst like the Rwandan Genocide. Western media should go and cover a story about the trouble in Northeast India, but they don't. I wonder why. 72.140.235.202 00:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
This article states India is 3,287,590 km² in size. This article states it's 3,287,2632 km² (inc. disputed areas) in size. Which is correct? Lugnuts 07:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
From what I can currently see (and that is all I can go on as a first order approximation to 'truth'), it appears to me that the 2 numbers gives are out by a factor of 10 (so it shouldn't be too difficult to see which one is correct.....Though, on the internet, you never know.....).
Nukemason 10:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
The Indian Union redirect should point to the Political Integration of India article. rohith 20:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Billions of blue blistering barnacles! What reasoning is responsible for calling Thailand an island nation? That thundering nation is lodged firmly in a peninsula in South East Asia! Rama's arrow 02:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking of reading up on India, but after reading the introduction, it occurred to me that the rest of the article may be biased too. The introduction uses a lot of adjectives that I think do not belong in an encyclopedia. For example: "advanced civilization", "major role in human history", "Indian culture and society has been so resilient", "in an intense movement of social reforms", "restoring the glory of the past Indian empires", "among the most diverse in the world" and finally "be an emerging superpower". This all seems a little too subjective. Vince 09:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
In this Article is says that India has the secodn largest muslim population in the World. The population of India is stated as 1.1 billion with 12.2 % muslims.
However, in the wikipedia article for Pakistan, it states that Pakistan has a population of 185 million with 96% muslims.
96% of 185 million is greater than 12.2% of 1.1 billion. There is an inconsistency, can someone ex[plain which source is to be believed?
Surely it is only pragmatic and proper for some of the extreme levels of poverty within India to gain a mention? Would it not be a good idea to create a link to such pages for statistical information? Perhaps it would also be a good idea to avoid political bias on these issues? User:Nukemason 18:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Is it not a good idea to have the South India article re-directed to the India article? The last thing that we would want anyone to think about is that there are 2 separate countries within that part of the world. User:Nukemason 18:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
somehow my edits were reverted, I added them again. Digitalfunda 06:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
why delete this map?!-- Apengu 16:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Another question is, is this map representing official languages of states, or really the local languages? Although states were created roughly on linguistic basis, linguistic borders can be very different from the state borders. See
this map for example. I just forgot this map was about scripts.
deeptrivia (
talk) 21:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
(crossposted to Noticeboard for India related topics) Wouldn't that be a big mess? Also, if an area has two or three different languages spoken by the people, does it mean all 2 or 3 scripts will be used? Who decides which script gets chosen at the expense of which other script? This is, after all, the *English* wikipedia, and maps, images, etc. needs to be in English. Having 4 or 5 names for each small chunk will be a horrible mess. Besides, I don't see any real purpose of such a map. People coming to this wikipedia are looking for English articles, and a map is supposed to convey information, not to cater to each and every language group. -- Ragib 22:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I am listing some images that I found:
Any more suggestions? I recently reverted several good faith edits to add a picture in the section. I thought might as well get a consensus. I like the Bangalore one, would rather not add a map since the article already has plenty of them. Naga one is of poor quality. Please comment. Regards, Ganeshk ( talk) 23:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I hope everyone will like this.
The caption can be anything that is interesting. Chanakyathegreat 11:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Show some pictures of the Bodo people in India too. The World needs to know about them like the Nagas. 72.140.235.202 03:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
No one is preventing you from adding images of Bodo people. Just add good images to the list (don't worry about community caste or creed) and at last, we will collectively select one to put it in the demographic section. If you want you can also add the images in the Bodo article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodo_people
Chanakyathegreat 16:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Afghanistan is a neighbours of India because India has never recognised the occupation of Kashmir by Pakistan. Hence it need to be added in the list. For NPOV the information that the area bordering Afghanistan is under the administration of Pakistan can be added. Also there is another historical reason to add afghanistan as a neighbour. It is the cultural link that exist from the very historical times that is still relavant in recent times. http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/archives_roll/2001_10-12/cotter_mideast/cotter_mideast.html
Another neighbour is Thailand. It is an island nation and the distance between India and Thailand is only a few miles (distance between phuket and Nicobar islands). http://go.hrw.com/atlas/norm_map/thailand.gif
Chanakyathegreat 12:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
the independence of the Republic of India doesn't date to 3300 BC, any more than the independence of the Republic of Turkey dates to 1800 BC or 7000 BC [26], the independence of Iraq to 4000 BC or the independence of Peru to 3000 BC. dab (ᛏ) 06:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Fowler&fowler 22:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I think this is POV as Russia, China, United States, Brasil and Australia have larger area.-- Nixer 10:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
To user ARYAN818 above: Please be aware that comments on a talk page are posted at the end of an ongoing discussion. Inserting comments in the middle (especially when they are redundant and have already been covered by other respondents) is considered bad Wikietiquette and, if persisted in, can be considered vandalism Fowler&fowler 00:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
To User: Apengu Please be aware that comments on a talk page are posted at the end of an ongoing discussion. Inserting comments in the middle (especially when they are redundant and have already been covered by other respondents) is considered bad Wikitiquette and, if persisted in, can be considered vandalism. If you read the discussion, you will realize that the change in terminology from "largest democracy" to "most populous liberal democracy" was driven by the same concerns you voice in your message. Fowler&fowler 16:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
THe article used to say worlds largest Democracy....NOw it has been changed to worlds most populous liberal Democracy.....I think thats a joke....I mean why do people on wikipedia insist on making things sound so complicated....When people read an article, its much more easier to understand "WORLDS LARGEST DEMOCRACY" instead of writing "WORLDS LARGEST POPULOUS LIBERAL DEMOCRACY"....I mean come one the latter version is longer, and many people dont even know what POPULOUS means or LIBERAL DEMOCRACY means.......Just keep it simple.....Worlds largest Democracy ARYAN818 05:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I reverted a previous edit which had added "concept of zero" to the "decimal number system" listed in the second paragraph of the introduction. This was done for the following reasons:
I hope this seems reasonable. Fowler&fowler 11:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
looking at the formatting and number of references in the introduction makes me not want to read it at all. explains why it is the 25th most edited article, but only the 79th most popular page.
1. is it necessary to give so many references/crosslinks in the introduction?
2. all the statistics in the third paragraph of the intro - we could do away with most of them. 2nd fastest growing economy, 124th undernourished blah blah united nations blah blah. we can point out strengths and weakness with a few subjective sentences, and move these numbers to sections like economy, demographics, etc.
look at japan, france, People's_Republic_of_China - they dont have so much clutter in their intros.
-- ti 21:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Cheers. -- Ch e z ( Discuss / Email) • 23:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and describing its notable controversies, if there are any. ... (the lead) should be carefully sourced as appropriate...
I've added a line which states that the events of 1857 are often collectively termed as "The First War of Indian Independence" in Indian text-books. I have been engaged in a very tedious discussion on the Rebellion page about the correct term. However, from the discussions I have had - users there have stated that it was not a nationwide movement. However, this article does state otherwise. Which view is correct? I didn't wish to unilaterally delete anything. Hence, the question. ( Jvalant 04:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC))
The country infobox was replaced by a country or territory infobox, with the edit summary "not a country". I apologize if this has been discussed before, but could someone explain this change to me? Thanks -- BostonMA talk 19:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I think this part of the article is highly flawed, the link to the section islam by country itself has a netural pov tag and I think it would be highly erroneous to claim that India has the worlds second largest population of muslims.
The phrase 'second largest' should be removed and just left with the percentage figures, or rather it should say 'one of the largest'. S Seagal 02:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that a number of people have changed the sentence "with four-fifths of the population living on less that $2 a day," (in the lead) to "25% below the poverty line." Although I agree that a dollar can go much farther in India, I still feel that poverty lines set by individual countries are not good economic indicators. The Indian poverty line (which is the inflation-adjusted amount that would have bought 2400 calories in food per person per day in rural areas and 2100 calories in urban areas in 1973) is now Rs. 540 per month, or $12 per month (at the Rs 45 = $1 exchange rate), or 40 cents per day. This assumes that the entire income of Rs. 540 is being spent on food. With this definition of the poverty line (ie. 40 cents per day), the proportions of Indians below the poverty line is 23% or 25% (depending on what statistics one quotes). I am happy to replace the UN Human Development Index figure of "79.9% living on less than $2 per day" by "23% below the poverty line," but I feel that the latter doesn't convey any information unless one says, "23% below the poverty line of $0.40 per day." I'd like to hear what other people think. Fowler&fowler 22:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Abt the information posted in infobox. Did India get independence from UK or from British Empire
Am I the only one who feels that the article as of now has too many images? And, is The Tibet Autonomous Region an officially acknowledged entity to be said bordering India? -- Sundar \ talk \ contribs 05:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
This is not a bad article, but considering the long history of India and the fact that it has the world's second largest population, it is awfully short. Of course, Wikipedia articles generally should not be too long, but important topics like this one are allowed more length. I like the pictures, although perhaps some of them could be smaller. I might try to help on this article if I get time. HeBhagawan 21:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
The economy section of this article says that India is the fourth-largest in the world by PPP. The Economy of India article states that India's economy, by PPP, is third-largest. This is a contradiction. What should be done about this? -- Tuvok^ Talk| Desk| Contribs 23:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC) 23:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)