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 10 |
I think its not a bad idea to mention a few lines on the Indian military in the Government section. -- {{IncMan| talk}} 21:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
I think that the Holidays list be annual and updated anually since the dates change annually. I have also added this holi image.
-- Electron Kid 02:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
=Nichalp «Talk»= 11:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Some one just added Kumar Kaushik to the India article. But who is he? I did a google search and have not yet found him. Please add a reference about him. -- Ganeshk 21:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
An anon added that Indian literature is the oldest in the world. I have some doubts about that, so far as I can remember, the Epic of Gilgamesh is from 2100 BC. Indian literature may be "one of the oldest", but it is certainly not "the" oldest. Thanks. -- Ragib 21:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Ragib, Ramayan and Mahabharat date from about 10, 000 BCE. India was already a very prosperous nation, alongside Greece and Egypt, who were actually Hindus like Indians (note a similarity in the deities of these three civilizations?) It was actually Max Muller and the others who fit India's entire history in 4000 years.
I think we should find a picture of a tribal dance from either Nagaland, Manipur, or Mizoram. It will show some unexpected diversity in India.
"A sizeable number of Hindus (almost entirely in the cities) also eat beef, though not so openly" - I request you to remove 'almost entirely in the cities' from the above sentence as this is not true. People generally relish Chicken than beaf in cities. Subramanya
How about some description of India's rich religious traditions? It seems strange to me that this is not really mentioned in the article. Why demote India's greatest treasure to some sub-section of the culture article. 12:25, 29 November 2005
I removed this link from the top section, but didn't transfer it to external links because I'm not sure how appropriate it is. It seems to be more focused on Pakistan history with some coverage of the surrounding countries. Furthermore, I'd like someone with more knowledge of the region to review it for political agendas. Jasmol 17:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC) [1]
This article needs more work. Please feel free to improve on it and add to article. Shyamal 11:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Why is there a final 'a' in "Ganarājy" and not "Bhārat"? Should it not be "Bhārata Gaṇarājya"? Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 23:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I think It should be "Truth only Triumphs" Does anyone object?? - Shilpa Choudhari
In 1757 the troops of the the British East India Company seized Bengal and plundered the Bengali treasure. The British East India Company monopolized the trade of Bengal. The Bengali craftsmen were inevitably fixed at foreign posts of the Company, where they were obliged to render their labor at minimal compensation while their collective tax burden increased harshly. The result was the famine of 1769 to 1773 in which 10 million Bengalis died, followed almost a century later by the catastrophic Great Calamity period, resulting in part from an extension of similar policies, in which up to 40 million Indians perished from famine amidst the collapse of India's native industries and skilled workforce.
That is true History. Don't rv Ben-Velvel 12:47, 2 December 2005, St.Petersburg (UTC)
Is there a good reason why the notes and references sections are at the end of the article instead of before External links, according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings)? Just curious. -- Jtalledo (talk) 04:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
This map incorrectly depicts the section of Pakistan occupied Kashmir (PoK) as being part of Pakistan. It should be noted that The entire Jammu and Kasmir is a sovereign part of India. Please upload a map that correctly depicts the borders.
Thanks.
-From amitroy5 I have to agree with that. The map of India is done from an "American" perspective. We have to remember that America's view is also biased. I think that China and Pakistan occupied Kashmir should be labled as such. Also, the disputed mark for Arunachal Pradesh should be removed because no country other than China sees it that way. Plus, the whole state is under Indian rule. This article is about India, and it should be written from an Indian perspective, not in an American perspective. -From amitroy5
-From amitroy5 At lesat if we want to be neutral, we should clearly label on the map what is POK and China-occupied Kashmir. Also, for Arunachal Pradesh, that is Chinese perspective, not neutral.
Please give any document that Arunachal Pradesh as a "disputed" territory is neutral. At least we shoud write on the map that it is Indian territory and claimed by China, not the other way around.
I have to agree that the map of Arunachal Pradesh should be marked as an integral part of India. Because the American perspective also shows the bias. This article is about India. We don't want to give the wrong perception that India took this land illegally from China, like some Chinese want the world to think. In fact, the Chinese claim that the India-China war for China was a defensive war to take back China's lost territories. I see that the views here are split. And I think I will change the map to reflect what is correct. And to show it in an Indian perspective, not an American perspective. Also, on Pakistan's page, Pakistan Occupied Kashmir is NOT marked as disputed. If that's the case, why can't India show what should be her's? Either Pakistan's page should be fixed or the Indian page will change.
Please explain why Pakistan isn't marked then. That shows Wikipedia's bias towards India. Like I said, if someone doesn't change that, then I feel India should be marked the way India sees it. Not the way the United States does.
Actually, Wikipedia is bias in the holocaust too. You mention that it should be neutral. Then it deserve mention about people who deny it. Just to take all sides into account. All of us agree that the holocaust happened, but we are taking a side. We aren't neutral.
-Key parts of Indian history, the Aryan invasion, the invasion of the Persian Empire, and the arrival of Alexander the Great are left out of the history section. The Persian Empire isnt even in the History article. As key periods of India's history, these should be included. Every time I add them, they get erased. I dont care what some fucked up Hindu nationalists think, an Aryan invasion did happen, they did not brind Hinduism with them, they made it with the Dravidians once they settled down. Theres genetics to prove. Give me a break. -a historian
What is the percentage of the non-religious of India's population?
-- 204.60.171.230 17:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
anyone know the significance in wiping their bum with their left hand only?
Friends, there is a swiss-german admin of wikipedia called Dbachmann User: Dbachmann who holds deep hatred of Hindus and Indians in his psyche, for reasons best known to him only. He has been vandalizing any good article edits which even mildly favorable to Hindus. In place of that he spreads lies like Bhagvad-Geeta was written after Jesus christ's times and so on.
He was unknown to most Indian wikipedians till he tried to mess up the Rajput article. A cursory glance of his contributions on wikipedia convinced us to report this guy to other admins. He deserves to be banned from wikipedia altogether, and at the very least his admin previledges needs to be revoked. We have filed a complained against him. Here is a link to that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dbachmann_%282%29
All self respecting Indians are called upon to go to this link and sign the petition. A complete list of charges against this user can be found in the petition.
Thanks everybody
Sisodia
Your A Call To Arms is chauvinistic, xenophobic and myopic. Most experienced Indian wikipedians know Dab pretty well, and has been helping out on the History of India for a long time now. Dab does provide verifible sources, so I doubt that that it is his personal research. Please familiarise yourself with the wikisystem, and get credible and updated sources before you launch an RFC. Regards =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Template:MalayalamScript has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:MalayalamScript. Thank you. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 18:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
The state has 2 capitals. Jammu is the winter capital city, Srinagar is the summer. Shouldn't the map reflect this?
-amitroy5
Could the people that edited this page improve South Asia's section in the new Cultures of the World page? Someone with good background knowledge could help a lot.
I'm willing to make a compromise on this. I like how China did its map. We should color code the map. We should write the following examples and label my color coding:
Claimed by India, administered by China; Claimed by India, administered by Pakisatn; Claimed by Pakistan, administered by India; Claimed by China, administered by India
Noting that sombody wanted to add more information today that seemed relevant to me, but it was quickly reverted, I thought I'd take a look around.
What's going on here?
:::I checked up the site. "This is not a Adult related site." Ha Ha. -
Ganeshk
T/
C\
@ 20:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC) The link you had added was indiangals. You refer to it was indiangirls which is porn site. -
Ganeshk
T/
C\
@
20:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
please standardize maps to reflect the indian version of the Kashmir dispute, as is stipulated by the Govt. of India. The Pakistan country page is free to use their version of the map. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pizzadeliveryboy ( talk • contribs) .
I am considering changing the map to show the Indian viewpoint. There are advocates for people to create an independent Puerto Rico. Should that be marked as disputed? Mark all land as Indian, or I will do it. Also, who recently changed the maps, they are TERRIBLE!
Oh yeah, I also have to add this. If Wikipedia is neutral, why doesn't it offer an alternate view about the Holocaust. People have provided evidence that it never happened. I'm not saying that I deny it, but you claim that "all views should be expressed." If I don't see this in the holocaust page, why should India be givin a "neutral view?" If this doesn't change, I'll add the true Indian map.
Finally, this goes to Ragib. Ragib, how do I know you aren't bias? A lot of Bangladeshis hate Indians. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shellymelly ( talk • contribs) .
Sorry, but I'm trying to make a point here that all parts of Wikipedia are bias to their respective country's perspective. Please read my post above and see if you agree with it. Thanks!
Shellymelly
The changes have been made in both pre colonial histories of India and Pakistan.
India and Pakistan were formed in 1947. Thats just 50+ and certainly not ancient. India, Pakistan, Bhutan, Nepal, Bangladesh are all third world countries, with shared histories and cultures. It's stupid for India and Pakistan to crib about 'My culture' and 'My History'.
Changes are more in Pakistan article, as whoever wrote that article seems too much bent upon proving that Pakistan was never a part of India. India and Pakistan were never together, technicaly they never could have been. Guys GET OVER IT. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cyberwizmj ( talk • contribs) .
get over it?? ok burn up all our text books?? y dont u ppl get over christ saving our heathens n stuff?? Bijun 10:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC) user:bijun
I suggest that a common ancient histroy page be created. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cyberwizmj ( talk • contribs) .
india and pakistan were together they were bought together by the mughal empire then during the british rule they STAYED together the partition occured because jinah was anxious that muslims would not be represnted equally and therfore requested a partition with india. gandhi agreed to partition because he wanted to avoid a civil war in india from occuring.
FYI: INdia has one of the oldest civilizations in the world stats: 2006
I've replaced the footer templates with Template:India ties. Such templates on country articles have been deprecated for some time, after lengthy discussions at Wikipedia:Wikiproject Countries. Since most countries belong to at least a half dozen international organizations, which creates quite a mess at the bottom of articles when a box is added for each. Since my knowledge of India is very limited, I recommend you to make changes to improve this template. (See also United Kingdom and Canada for examples). CG 20:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
to pizza delvirey boy i was making a point to those who thought india and pakistan should have had a seprate page. i lived in india for 13 years and in my point i completley agree with you but i feel that india and pakistan are two ggreat nations they should share some of thier history together. i sincerely apologize if my comments hurt your feeling. thanks nihit mehta
Do some research, India was around way before 1947 or when ever, it was conquered by Alexander the Great, Kenghis Khan's Mongol's, the Mougals, some British Company, and the British Queen. After the queen took over it became a colony, so has you can clearly see if you a mind India was around for a a while.
Most of the changes have to do with punctuation and sentence construction.
I have replaced "delta islands" with archipelago, which is what the Sunderbans is.
Added a ref. to PV Narsimha Rao
The counterpart of economic size in terms of PPP is GNP.
the sentence regionally as well as globally is correct and could be used, but does not fit into the sentence construction properly even in the older version - hence removed, but can be reinstated if propely constructed.
The Sepoy Mutiny is also called the Sepoy Rebellion (BBC), though Indians call it the 1st war of independence.
The sentence on Mahatma Gandhi leading the independence movement was mangled. Split it for easier reading.
Need to use caps for describing the features of the Indian Constitution.
Expanded on the Emergemcy a wee bit, with a date.
BPO and Software are service industries
Pongal and Onam are celebrated in their resp states.
removed ref to Indian Cricket Team - more appropriate in a seperate article.
A prev version had the foll:
In 1977, a united opposition, under the banner of the Janata Party, won the election and formed a non-Congress government for a short period after the unpopular 'emergency rule' imposed by Indira Gandhi in the previous Congress regime.
First there is no explicit mentioning of the lifting of emergency. Moreover, I think the use of unpopular is a mild POV. So played around with construction, thats all.
Pizzadeliveryboy 20:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I have changed the links for India's national bird and flower to the specific species
Pizzadeliveryboy 16:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I have reverted Vastu's image change since a south indian temple is already depicted above (in the end of the history section). Moreover the argument (Perhaps a temple of the southern style would be better here?) itself is a bit queer.
Pizzadeliveryboy 14:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I have removed some images:
=Nichalp «Talk»= 07:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the article is and should be a show piece to create a first impression. But more importantly, it is important to depict the diveristy of India.
Hence it would be better to include some northern indian temple, not because south indian temples arent grand enough, but because there is already one instance in the article. Something like somnath or dilwara or Golden temple would be apt (there is no reason why it should be only a Hindu tenple, and not a sikh or jain templle or a mosque or church or synagogue or fire temple - think about that).
Pizzadeliveryboy 14:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Question: Why the fixation with edifices? =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Happy Indian Republic Day 2006 to all!!! -- 195.229.241.187 13:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
The use of "granting" implies that the British willingly, on their own accord, gave up India (and thereby 'mutually consented' in 'according a previlege or favor' to the Indians - see dictionary for correct meaning of the verb 'to grant'), without any due credit to the Indian independence movement. This is untrue since there is a long history of struggle on several fronts, which eventually led to the people of India succeeding in gaining (thereby, acquiring (through struggle)) their independence from the British.
Pizzadeliveryboy 16:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
How many does India have? The info table states "Hindi, English, and 21 other languages" whereas 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)
it is in pondicherry
Bijun
10:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
user talk:bijun
The map of India that has been shown on this site is erroneous. This is so because the occupied Kashmir part has been painted in the same colour as that of Pakistan. I would like to say that this is a serious discrepency since the Pakistan occupied Kashmir is still not recognised as the part of Pakistan. The official line is that Kashmir is an integral part of India. It can be depicted as a disputed part but showing it as a part of Pakistan is not acceptable. 61.246.165.179 04:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
The new emblem is actually correct one (it has the motto below the figure, which the earlier one lacked), though the saffron color is a little suggestive. Does anyone have an image like the earlier version, but with the motto subscribed below, and of a higher resolution (the earlier version was too small, and when force-fitted in the template, led to a loss of resolution)??
I have reinstited some classical dance forms and classified them into south and north. all of these are patronized by Sangeet Natak Akademi and several other classical art institutions of a national level. I am not sure of Yakshaganga, but someone can verify.
As far as festivals, need to include non-hindu ones too, esp of the phrase melting pot in the beginning of the para has to have any meaning. Pongal and Onam are local south indian fests, much like GC and DP.
Pizzadeliveryboy 14:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
The national bird of India is the male variety of the species Pavo cristatus. The common name of the bird is peafowl, but only the male species has been granted the honor.
Please check National Bird of India search entry in Google.
Pizzadeliveryboy 15:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Wondering y cuisine and culture are in the same section. Also there is no mention of folk or classical art (painiting/sculpture) - only cinema, dance and music is present. The section should actually be Art and Culture, and cuisine/eating habits/staple diet should be another section, not in culture. Pizzadeliveryboy 00:17, 5 February 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)
Considering that the culture section has distinct paras on dance, music, art and cuisine, all relevant main pages should be listed in the main article section, instead of the see also sec Pizzadeliveryboy 17:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Using numerals for numbers makes sense since its shorter, easier to be caught while just glancing thru text, and if we stdize this across the article, the length of the article will go outta hand!!!
Pizzadeliveryboy 18:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Can you please change the picture of the Flag which has been vandalized. Thanx
All reference to Afghan invasions refer to incidents involving Pashtun peoples. The incidents involving C Asian and Persian rulers involve Turkic and Persian peoples (themselves distinct), which is different from the former. Hence, they are generally classified as Muslim invasions. Pizzadeliveryboy 13:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Is there an official national costume for India? I seriously doubt if it's there. How about a national calendar? If these are not official, they need to be removed from the table of national symbols. -- Sundar \ talk \ contribs 11:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
SVP Jayanti is not a national holiday, and Diwali is a religious one. Pizzadeliveryboy 00:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
...is an article listing some book sources on India for the interested persons. As it is not an encyclopedic topic, it would be better to delete that article and move the content to India article. Since India is a featured article (and I don't know how to delete an article), I am requesting to major contributors here to give this idea a thought. Thanks. Ashish G 19:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the topic in demographics which included affirmative action. One reason is that the Constitution only provides for the setting up of educational institutes by minorities. Reservations were supposed to last for only 10 years when introduced by Ambedkar. The reservations are based on sops introduced by the government. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Would any editors who have native or resident knowledge of India care to comment on recent edits to this article? I remove the review sections as well as the external links; the original author feels that the links are important. My problem is that I have no sense of how notable the sites mentioned are. If they are as notable as Craigslist and/or meet WP:CORP, then I'd say that they merit their own articles and should be internally linked. Thoughts? OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I am the author of the online classifieds in india article. I would like to request that the original article be reverted to on the main site so that knowledgeable users on India can review it like ohnoitsjamie mentioned. bluesargam Talk 23:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
The caste system has been systematicallty ignored and then deleted. India cannot be considered a democracy when there exists such an apartheid institution that violates the very basic principle of human rights. The 'untouchables' or haryana are a realiy and murdered. Get real and mention the cast system Trompeta 11:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Someone's deleted a sentance ive put in a few times. Would you like to discuss it? It is extremely misleading to say india has the 4th largest economy in ppp terms - yes that is true, but you are using economical statistics to mislead people (5/6th of Wikipedia community who are not Indian). India ranks 152nd when it comes to GDP/capita ppp figures. Any Economist who who can understand basic World Economy can tell you that. Anyways there is a section on India's Economy allready I think it is unneccessary over here.Its good to be proud of ur country, but not if it blinds you from the truth. The Mystic
Yes India's GDP per capita is also stated straight away - I put it there. Together they are fine but one buy itself leads to bias.
Has anyone considered switching to inline citations? Guidelines have changed since this article was featured. It would be useful if people looked into it and made sure this article still adheres to new guidelines instead of waiting for FARC. ( Blacksun 05:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC))
The image lists it as being in Delhi, but isn't Akshardham Temple in Gandhinagar? -- Soumyasch 16:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Is it possible that the To-Do list is outdated? Because my edits on foreign relations were rapidly reverted. If so then it would be nice if we did get an updated to-do list so that potential editors could get more work done. Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
speaking of foreign relations how the heck was india a founding member of the U.N when it achieved independence in 1947 after the U.N was made? if it was a founder during the british period then i dont think it should be mentioned as at that time pakistan was a part of it and its foriegn relations were obviously being handled by the british. if such a comment is to be made, it should be within the context of british india, which should actually be a separate article. so ive removed this erroneous line.sorry i dont know how to make a new topic. Falcon7385 16:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
But with one major difference - Russia was not a colony of USSR but India was a colony of Britain - Hence this should be attributed to Britain and not the Indian people who were only involved in world war 2 because of britain.if it is to be stated that India was among the founders then i think Pakistan should also be considered as such because it was a part of India at the time.As you can see this is going to lead to some misunderstandings.In truth the foriegn affairs of india were not being determined by either the pakistani's( or the muslim freedom fighters as they were back then) or the indians.Thats why it is erroneous to consider the India of today as a continuation of the India at that time since it's government back then had its prioirities being determined by foriegners.Equating the past and present India is a more likely pitfall for newcomers ,than in the case of russia simply because russia had a different name back then. that's why i think a separate article be made to deal with this era of the subcontinents history (note that i havent used the term indian history deliberalty as this implys the modern india). Falcon7385 18:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Falcon, most people will agree that India is the sucessor country. It is like Yogoslavia. Serbia is the sucessor country. Even if the India was under the British, it was still a different "nation". Thus, it is fair to consider India occupied by the British, not "apart" of it.
I am wondering what the relative sizes of various regional film industries in India are? I would have thought that the Bangla film industry is one of the bigger ones, but obviously that's not true, looking at the list of regional industries mentioned.-- ppm 01:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
The two topics are similar but different. Perhaps it would be better to seperate them and expand a little on both. It just doesn't do justice to have Indian politics and foreign relations summed up in that tiny paragraph. It also doesn't fit in the page to have a heading called Politics and Foreign Relations. Opinions? Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Aren't Indians anthropologically caucasoid? If so, why are they classified as Asian, unlike all other caucasoids are classified as White.
File:England flag large.png अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey 13:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually that's mainly used in America and Canada, but in Europe Asian is applied to south asians while oriental people are put in the category of chinese or other. (I think)
DaGizza, dravidians are said to be descendents of Pre-Vedic Anatolian migrants to India. Atleast thats what i read... moreover DaGizza we dont originate from Europe, our race originates from Central Asia thats where Caucasus is... File:England flag large.png अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey 14:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't see any edits since placement of "underconstruction" tag, so I assume the editor who placed it is not doing anything at least today. Hence, I'm removing it to allow cleanup of the article. Next, I've reverted the history sections huge dump of colonial history. India has a history spanning at least 2500 years, and the colonial part isn't ALL of it, it gets its due share in the History of India page. The history section in THIS page is supposed to be a summary, which it does just fine.
I also reverted the language comment, Sangskrit is not the ONLY major language root in India, the southern areas developed their own language independently.
Thanks. --
Ragib
05:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Don't bother too much about the nomination. Bob would have to point out specific areas where the prose is bad, and his case is rather weak. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Our strategy should be to quickly fix any grammar issues in FARC and not contest them. Subjective criteria not listed in WP:WIAFA can be opposed. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I have reverted the recent restructuring of headings. The heading levels of the article is strictly based on recommendations of Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries#Sections. Also, having a single subheading is considered bad style. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Ryz05, I appreciate your efforts to improve this article but the use of such subheadings are structurally wrong. To justify the use of descendents, you must have at least two subheadings. Secondly, if you need to make use of subheadings, the lead matter before subsections must be an overview of the content that follows. ie
==Section== [overview of the sections to follow] ===Subsection=== ===Subsection===
I agree that the politics and government sections are similar, but merging content together will create a very large section. Conversely, having =politics= as a subsection of the =Government= is structurally wrong, as shown above. [Note: I do this stuff in my non-wiki life]. The compromise would be to have separate top level headings. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
What does inote|tongues mean? I dont understand how to make sense of some of the inotes in the article. I went to the inote discussion page but that was not very helpful either. I think someone who knows about inotes needs to go through them to make sure they are correctly formatted. I am also debating whether we should have a debate over switching the system after the FARC is dealt with. -- Blacksun 13:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
{{inote|see Jordan page 25|Jordan-25}}
Inline referencing has been spruced up. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
The image of BSE is very relevant to the economy section. Stock market is primary source of Foreign investment in India. The caption on that image makes it very relevant to the article. It has been readded. -- Blacksun 23:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
It is insane to suggest that "efforts to eradicate illiteracy has met with little success." At the time of independence, the literacy rate was in the 20s. And given the gignormous size of the population, when 1% composes 10 million people, it is commendable progress. By 2011, it should be above 70%. Rama's Arrow 13:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
According to major world religions, Sikhism constitutes 0.36% of the world's population, which I'm not sure constitutes as a majowr world religion and Jainism is not even listed as a world religion. Jainism's population is listed as 4.2 million (which is less than 0.07% of the total approximate population of the world) -- Jibran1 22:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Sikhism and Jainism are both in the worlds major religions. Read up on the religions..I think it's their somewhere. I also remember learning in school (yes unreliable at times i know...) the 6 major religions, in which they were both in
Holy Ganga, I removed the latest image uploaded by you in teh culture section because their is no way that section can support 4 images. Also, the caption in that image required a reference. If you really want to keep that image than replace it with the food or holi image.-- Blacksun 03:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Why is the University of New Mexico holi photo in the India main page? The section is Culture of India, not Indian culture. Naus 01:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Its pretty bad in quality and that image is quite crude. What was a pretty short yet straight forward section before has been butchered under the pretense of expansion. Please do a better job with it or revert it. -- Blacksun 03:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Important: please Comment. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand the need to put the name of Republic of India in Tamil letters in the beginning of the article as Tamil is one of the languages which belong to India and there are many languages other than Tamil in India.
Any comments? Subramanya 05:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
On one occasion under demographics it says 1.19 bilion people and up on the right it says 1.09 bilion population. Confused
As far as I know there are only three national holidays in India and not four. I have changed the number accordingly. I tried searching the official websites of India but could not come up with a number. However, the linked article in this section also mentions only three national holidays and not four ramit 11:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Do we really need to have Jinnah's photo in an article on India? Subramanya 08:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Well the rational behind is that to show that these two countries shared their history.. its the same thing done in the Pakistan article.. The people there also criticised.. (me included) that the picture of Gandhi was unsuitable for that page.. but in order to show neutrality and lack of prejudice i think its a good idea.. because either choose to put both pictures of gandhi and jinnah in respective webpages of histories of pakistan and india, or show the photos on both webpages.. to not support any specific side. Iquadri
Interesting.. the same debate was being taken in pakistan article webpage some time ago.. i would advice you to go there and read the discussions.. the same question was raised that Gandhi had nothing to do with post pakistan.. but pre pakistan there was a history between Gandhi and Jinnah.. you cannot turn your back on history. If we can accept the picture as a tribute to history , why should it not be recognized as same here.. Infact , it shows that the two leaders while having difference of opinions, were trying to work hard to attain peace between the two nations living in Indian Subcontinent at that time, while working to drive the British out of that region. Its not a political image, but a tribute to both countries histories. Both indian and pakistani writers have agreed that these pictures show history, its not anything politic, but its heritage. iquadri 18:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, if the only rationale to put that picture here is that it is on the Pakistan page, then it can be removed since the two articles cannot be linked. Remove it. Anand Arvind 20:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Does someone not want to mention an ideological conflict of the Aryan and Dravidian cultural clashes, and the general-expectation of rest-of-India to expect Tamils to know Hindi, and the associated Racist behaviour? --பராசக்தி 00:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
What for? kevin 13:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)kevin_b
I wouldn't use such strong words, but yes, the cultural differences and accompanying issues need be mentioned, but not here. See Wikipedia:Summary style. A mention could be made in Culture of India and Languages of India if and only if we have reliable citations. Original research is not allowed here. -- Sundar \ talk \ contribs 07:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, I have nothing against the image as such but why Jinnah? I think an image on Gandhi and Nehru is more appropriate. Thanks -- Incman| वार्ता 06:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I have expanded the section on government of India to show a clearer picture. The existing piece was not enough to give a clear picture of the govt. Further, I have readded a section on races in demography (please dont be a racophobic: as an academic discussion, each country's article has racial demographies). Also, I removed the lnaguages to a section on its own. The article on Hindustan was biased and factually incorrect. I have added to it and corrected the mistakes. Much of the material is from Webster's New World dictionary. Cygnus_hansa 09:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
The article has deteriorated in quality since I last saw it. It seems that new edits are not scrutinised closely. Even the refs have been tampered with!! =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Is this relegion important enough to be added here ? Tintin ( talk) 06:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I think we all can see a bad case of original research and propaganda here. Of course, I don't mean any offence to the followers of the religion, and the religion itself, as I respect all religions of the world. However, the point everyone is trying to make is that, wikipedia is not the place to do original research, and we don't want wikipedia to be the primary source of information on any topic. Until the religion becomes notable by itself and with a large following, we do not want to have wikipedia used as a propaganda and proselytizing medium. Thanks. --
Ragib
06:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I looked into the
Ayyavazhi page itself, and it doesn't seem to contain *ANY* references to established sources at all. Where are the sources? Uncited material is very much likely to be original research, and hence need to be converted to cited/referenced text, or removed altogether. Thanks. --
Ragib
08:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I've added {{ unsourced}} tags to some pages, most of which have quite outstanding claims without a shred of references. I also suggest we do any further discussion in the related pages. The amount of original research is outstanding!! I hope editors from the south or those who are familiar with the area could comment on this topic, and look into the articles mentioned in List of Ayyavazhi-related articles. Thanks. -- Ragib 08:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I am making an Asian repository of images. Please complete the India part as you see fit, preferably similar to those of France, Britain et al:
Wikipedia:List of images/Places/Asia
I will be working on Iran's section. Thanx. Nemeste.-- Zereshk 01:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Amazing that in 2006, their are still people who dont want to mention India being the homeland of the Aryans....And why I try to put this in, our great friend here erases it & copies and pastes his B.S. version of India....Good job 08:41, 27 May 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 10 |
I think its not a bad idea to mention a few lines on the Indian military in the Government section. -- {{IncMan| talk}} 21:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
I think that the Holidays list be annual and updated anually since the dates change annually. I have also added this holi image.
-- Electron Kid 02:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
=Nichalp «Talk»= 11:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Some one just added Kumar Kaushik to the India article. But who is he? I did a google search and have not yet found him. Please add a reference about him. -- Ganeshk 21:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
An anon added that Indian literature is the oldest in the world. I have some doubts about that, so far as I can remember, the Epic of Gilgamesh is from 2100 BC. Indian literature may be "one of the oldest", but it is certainly not "the" oldest. Thanks. -- Ragib 21:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Ragib, Ramayan and Mahabharat date from about 10, 000 BCE. India was already a very prosperous nation, alongside Greece and Egypt, who were actually Hindus like Indians (note a similarity in the deities of these three civilizations?) It was actually Max Muller and the others who fit India's entire history in 4000 years.
I think we should find a picture of a tribal dance from either Nagaland, Manipur, or Mizoram. It will show some unexpected diversity in India.
"A sizeable number of Hindus (almost entirely in the cities) also eat beef, though not so openly" - I request you to remove 'almost entirely in the cities' from the above sentence as this is not true. People generally relish Chicken than beaf in cities. Subramanya
How about some description of India's rich religious traditions? It seems strange to me that this is not really mentioned in the article. Why demote India's greatest treasure to some sub-section of the culture article. 12:25, 29 November 2005
I removed this link from the top section, but didn't transfer it to external links because I'm not sure how appropriate it is. It seems to be more focused on Pakistan history with some coverage of the surrounding countries. Furthermore, I'd like someone with more knowledge of the region to review it for political agendas. Jasmol 17:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC) [1]
This article needs more work. Please feel free to improve on it and add to article. Shyamal 11:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Why is there a final 'a' in "Ganarājy" and not "Bhārat"? Should it not be "Bhārata Gaṇarājya"? Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 23:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I think It should be "Truth only Triumphs" Does anyone object?? - Shilpa Choudhari
In 1757 the troops of the the British East India Company seized Bengal and plundered the Bengali treasure. The British East India Company monopolized the trade of Bengal. The Bengali craftsmen were inevitably fixed at foreign posts of the Company, where they were obliged to render their labor at minimal compensation while their collective tax burden increased harshly. The result was the famine of 1769 to 1773 in which 10 million Bengalis died, followed almost a century later by the catastrophic Great Calamity period, resulting in part from an extension of similar policies, in which up to 40 million Indians perished from famine amidst the collapse of India's native industries and skilled workforce.
That is true History. Don't rv Ben-Velvel 12:47, 2 December 2005, St.Petersburg (UTC)
Is there a good reason why the notes and references sections are at the end of the article instead of before External links, according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings)? Just curious. -- Jtalledo (talk) 04:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
This map incorrectly depicts the section of Pakistan occupied Kashmir (PoK) as being part of Pakistan. It should be noted that The entire Jammu and Kasmir is a sovereign part of India. Please upload a map that correctly depicts the borders.
Thanks.
-From amitroy5 I have to agree with that. The map of India is done from an "American" perspective. We have to remember that America's view is also biased. I think that China and Pakistan occupied Kashmir should be labled as such. Also, the disputed mark for Arunachal Pradesh should be removed because no country other than China sees it that way. Plus, the whole state is under Indian rule. This article is about India, and it should be written from an Indian perspective, not in an American perspective. -From amitroy5
-From amitroy5 At lesat if we want to be neutral, we should clearly label on the map what is POK and China-occupied Kashmir. Also, for Arunachal Pradesh, that is Chinese perspective, not neutral.
Please give any document that Arunachal Pradesh as a "disputed" territory is neutral. At least we shoud write on the map that it is Indian territory and claimed by China, not the other way around.
I have to agree that the map of Arunachal Pradesh should be marked as an integral part of India. Because the American perspective also shows the bias. This article is about India. We don't want to give the wrong perception that India took this land illegally from China, like some Chinese want the world to think. In fact, the Chinese claim that the India-China war for China was a defensive war to take back China's lost territories. I see that the views here are split. And I think I will change the map to reflect what is correct. And to show it in an Indian perspective, not an American perspective. Also, on Pakistan's page, Pakistan Occupied Kashmir is NOT marked as disputed. If that's the case, why can't India show what should be her's? Either Pakistan's page should be fixed or the Indian page will change.
Please explain why Pakistan isn't marked then. That shows Wikipedia's bias towards India. Like I said, if someone doesn't change that, then I feel India should be marked the way India sees it. Not the way the United States does.
Actually, Wikipedia is bias in the holocaust too. You mention that it should be neutral. Then it deserve mention about people who deny it. Just to take all sides into account. All of us agree that the holocaust happened, but we are taking a side. We aren't neutral.
-Key parts of Indian history, the Aryan invasion, the invasion of the Persian Empire, and the arrival of Alexander the Great are left out of the history section. The Persian Empire isnt even in the History article. As key periods of India's history, these should be included. Every time I add them, they get erased. I dont care what some fucked up Hindu nationalists think, an Aryan invasion did happen, they did not brind Hinduism with them, they made it with the Dravidians once they settled down. Theres genetics to prove. Give me a break. -a historian
What is the percentage of the non-religious of India's population?
-- 204.60.171.230 17:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
anyone know the significance in wiping their bum with their left hand only?
Friends, there is a swiss-german admin of wikipedia called Dbachmann User: Dbachmann who holds deep hatred of Hindus and Indians in his psyche, for reasons best known to him only. He has been vandalizing any good article edits which even mildly favorable to Hindus. In place of that he spreads lies like Bhagvad-Geeta was written after Jesus christ's times and so on.
He was unknown to most Indian wikipedians till he tried to mess up the Rajput article. A cursory glance of his contributions on wikipedia convinced us to report this guy to other admins. He deserves to be banned from wikipedia altogether, and at the very least his admin previledges needs to be revoked. We have filed a complained against him. Here is a link to that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dbachmann_%282%29
All self respecting Indians are called upon to go to this link and sign the petition. A complete list of charges against this user can be found in the petition.
Thanks everybody
Sisodia
Your A Call To Arms is chauvinistic, xenophobic and myopic. Most experienced Indian wikipedians know Dab pretty well, and has been helping out on the History of India for a long time now. Dab does provide verifible sources, so I doubt that that it is his personal research. Please familiarise yourself with the wikisystem, and get credible and updated sources before you launch an RFC. Regards =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Template:MalayalamScript has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:MalayalamScript. Thank you. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 18:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
The state has 2 capitals. Jammu is the winter capital city, Srinagar is the summer. Shouldn't the map reflect this?
-amitroy5
Could the people that edited this page improve South Asia's section in the new Cultures of the World page? Someone with good background knowledge could help a lot.
I'm willing to make a compromise on this. I like how China did its map. We should color code the map. We should write the following examples and label my color coding:
Claimed by India, administered by China; Claimed by India, administered by Pakisatn; Claimed by Pakistan, administered by India; Claimed by China, administered by India
Noting that sombody wanted to add more information today that seemed relevant to me, but it was quickly reverted, I thought I'd take a look around.
What's going on here?
:::I checked up the site. "This is not a Adult related site." Ha Ha. -
Ganeshk
T/
C\
@ 20:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC) The link you had added was indiangals. You refer to it was indiangirls which is porn site. -
Ganeshk
T/
C\
@
20:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
please standardize maps to reflect the indian version of the Kashmir dispute, as is stipulated by the Govt. of India. The Pakistan country page is free to use their version of the map. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pizzadeliveryboy ( talk • contribs) .
I am considering changing the map to show the Indian viewpoint. There are advocates for people to create an independent Puerto Rico. Should that be marked as disputed? Mark all land as Indian, or I will do it. Also, who recently changed the maps, they are TERRIBLE!
Oh yeah, I also have to add this. If Wikipedia is neutral, why doesn't it offer an alternate view about the Holocaust. People have provided evidence that it never happened. I'm not saying that I deny it, but you claim that "all views should be expressed." If I don't see this in the holocaust page, why should India be givin a "neutral view?" If this doesn't change, I'll add the true Indian map.
Finally, this goes to Ragib. Ragib, how do I know you aren't bias? A lot of Bangladeshis hate Indians. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shellymelly ( talk • contribs) .
Sorry, but I'm trying to make a point here that all parts of Wikipedia are bias to their respective country's perspective. Please read my post above and see if you agree with it. Thanks!
Shellymelly
The changes have been made in both pre colonial histories of India and Pakistan.
India and Pakistan were formed in 1947. Thats just 50+ and certainly not ancient. India, Pakistan, Bhutan, Nepal, Bangladesh are all third world countries, with shared histories and cultures. It's stupid for India and Pakistan to crib about 'My culture' and 'My History'.
Changes are more in Pakistan article, as whoever wrote that article seems too much bent upon proving that Pakistan was never a part of India. India and Pakistan were never together, technicaly they never could have been. Guys GET OVER IT. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cyberwizmj ( talk • contribs) .
get over it?? ok burn up all our text books?? y dont u ppl get over christ saving our heathens n stuff?? Bijun 10:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC) user:bijun
I suggest that a common ancient histroy page be created. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cyberwizmj ( talk • contribs) .
india and pakistan were together they were bought together by the mughal empire then during the british rule they STAYED together the partition occured because jinah was anxious that muslims would not be represnted equally and therfore requested a partition with india. gandhi agreed to partition because he wanted to avoid a civil war in india from occuring.
FYI: INdia has one of the oldest civilizations in the world stats: 2006
I've replaced the footer templates with Template:India ties. Such templates on country articles have been deprecated for some time, after lengthy discussions at Wikipedia:Wikiproject Countries. Since most countries belong to at least a half dozen international organizations, which creates quite a mess at the bottom of articles when a box is added for each. Since my knowledge of India is very limited, I recommend you to make changes to improve this template. (See also United Kingdom and Canada for examples). CG 20:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
to pizza delvirey boy i was making a point to those who thought india and pakistan should have had a seprate page. i lived in india for 13 years and in my point i completley agree with you but i feel that india and pakistan are two ggreat nations they should share some of thier history together. i sincerely apologize if my comments hurt your feeling. thanks nihit mehta
Do some research, India was around way before 1947 or when ever, it was conquered by Alexander the Great, Kenghis Khan's Mongol's, the Mougals, some British Company, and the British Queen. After the queen took over it became a colony, so has you can clearly see if you a mind India was around for a a while.
Most of the changes have to do with punctuation and sentence construction.
I have replaced "delta islands" with archipelago, which is what the Sunderbans is.
Added a ref. to PV Narsimha Rao
The counterpart of economic size in terms of PPP is GNP.
the sentence regionally as well as globally is correct and could be used, but does not fit into the sentence construction properly even in the older version - hence removed, but can be reinstated if propely constructed.
The Sepoy Mutiny is also called the Sepoy Rebellion (BBC), though Indians call it the 1st war of independence.
The sentence on Mahatma Gandhi leading the independence movement was mangled. Split it for easier reading.
Need to use caps for describing the features of the Indian Constitution.
Expanded on the Emergemcy a wee bit, with a date.
BPO and Software are service industries
Pongal and Onam are celebrated in their resp states.
removed ref to Indian Cricket Team - more appropriate in a seperate article.
A prev version had the foll:
In 1977, a united opposition, under the banner of the Janata Party, won the election and formed a non-Congress government for a short period after the unpopular 'emergency rule' imposed by Indira Gandhi in the previous Congress regime.
First there is no explicit mentioning of the lifting of emergency. Moreover, I think the use of unpopular is a mild POV. So played around with construction, thats all.
Pizzadeliveryboy 20:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I have changed the links for India's national bird and flower to the specific species
Pizzadeliveryboy 16:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I have reverted Vastu's image change since a south indian temple is already depicted above (in the end of the history section). Moreover the argument (Perhaps a temple of the southern style would be better here?) itself is a bit queer.
Pizzadeliveryboy 14:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I have removed some images:
=Nichalp «Talk»= 07:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the article is and should be a show piece to create a first impression. But more importantly, it is important to depict the diveristy of India.
Hence it would be better to include some northern indian temple, not because south indian temples arent grand enough, but because there is already one instance in the article. Something like somnath or dilwara or Golden temple would be apt (there is no reason why it should be only a Hindu tenple, and not a sikh or jain templle or a mosque or church or synagogue or fire temple - think about that).
Pizzadeliveryboy 14:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Question: Why the fixation with edifices? =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Happy Indian Republic Day 2006 to all!!! -- 195.229.241.187 13:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
The use of "granting" implies that the British willingly, on their own accord, gave up India (and thereby 'mutually consented' in 'according a previlege or favor' to the Indians - see dictionary for correct meaning of the verb 'to grant'), without any due credit to the Indian independence movement. This is untrue since there is a long history of struggle on several fronts, which eventually led to the people of India succeeding in gaining (thereby, acquiring (through struggle)) their independence from the British.
Pizzadeliveryboy 16:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
How many does India have? The info table states "Hindi, English, and 21 other languages" whereas 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)
it is in pondicherry
Bijun
10:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
user talk:bijun
The map of India that has been shown on this site is erroneous. This is so because the occupied Kashmir part has been painted in the same colour as that of Pakistan. I would like to say that this is a serious discrepency since the Pakistan occupied Kashmir is still not recognised as the part of Pakistan. The official line is that Kashmir is an integral part of India. It can be depicted as a disputed part but showing it as a part of Pakistan is not acceptable. 61.246.165.179 04:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
The new emblem is actually correct one (it has the motto below the figure, which the earlier one lacked), though the saffron color is a little suggestive. Does anyone have an image like the earlier version, but with the motto subscribed below, and of a higher resolution (the earlier version was too small, and when force-fitted in the template, led to a loss of resolution)??
I have reinstited some classical dance forms and classified them into south and north. all of these are patronized by Sangeet Natak Akademi and several other classical art institutions of a national level. I am not sure of Yakshaganga, but someone can verify.
As far as festivals, need to include non-hindu ones too, esp of the phrase melting pot in the beginning of the para has to have any meaning. Pongal and Onam are local south indian fests, much like GC and DP.
Pizzadeliveryboy 14:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
The national bird of India is the male variety of the species Pavo cristatus. The common name of the bird is peafowl, but only the male species has been granted the honor.
Please check National Bird of India search entry in Google.
Pizzadeliveryboy 15:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Wondering y cuisine and culture are in the same section. Also there is no mention of folk or classical art (painiting/sculpture) - only cinema, dance and music is present. The section should actually be Art and Culture, and cuisine/eating habits/staple diet should be another section, not in culture. Pizzadeliveryboy 00:17, 5 February 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)
Considering that the culture section has distinct paras on dance, music, art and cuisine, all relevant main pages should be listed in the main article section, instead of the see also sec Pizzadeliveryboy 17:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Using numerals for numbers makes sense since its shorter, easier to be caught while just glancing thru text, and if we stdize this across the article, the length of the article will go outta hand!!!
Pizzadeliveryboy 18:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Can you please change the picture of the Flag which has been vandalized. Thanx
All reference to Afghan invasions refer to incidents involving Pashtun peoples. The incidents involving C Asian and Persian rulers involve Turkic and Persian peoples (themselves distinct), which is different from the former. Hence, they are generally classified as Muslim invasions. Pizzadeliveryboy 13:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Is there an official national costume for India? I seriously doubt if it's there. How about a national calendar? If these are not official, they need to be removed from the table of national symbols. -- Sundar \ talk \ contribs 11:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
SVP Jayanti is not a national holiday, and Diwali is a religious one. Pizzadeliveryboy 00:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
...is an article listing some book sources on India for the interested persons. As it is not an encyclopedic topic, it would be better to delete that article and move the content to India article. Since India is a featured article (and I don't know how to delete an article), I am requesting to major contributors here to give this idea a thought. Thanks. Ashish G 19:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the topic in demographics which included affirmative action. One reason is that the Constitution only provides for the setting up of educational institutes by minorities. Reservations were supposed to last for only 10 years when introduced by Ambedkar. The reservations are based on sops introduced by the government. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Would any editors who have native or resident knowledge of India care to comment on recent edits to this article? I remove the review sections as well as the external links; the original author feels that the links are important. My problem is that I have no sense of how notable the sites mentioned are. If they are as notable as Craigslist and/or meet WP:CORP, then I'd say that they merit their own articles and should be internally linked. Thoughts? OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I am the author of the online classifieds in india article. I would like to request that the original article be reverted to on the main site so that knowledgeable users on India can review it like ohnoitsjamie mentioned. bluesargam Talk 23:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
The caste system has been systematicallty ignored and then deleted. India cannot be considered a democracy when there exists such an apartheid institution that violates the very basic principle of human rights. The 'untouchables' or haryana are a realiy and murdered. Get real and mention the cast system Trompeta 11:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Someone's deleted a sentance ive put in a few times. Would you like to discuss it? It is extremely misleading to say india has the 4th largest economy in ppp terms - yes that is true, but you are using economical statistics to mislead people (5/6th of Wikipedia community who are not Indian). India ranks 152nd when it comes to GDP/capita ppp figures. Any Economist who who can understand basic World Economy can tell you that. Anyways there is a section on India's Economy allready I think it is unneccessary over here.Its good to be proud of ur country, but not if it blinds you from the truth. The Mystic
Yes India's GDP per capita is also stated straight away - I put it there. Together they are fine but one buy itself leads to bias.
Has anyone considered switching to inline citations? Guidelines have changed since this article was featured. It would be useful if people looked into it and made sure this article still adheres to new guidelines instead of waiting for FARC. ( Blacksun 05:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC))
The image lists it as being in Delhi, but isn't Akshardham Temple in Gandhinagar? -- Soumyasch 16:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Is it possible that the To-Do list is outdated? Because my edits on foreign relations were rapidly reverted. If so then it would be nice if we did get an updated to-do list so that potential editors could get more work done. Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
speaking of foreign relations how the heck was india a founding member of the U.N when it achieved independence in 1947 after the U.N was made? if it was a founder during the british period then i dont think it should be mentioned as at that time pakistan was a part of it and its foriegn relations were obviously being handled by the british. if such a comment is to be made, it should be within the context of british india, which should actually be a separate article. so ive removed this erroneous line.sorry i dont know how to make a new topic. Falcon7385 16:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
But with one major difference - Russia was not a colony of USSR but India was a colony of Britain - Hence this should be attributed to Britain and not the Indian people who were only involved in world war 2 because of britain.if it is to be stated that India was among the founders then i think Pakistan should also be considered as such because it was a part of India at the time.As you can see this is going to lead to some misunderstandings.In truth the foriegn affairs of india were not being determined by either the pakistani's( or the muslim freedom fighters as they were back then) or the indians.Thats why it is erroneous to consider the India of today as a continuation of the India at that time since it's government back then had its prioirities being determined by foriegners.Equating the past and present India is a more likely pitfall for newcomers ,than in the case of russia simply because russia had a different name back then. that's why i think a separate article be made to deal with this era of the subcontinents history (note that i havent used the term indian history deliberalty as this implys the modern india). Falcon7385 18:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Falcon, most people will agree that India is the sucessor country. It is like Yogoslavia. Serbia is the sucessor country. Even if the India was under the British, it was still a different "nation". Thus, it is fair to consider India occupied by the British, not "apart" of it.
I am wondering what the relative sizes of various regional film industries in India are? I would have thought that the Bangla film industry is one of the bigger ones, but obviously that's not true, looking at the list of regional industries mentioned.-- ppm 01:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
The two topics are similar but different. Perhaps it would be better to seperate them and expand a little on both. It just doesn't do justice to have Indian politics and foreign relations summed up in that tiny paragraph. It also doesn't fit in the page to have a heading called Politics and Foreign Relations. Opinions? Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Aren't Indians anthropologically caucasoid? If so, why are they classified as Asian, unlike all other caucasoids are classified as White.
File:England flag large.png अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey 13:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually that's mainly used in America and Canada, but in Europe Asian is applied to south asians while oriental people are put in the category of chinese or other. (I think)
DaGizza, dravidians are said to be descendents of Pre-Vedic Anatolian migrants to India. Atleast thats what i read... moreover DaGizza we dont originate from Europe, our race originates from Central Asia thats where Caucasus is... File:England flag large.png अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey 14:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't see any edits since placement of "underconstruction" tag, so I assume the editor who placed it is not doing anything at least today. Hence, I'm removing it to allow cleanup of the article. Next, I've reverted the history sections huge dump of colonial history. India has a history spanning at least 2500 years, and the colonial part isn't ALL of it, it gets its due share in the History of India page. The history section in THIS page is supposed to be a summary, which it does just fine.
I also reverted the language comment, Sangskrit is not the ONLY major language root in India, the southern areas developed their own language independently.
Thanks. --
Ragib
05:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Don't bother too much about the nomination. Bob would have to point out specific areas where the prose is bad, and his case is rather weak. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Our strategy should be to quickly fix any grammar issues in FARC and not contest them. Subjective criteria not listed in WP:WIAFA can be opposed. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I have reverted the recent restructuring of headings. The heading levels of the article is strictly based on recommendations of Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries#Sections. Also, having a single subheading is considered bad style. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Ryz05, I appreciate your efforts to improve this article but the use of such subheadings are structurally wrong. To justify the use of descendents, you must have at least two subheadings. Secondly, if you need to make use of subheadings, the lead matter before subsections must be an overview of the content that follows. ie
==Section== [overview of the sections to follow] ===Subsection=== ===Subsection===
I agree that the politics and government sections are similar, but merging content together will create a very large section. Conversely, having =politics= as a subsection of the =Government= is structurally wrong, as shown above. [Note: I do this stuff in my non-wiki life]. The compromise would be to have separate top level headings. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
What does inote|tongues mean? I dont understand how to make sense of some of the inotes in the article. I went to the inote discussion page but that was not very helpful either. I think someone who knows about inotes needs to go through them to make sure they are correctly formatted. I am also debating whether we should have a debate over switching the system after the FARC is dealt with. -- Blacksun 13:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
{{inote|see Jordan page 25|Jordan-25}}
Inline referencing has been spruced up. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
The image of BSE is very relevant to the economy section. Stock market is primary source of Foreign investment in India. The caption on that image makes it very relevant to the article. It has been readded. -- Blacksun 23:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
It is insane to suggest that "efforts to eradicate illiteracy has met with little success." At the time of independence, the literacy rate was in the 20s. And given the gignormous size of the population, when 1% composes 10 million people, it is commendable progress. By 2011, it should be above 70%. Rama's Arrow 13:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
According to major world religions, Sikhism constitutes 0.36% of the world's population, which I'm not sure constitutes as a majowr world religion and Jainism is not even listed as a world religion. Jainism's population is listed as 4.2 million (which is less than 0.07% of the total approximate population of the world) -- Jibran1 22:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Sikhism and Jainism are both in the worlds major religions. Read up on the religions..I think it's their somewhere. I also remember learning in school (yes unreliable at times i know...) the 6 major religions, in which they were both in
Holy Ganga, I removed the latest image uploaded by you in teh culture section because their is no way that section can support 4 images. Also, the caption in that image required a reference. If you really want to keep that image than replace it with the food or holi image.-- Blacksun 03:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Why is the University of New Mexico holi photo in the India main page? The section is Culture of India, not Indian culture. Naus 01:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Its pretty bad in quality and that image is quite crude. What was a pretty short yet straight forward section before has been butchered under the pretense of expansion. Please do a better job with it or revert it. -- Blacksun 03:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Important: please Comment. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand the need to put the name of Republic of India in Tamil letters in the beginning of the article as Tamil is one of the languages which belong to India and there are many languages other than Tamil in India.
Any comments? Subramanya 05:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
On one occasion under demographics it says 1.19 bilion people and up on the right it says 1.09 bilion population. Confused
As far as I know there are only three national holidays in India and not four. I have changed the number accordingly. I tried searching the official websites of India but could not come up with a number. However, the linked article in this section also mentions only three national holidays and not four ramit 11:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Do we really need to have Jinnah's photo in an article on India? Subramanya 08:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Well the rational behind is that to show that these two countries shared their history.. its the same thing done in the Pakistan article.. The people there also criticised.. (me included) that the picture of Gandhi was unsuitable for that page.. but in order to show neutrality and lack of prejudice i think its a good idea.. because either choose to put both pictures of gandhi and jinnah in respective webpages of histories of pakistan and india, or show the photos on both webpages.. to not support any specific side. Iquadri
Interesting.. the same debate was being taken in pakistan article webpage some time ago.. i would advice you to go there and read the discussions.. the same question was raised that Gandhi had nothing to do with post pakistan.. but pre pakistan there was a history between Gandhi and Jinnah.. you cannot turn your back on history. If we can accept the picture as a tribute to history , why should it not be recognized as same here.. Infact , it shows that the two leaders while having difference of opinions, were trying to work hard to attain peace between the two nations living in Indian Subcontinent at that time, while working to drive the British out of that region. Its not a political image, but a tribute to both countries histories. Both indian and pakistani writers have agreed that these pictures show history, its not anything politic, but its heritage. iquadri 18:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, if the only rationale to put that picture here is that it is on the Pakistan page, then it can be removed since the two articles cannot be linked. Remove it. Anand Arvind 20:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Does someone not want to mention an ideological conflict of the Aryan and Dravidian cultural clashes, and the general-expectation of rest-of-India to expect Tamils to know Hindi, and the associated Racist behaviour? --பராசக்தி 00:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
What for? kevin 13:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)kevin_b
I wouldn't use such strong words, but yes, the cultural differences and accompanying issues need be mentioned, but not here. See Wikipedia:Summary style. A mention could be made in Culture of India and Languages of India if and only if we have reliable citations. Original research is not allowed here. -- Sundar \ talk \ contribs 07:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, I have nothing against the image as such but why Jinnah? I think an image on Gandhi and Nehru is more appropriate. Thanks -- Incman| वार्ता 06:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I have expanded the section on government of India to show a clearer picture. The existing piece was not enough to give a clear picture of the govt. Further, I have readded a section on races in demography (please dont be a racophobic: as an academic discussion, each country's article has racial demographies). Also, I removed the lnaguages to a section on its own. The article on Hindustan was biased and factually incorrect. I have added to it and corrected the mistakes. Much of the material is from Webster's New World dictionary. Cygnus_hansa 09:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
The article has deteriorated in quality since I last saw it. It seems that new edits are not scrutinised closely. Even the refs have been tampered with!! =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Is this relegion important enough to be added here ? Tintin ( talk) 06:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I think we all can see a bad case of original research and propaganda here. Of course, I don't mean any offence to the followers of the religion, and the religion itself, as I respect all religions of the world. However, the point everyone is trying to make is that, wikipedia is not the place to do original research, and we don't want wikipedia to be the primary source of information on any topic. Until the religion becomes notable by itself and with a large following, we do not want to have wikipedia used as a propaganda and proselytizing medium. Thanks. --
Ragib
06:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I looked into the
Ayyavazhi page itself, and it doesn't seem to contain *ANY* references to established sources at all. Where are the sources? Uncited material is very much likely to be original research, and hence need to be converted to cited/referenced text, or removed altogether. Thanks. --
Ragib
08:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I've added {{ unsourced}} tags to some pages, most of which have quite outstanding claims without a shred of references. I also suggest we do any further discussion in the related pages. The amount of original research is outstanding!! I hope editors from the south or those who are familiar with the area could comment on this topic, and look into the articles mentioned in List of Ayyavazhi-related articles. Thanks. -- Ragib 08:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I am making an Asian repository of images. Please complete the India part as you see fit, preferably similar to those of France, Britain et al:
Wikipedia:List of images/Places/Asia
I will be working on Iran's section. Thanx. Nemeste.-- Zereshk 01:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Amazing that in 2006, their are still people who dont want to mention India being the homeland of the Aryans....And why I try to put this in, our great friend here erases it & copies and pastes his B.S. version of India....Good job 08:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)