Talk:India/Archive 39

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Contents

Picture bickering

For the past few months I've only seen this page used to debate on the appropriateness of the pictures. This is never going to end and no consensus is ever going to be reached. The images on the page are sufficient for the moment. Those actively pushing for images to be changed could invest their time in sourcing images for articles that do not have images. =Nichalp «Talk»= 02:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Indian Hockey

The Rich hockey tradition in Coorg (Kodagu), Karnataka (see Kodava Hockey Festival) and no doubt Punjab and a few other states needs to be mentioned just as soccer in Bengal, Goa and Kerela finds particualr mention in the below sentence, at the bottom of the article.

India's national sport is field hockey, though cricket is the most popular Indian sport. In some states, particularly those in the northeast and the states of West Bengal, Goa, and Kerala, football (soccer) is also a popular sport.

thanksDineshkannambadi (talk) 04:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, both Coorg ([1]) and Punjab ([2]) are reported as the cradle of Indian hockey.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Dwaipayan, user:Dineshkannambadi can't keep adding POV text like " the cradle on (sic) Indian hockey," which, in addition to being grammatically incorrect, implies that all hockey in India was nurtured there. As I have shown below, a large part of Indian hockey, including many of the greats, are not from Punjab or Coorg. user:Dineshkannambadi has now gone ahead and made the changes, without full discussion here, in spite of data that I have presented to the contrary, which he minimizes as "rant." Since I have promised to not edit the article, I won't; however, these edits should be reverted. The user is again trying to introduce regional themes (involving his state, Karnataka), so soon after his previous abortive attempt. Why not simply mention Dhyan Chand, since he is the undisputed great of Indian and World Hockey – like Bradman for cricket or Pele for soccer – and his birthday is celebrated as National Sports Day in India (if you want a vignette)? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Its amazing that one small hill district has produced 50 players of international standards, and a few who actually captained India at the highest levels. I prefer to ignore the ranting underneath.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I have added the citations for "cradle of field hockey" with the links provided above by User:Dwaipayanc just above.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I am trying to stay away from editing this page, but I don't think anything needs to be mentioned with regards hockey, unless we want a long list. Of the top ten greats of Indian hockey: (1. Dhyan Chand, 2. Roop Singh, 3. K. D. Singh (Babu), 4. Leslie Claudis, 5. Balbir Singh Sr., 6. Inam-ur-Rehman , 7. B. P. Govinda, 8. Surjit Singh, 9. Mohammad Shahid 10. Dhanraj Pillay), six (Numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9) were from UP or MP, two from Punjab, one each from Karnataka/Coorg and Maharashtra, not counting Ashok Kumar (also from UP), who selected the players for the list. In addition, Bombay had a rich tradition with R. S. Gentle, Leslie Pinto, etc. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
In India's Ministry of Sports' Sports Legends, the men's hockey list is a little longer: Ajit Pal Singh (Punjab), Ashok Kumar (UP), Balbir Singh (Punjab), B. P. Govinda (Karnataka/Coorg), Charanjit Singh (HP), Dhanraj Pillai (Maharashtra), Dhyan Chand (UP), Harbinder Singh Chimini (Punjab), Harmik Singh (Punjab), Kunwar Digvijay Singh "Babu" (UP), Leslie Walter Claudis (MP), M. P. Ganesh (Karnataka/Coorg), Mohammad Shahid (UP), Prithipal Singh (Punjab), Shankar Laxman (MP), Surjit Singh Randhawa (Punjab), Udham Singh (Punjab), Vasudevan Baskaran (Tamil Nadu), V. J. Peter (Tamil Nadu)
Punjab (7), UP (4), MP (2), Karnataka/Coorg (2), Tamil Nadu (2), Maharashtra (1), HP (1)
How are we going to divvy it up? Mention all seven states? Hockey is the national sport. It is played in a lot of places. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
The article India is not a page where keep adding info related to a particular state. We all know, India is written in WP:SS style and hence WP:UNDUE should be kept in mind. I must however add that the the info on Coorg is certainly fit for Hockey in India and Coorg articles. KnowledgeHegemony 16:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protect

I've semi-protected this article due to the repeat disruption by anon and new users over the last few days. —— Eagle101Need help? 17:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


North indian biased page

In the cultural column why that Toda hut of Tamil Nadu had been replaced by lotus temple of Delhi.More over I poste d the Pic of the The Big Temple Of Thanjavur.why was it deleted though it is master piece in Native indian art and declared as a world heritage sit —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arun1paladin (talk • contribs) 15:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[arun1paladin] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arun1paladin (talk • contribs) 15:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


If it is cultural rotation why Taj Mahal pic is not removed.It is not superior to the temple of Thanjavur jus tbecause it is famous [arun1paladin] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.229.168 (talk) 16:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Taj mahal should be in history section

Taj mahal was built during moghal empire. 3 images

  1. early history
  2. moghal empire
  3. british rule / freedom fight

These 3 images would portray history of India in a graphical way. If not Taj, some other moghal architecture image would suit for history section. Also im unable to fathom how Taj belongs to culture?? :( Vital brick 1 (talk) 04:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Awesome

Awesome article.....I am impressed ...I just stopped by to congratulate the guys over this work.....nice ...really impressive...Keep up the good work Yourdeadin (talk) 09:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Yourdeadin

National Animal

The national animal is Tiger. It is not specifically the Royal Bengal Tiger, though the adjective "Royal Bengal" sounds good, its not correct to be talking of the Indian National Animal. Please correct the National animal to "Tiger". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srinivasbt (talk • contribs) 07:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Poverty Image

User Otolemur crassicaudatus insists on adding an image[3] of people living in absolute poverty. I think mentioning poverty in india in the text is enough and placing a link at the top of the economy section for "poverty in india" is enough and I certainly dont think that an image needs to be used.

  • This image shows absolute poverty, which does not represent all of india. Yes, India has a lot of poor, but they certainly dont live like this. This image is very misleading.
  • Also, there is poverty in every country. I see poverty everytime I walk in downtown Los Angeles. I see poverty when I walk in Manhattan, New York the world's financial capital. I live in what is considered the richest area in America [ Beverly Hills, Hollywood, Bel Air, Brentwood ], yet I can tell you first hand that there is some poverty here as well. It is nothing new and it is nothing unique to India. I hope the examples made my point clear. The text in the economy section and also the "See also" link to poverty in india at the top of the economy section is enough.
  • Every country has poverty, but there is no specification that every country article on wiki must have an image of poverty, so why should just the India page? This is an attempt to deride india by a user who obviously does not have a liking for the country as can be judged by his edits: [4]
  • Also, what happened to picture quality? User Fowler always taks about getting quality images on the page that are featured, so how can he explain his addition of this image, which is certainly not quality? [5]
  • Image does not show economy, "the system of human activities related to the production, distribution, exchange, and consumption of goods and services of a country or other muffin."
  • If this image goes on the India page, I might be justified in putting an image of the Mukesh Ambani family sitting in their skyscraper under the caption "Shown here is the world's richest family in their skyscraper"

Nikkul (talk) 22:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

indeed. it is important to mention issues like poverty, but if we began to illustrate country articles with images showing their least attractive sides, it isn't just the India article that would soon look radically different (one such suggestion was made here... :). Making a point by image choice is to be strongly discouraged. dab (𒁳) 20:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a propaganda website nor a website of the tourism department of a country trying to attract foreign tourists. Wikipedia is general encyclopedia should be written from a neutral point of view. Poverty exists in India, exits despite significant economic progress. It is not neutral to try to illustrate only the attractive sides of a country. A country page in wikipedia should not be written in a way depicting the country a utopia, a country page should be written with verificable, relevant and necessary true facts.

  • What is the reason behind saying "Image does not show economy the system of human activities related to the production, distribution, exchange, and consumption of goods and services of a country or other muffin." Poverty is a significant issue in India and poverty is an integral part of economy. Hence the necessity of the image in the Ecvonomy section.
  • Can Hikkul prove that the image is "very misleading"?

Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


  • Your image does not represent economy, "the system of human activities related to the production, distribution, exchange, and consumption of goods and services of a country or other muffin."
  • Also, there is no sentence showing India as a utopia. If this were the case, there would be no mention of poverty and malnutrition, and economic degredation and illiteracy, and especially in the intro. There is nothing illustrating attractive sides of the country unless it is balanced by the unattractive like the intro paragraph
  • We agree that there is poverty, but there is no need to have an image. Go try putting an image of poverty in america in the economy section on the us page see if it will stay.
  • This is a featured article that has been reviewed by many editors and admins and it has stayed a featured article because it is neutral.
  • Can you prove that all indians in poverty live like this?

Nikkul (talk) 21:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


If you put this image in the economy section, I will be justified in putting an image of the Mukesh Ambani family sitting in their skyscraper under the caption "Shown here is the world's richest family in their skyscraper" Nikkul (talk) 22:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Images of poverty to be used in articles is right. But it must be uptodate information. And the policy cannot be applicable to one particular article about India. It must be there in the article of all nations. Since this picture was taken three years before, I wish I could know about the people. Are they still beggers or they have found a better life.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 06:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The image caption should be "The result of 400 years of colonialism. 60 years is not enough to better everyone's life."Chanakyathegreat (talk) 06:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


The poverty picture can stay in a separate page depicting Poverty of India. But not in this page. I would also remind other patrons/editors that such scene does exist in India as I have travelled from Bangalore to Delhi covering 7 states, 4 National Highways and what I have seen is immense poverty which you guys sitting in air-conditioned room can never even imagine off. I have worked with the slum children and construction workers children in NCR. I have seen them eating only a roti in entire day.

We can have a separate page for poverty in India or ECONOMIC Re-surgence of India.

Regarding the TAJ photo it is one of the 7 new wonders of world and represents a traditional, design rich architecture form India. It marks the history of this great country who witnessed so many historic events from Mughal invasion to British rule to modern India.

Guys lets adhere to Wiki polocies and be more judgemental in editing. At the end of the day none of you will want your editing rights to be revoked. Isnt'it.

AB (talk) 12:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I have removed some flaming and personal attacks, and discussion of personal attacks per WP:TALK. Take such things to user talkpages, this page is burdened enough as it is. This page is exclusively for directly discussing article improvement in specific terms.
  • the poverty image is appropriate on poverty in India but not here. Try to avoid Wikipedia:Main article fixation.

dab (𒁳) 14:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Taj Mahal, a part of the daily rotation?

The Taj Mahal, an FP, is a long-term (permanent) image in the culture section and has not been a part of the daily rotation template. Some users have included it now in the images to be voted on. I wanted to clarify that there first needs to be a consensus that the Taj image should be removed from its long-term place.

  • Im sorry, let us make it clear that nothing is permanent on Wikipedia. Things change. Thats the difference between Encarta and Wikipedia.
  • Second of all, the the Taj image is not being removed it is being placed in a rotation. This will give us a better chance of representing Indian culture since the reader will be exposed to more images about Indian culture.
  • The Taj image isnt sooooooo crucial that it must remain on the india page for ever with no option to change it ever. Please! It relates more to history than culture anyway, which is what I feel (and you dont have to agree)
  • Putting the Taj in the rotation will allow us to better display Indian culture.
  • Also, we could have two rotations: One relating to architecture with a few architecture images as shown above. The other image rotation could be other cultural things like Diwali and Tagore and Sakuntala etc. Nikkul 08:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
"Nothing is permanent on Wikipedia?" Is that a Wikipedia official policy or guideline? After all, none of the other country pages – Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Russia, People's Republic of China, United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Greece, Ireland, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Peru, Australia, New Zealand, and Indonesia – to name a few, have daily or even monthly rotation.
Why this hurriedly propounded categorical imperative for India? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Im sorry, I think that little tab up top that says "edit this page" means that nothing is permanent and that Wikipedia is always changing for the better. I'm not sure if it was you, but someone earlier on had proposed that we stop editing the India page since it was a featured article. This goes against wiki policy.

There is no hurry. I dont see why you feel rushed. There is no deadline. We will wait and see what users think about each image. But for users to discuss images, they must be added in a place where they can discuss them. That is what has happened today. I hope i've caught you up with todays events. Dont worry we will wait and see the comments we get about the images from users and once we have consensus on images, we will add them to the rotation. Nikkul 09:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me read this out to you fowler since you think everything is permanent on wikipedia:

"The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold when updating pages. Wikis like ours develop faster when everybody helps to fix problems, correct grammar, add facts, make sure the wording is accurate, etc. We expect everyone to be bold and help make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia"

"Don't be afraid to edit — anyone can edit almost any page, and we encourage you to be bold! Find something that can be improved, whether content, grammar or formatting, and make it better. You can't break Wikipedia. Anything can be fixed or improved later. So go ahead, edit an article and help make Wikipedia the best information source on the Internet!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikkul (talk • contribs) 09:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


Vote against making the Taj image a part of the rotation template and letting it remain in its current position

  • Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Pretty obvious, really. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 09:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Obvious, Taj must be permanently placed.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • No question. KnowledgeHegemony 17:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • See my reasons in previous discussions on this page Rangek (talk) 18:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Quite obvious really. I thought there was a huge talk over this just last month.Rueben lys (talk) 11:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse the arguments supporting this side from the discussion below. GizzaDiscuss © 22:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree, of course. ~ priyanath talk 02:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Wiki dr mahmad 12:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC) Rotation is against availability of info at all times. May we place it in history section?

Vote for making the Taj image a part of the rotation template and moving it from its current position

  • Nikkul 08:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Comments

Can those saying Taj should be hardcoded into the page give some reasons why you think that way? No 'COZILIKEITs please. Sarvagnya 19:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Name a single architectural creation of India. Ask this question to as many people around the world as possible. Among those who will answer (Many may not be able to answer), I daresay the unanimious majority would be Taj Mahal. The Taj is a cultural icon of Indian architecture as well as Mughal architecture. Yes, despite such rich architectural heritage as Konark, Madurai, Ajanta, Kutub, Lal Killa, Vijaynagar (and so on), Taj remains the numero uno. Everything comes afterwards. Taj and Gandhi are the most knows names from India. That's why.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
You're saying.. coz not just ulikeit.. but manypeoplelikeit. And secondly, why should I ask them about "architectural creation" specifically? Sorry, doesnt cut it. Sarvagnya 06:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
The one-liner then — the taj mahal is the number one cultural icon of India. (There may be others, but Taj is number one). Don't ask about "architectural' creations only, generalize it to culture broadly. This "wonder of the world" is the number one culture icon of India.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
"the taj mahal is the number one cultural icon of India" - ILIKEIT-itis again? The liner makes for a good slogan, yes.. but it is not remotely a verifiable fact. Anything else? btw, am also curious about that 'wonder of the world' thing. sez who? Sarvagnya 06:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Taj is one of the seven wonders of the modern world and the most recognised and historically significant monument in the country. We are not here to deal with subjectivity. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 06:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
imo, the sarnath pillar or Ashoka's edicts can easily give the Taj a run for its money as the most historically significant monuments. Sarvagnya 06:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Then, let's stress on "most recognised"—how's that?--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
The debated New 7 wonders has concluded Taj as one of the wonders. Other "wonder-lists" such as this include Taj as one of the wonders. However, these lists are sometimes debated, and their validity questioned (the new 7 wonder was based on polls by sms etc). But, that Taj is the only entry from India in these lists goes on to show that wonder or not, it is India's most recognised cultural icon.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
That 7 new wonders is some enterprising businessman's POV. Not encyclopedic. Not fact. For that matter, in a similar contest organised by the Times of India Gomateshwara was "Wonder No. 1"(by miles, actually) while Taj was a poor third. *over* Sarvagnya 20:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I already admitted that new wonder thing is much debated. Let's have a look at Wonders of the World. It has many lists. Some lists feature Taj mahal, some does not. However, the only entry from India is Taj Mahal, otherwise none from India. Whether becasue of writings of the travellers, or other forms of publicity, I don't know, but Taj is the number one cultural icon of India. There are a lot of other treasures of India comparably significant or aesthetically pleasant. But, taj has somehow become the number 1 icon. Now that it has become so, we cannot help that. It is not a matter of "I like it". Yes, it is a question of "Majority knows it, recognises it". --Dwaipayan (talk) 20:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
POV, regardless of how many people share it, is still POV. Not fact. Not even tangible. For that matter, it is an equally(perhaps more) widely held POV that "Sachin is the greatest!!" That doesnt mean we hardcode Sachin into an article even at the expense of stubbing out the likes of Vishy Anand, Milkha Singh, P T Usha, Prakash Padukone et al. Does it? Sarvagnya 21:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, the Taj isnt to India what the Statue of Liberty is to the US. The Taj has little or no historical significance. Beautiful for a cemetry, yes. But not much else. Sarvagnya 21:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

oops, you denied it right before I was going to put it. Exactly it is. Staue of Liberty-USA, Pyramid-Egypt, Eiffel Tower-France; so is Taj-India. I am not talking about historical sigificance. Am talking about the association (that has developed for maybe some weird reason, but the association has developed). --Dwaipayan (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

All those monuments except the Taj are associated with their native countries for very good and very tangible(non POV) reasons. All of them are historically extremely significant to their home countries. That apart, the Eiffel tower and the pyramids were engineering feats of their time of their country (biggest, tallest etc.,.). In fact, they still are. Nothing else in Egypt, for example, can compare either in sheer size or in terms of historical significance to its pyramids. None of this is true in the case of the Taj. Simply saying.. "aah! its so beautiful.. it takes my breath away!" doesnt fly because wikipedia fortunately has a NPOV policy. Sarvagnya 21:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

One particular image cannot be there for ever. I support including Taj in the rotation policy.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 15:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Dwaipayanc, there are certain reason for giving the Taj the importance whereas neglecting other historical important, beautiful architectural marvels. It's the western way of looking at things. Especially from a religious perspective.[6]. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Chanakya! The video link you provided was extremely good, the lost temples of India. However, the initial sentences in the video (This is the face of India the whole world knows...Taj Mahal...) is precisely why the taj Mahal image should be there on the page. It may be wrong (in your words, the western way...) to consider Taj as the face/cultural icon of India. But, the fact is, it is considered so, at least at present, despite India having so many marvelous monuments/temples/structures.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
In light of Chanakya's comments above, I am a bit confused. Is it that keeping the image gives prominence to Islamic architecture, or that it gives prominence only to one historical (sans religious) site while ignoring others? While the Taj is accepted one of the most beautiful examples of islamic architecture, that is not its only identity. As Dwaipayan points out, it is amongst the most beutiful architectures in the world. And Taj and India is a bit like you think Statue of Liberty for USA, or the Colloseum when you say Rome. And I must disagree with Sarvagnya, because the Taj itself is (was) also an achievement for when it was built. And I dont see how it violates the NPOV policy, if a view is shared by a huge majority of people, that is a mainstream view, although I cant see what's nonneutral with thinking, the Taj is one of the most beuatiful buildings in India and in the world.Rueben lys (talk) 11:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Minor edit in the preamble of this article: A suggestion

We have at present the text: -

Bounded by the Indian Ocean on the south, the Arabian Sea on the west, and the Bay of Bengal on the east, India has a coastline of 7,517 kilometers (4,671 mi).[12] It borders...

Can we rewrite it as: -

India's lower half, a triangular peninsula, is bounded by the Indian Ocean on the south, the Arabian Sea on the west, and the Bay of Bengal on the east, creating a coastline of 7,517 kilometers (4,671 mi).[12] Her vast, northern, upper half borders ...


I am rather new here and do not know how a protected article receives edits. Please look at the proposed emendation and incorporate it if acceptable. Thanks. Wiki dr mahmad 16:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries (lead section). Geographical features are typically not mentioned in the lead (see also other country articles like United States, United Kingdom, Australia). Please also see WP:SS. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Fowler. Incredible; how fast it works here ! I saw the USA article. Now, will it be proper to improve the sentence strucure (it is not conveying the country's coast line and borders info in accurate language), or drop from the lead this somewhat inaccurate geographical boundries sentence altogether? Your decision and further action please. Thanks again for the message. Wiki dr mahmad —Preceding comment was added at 18:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The current sentence is fine. Your proposed sentence is not an improvement. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I close this topic. Have a nice day. Wiki dr mahmad —Preceding comment was added at 19:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Ganges Image

The Ganges River is the most important river in India. It is not only a cultural and religious landmark, but also a huge geographical structure that has made India, for it provides water, sanitation, and agriculture to millions of Indians. How can we not have an image of the Ganges? Nikkul (talk) 20:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

What is the significance of the ganges image in Geography section with reference to a particular religion? This image can be opposed for various reasons:
  • This image shows a scene of a river. Any river in India can be photographed like this. Ganges is an important river in India. But this particular image does not clarify the significance of Ganges.
  • In geography section, it would be better to add maps or something like that. Hence a map showing rivers in India can be added.
  • What is the significance to mention Hinduism? The significance of something to a particular religion should be mentioned in religion section, not in geography section. The Geography section is not the right place to talk about something with reference to religion.Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


How would u liked the ganges to be photographed?
  • It is a river...with water. how else can u show a river. all rivers look similar.
  • there already is a map of rivers and geography
  • if u dont like the mention of hinduism in the caption, u can change the caption. there is no need to remove the image entirely

Nikkul (talk) 20:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The picture (Ganges) is not informative enough as it is. We may substitute another picture which shows the river and includes a Kumbh-mela scene, or the cremations, on its ghats; it could appear in another section e.g. on Religions or cultures of India.Wiki dr mahmad (talk) 17:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Geography section

I have replaced the current illustrations (one too high-res with little annotation, the other anonymous with little information) in the Geography section with two maps from the Geography of India page. These maps illustrate the text perfectly. I hope these edits will be acceptable. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

What is the point of having one map that shows rivers and mountains and having another map that shows just rivers? Thats pointless. What do u mean anonymous? The Ganges is a very very important river and having just maps for the page is bad. I have brought the ganges image back. please discuss having two images showing the same thing before adding it to the page. there is no opposition to the ganges image as long as it doesnt mention hinduism. Nikkul 04:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
The maps illustrate the text perfectly. The "rivers" map shows a reader where the rivers are in relation to each other, something that your Ganges image does not. The Ganges image is anonymous because any river could look like that in a picture. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Why dont we just make the whole page just maps? In the history section, we can show the british raj in a map and Gandhi's Salt March route in a map. For the government section, we can show where New Delhi is. For the flora section we can show in which regions the animals live and for the culture section, we can show the culural divide in india. Infact, why have text when you can have maps? Lets just have a series of maps or just one giant map!!! Nikkul 20:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The rivers of India.
The rivers of India.
The Ganges River is a major river in India
The Ganges River is a major river in India
That is because Geography is about maps. (Compare the Wikipedia pages on Geography and History. Where do you see the map?) Here is the text from the India#Geography section about rivers:
“ Major Himalayan-origin rivers that substantially flow through India include the Ganges and the Brahmaputra, both of which drain into the Bay of Bengal.[1] Important tributaries of the Ganges include the Yamuna and the Kosi, nicknamed "Bihar's Sorrow", whose extremely low gradient causes disastrous floods every year. Major peninsular rivers–whose steeper gradients prevent their waters from flooding–include the Godavari, the Mahanadi, the Kaveri, and the Krishna, which also drain into the Bay of Bengal,[2] and the Narmada and the Tapti, which drain into the Arabian Sea.[3] ”

It really is a nobrainer as to which of the two illustrations is more informative, especially when the "Ganges" image is about as unencylopedic as an image can get. There is nothing in the image that gives us any information about the Ganges. The body of water displayed could be a lake, or the ocean, or any other river like the Brahmaputra, Nile, Amazon, ... Please re-read Mikaul's comments on your Qutub Minar FPC image. The same applies here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I have replaced rivers, as topo is essential, for who can understand pic. But currently there is no image showing something related to hinduism. Mind you India is motherland for hindus. Some hindu temple would be appropriate, dont say ajantha caves carvings.. Vital brick 1 11:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Topographic map of India
Topographic map of India
Hinduism in the Geography section? Why is the topographical map essential? (It is displayed on the right.) Especially, when it is too high-res to be useful? It doesn't have the names of the rivers, only cities. Almost like someone was trying to turn a physical map into a political map. On the other hand, you are right, it does give some visual and finer scaled information that the other map doesn't. Let me suggest the following compromise. Later in the day, I will add the names of the rivers to the topographical map (shown on the right) and reduce it in size a little and then replace it with the current rivers map. How does that sound? Please don't revert until then. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I've asked Nichalp to weigh in (since he made the two maps). Why don't we hold off making further decisions until we've heard from him? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

How about adding the names of the mountains and the rivers to the original map instead of replacing the original with two new maps. This page is not supposed to be all maps. We have maps in demographics and subdivisions already. Nikkul 21:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Kangchenjunga, highest point in Indian Himalaya
Kangchenjunga, highest point in Indian Himalaya
Here's another suggestion for a geography image, in place of one of the maps. I agree with others that the Ganges image 'says' nothing visually, whereas this (or another like it) visually 'says' Indian Himalaya. (no, I'm not back editing the article yet, just suggesting one possible solution to yet another image discussion.) ~ priyanath talk 02:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
These days rivers are of least significance. Its climate, rain, soil, forest etc are what matters in geography. Topo map says it all clearly, and it is there in "every" other country's article. Vital brick 1 03:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Huh? "Its climate, rain, soil, forest etc" What are you talking about? All that this topographic map has is altitude. All countries don't have topographic maps. To be sure, some like United States and Peru do, others like United Kingdom and Australia don't (they have climate maps); others still, like France and Canada have satellite images. I tend to agree with a combination of Nikkul and Priyanath's suggestions: label the rivers in the first map (Nichalp's map with caption "Topographical features of India) and replace the second map with the Kinchenjunga image (which looks like a nice high-def image). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, altitude determines climate, rain, forests etc etc and etc,(or those can be "guessed" by altitude data) if one can understand a topographic map. It is an encyclopedia which is supposed to be professional, not to teach a layman with text-labeled-images like textbooks. Vital brick 1 16:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


Why dont we add names of mountains and rivers to the original topo map? This can be done instead of having two maps. Nikkul (talk) 06:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


Topographic map shown here is valuable in itself. I wish it were not lost due to this discussion and finds a place somewhere; with manageable zooming and labeling as suggested separately by Users F&F and Nikkul. That map would aid specific groups in understanding the role of topology in quite a few areas of interest, e.g. the pathways of evolution of ancient civilizations and subsequent largescale political/religio-cultural events in this part of South Asia, (not to mention prehistoric Vedic/Poranic accounts); adding more maps may be considered. Thanks. Wiki dr mahmad (talk) 18:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Taj debate: My two cents !

We know India is bigger than many countries of Western Europe put together. And so, expectedly, perceptions on monuments and cultures are so different in its four corners. Can we resolve the Taj issue by adding more pictures permanently, as follows?

1. If, in addition to Taj monument, we accommodate at appropriately chosen locations in the article more permanent pictures, e.g. of Minakshi temple, Madurai (with an additional photo of its great interior architecture)/ Konark temple, Khajuraho (and an example of its famous exterior iconography)/ Gomteshwara statue, Karnataka/ Golden temple, Amritsar and Ashoka’s pillar, Delhi (or one important stupa), we might overcome various objections put forth by other Users.

2. Cultures may better be represented by show casing Durga puga/procession (Bengal), Ganpati pendal/procession (Maharashtra), Diwali illumination (North India), Onam (or Ayyappam) celeberation (Kerala), Kumbh Mela scene etc.

Please consider. Thanks. Wiki dr mahmad 18:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. Taj has nothing to do with "culture", it should be moved to some other section, preferable to history section. Also there is no image related hindus. Hindus are little over-secular that they feel it is shame to call themselves so. Vital brick 1 03:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I have been stating this forever. Finally, someone who understands! Nikkul (talk) 06:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


why don't you take the Brihadeeshwara temple of Thanjavur.It is several times better than the Madurai Meenakashi temple .Brihadeeshwara temple is an architectural and engineering wonder.It is a WORLD HERITAGE SITE.The shadow of the capstone of the temple's tower never falls on ground !! [user talk:arun1paladin|talk] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.226.158 (talk) 15:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC) (talkArun1paladin (talk) 15:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC))

Caste system

I don't really understand why there is no link to the caste system. It's one of the most distinguished key-terms, that is, it's significantly related to India and its people but is not indexed in this article. Is there any reason for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.157.215.108 (talk) 21:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Archives

Does anyone know why Archive 37, 38 and 39 don't show up in the display? Also, why is Archive 28 displayed as Archive 18? (I think these problems may have begun with the automated archiving, but I'm not sure.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

see Template_talk:archive box. The feature has been altered for performance reasons and a new solution has not been implemented yet. (John User:Jwy talk) 08:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Complications about use of the word "India"

This:

Due to national pride and sensitivities, South Asian nations now insist that, use of the word "India" should be restricted to describe only the present "Republic of India" and should avoid including its other South Asian neighbours in it. Further, they argue that the Indus valley civilization was shared by present day Republic of India and Pakistan and this fact should always be explicitly stated. In order to be neutral, and in fareness to both sides, the International scholarship is now careful in the correct usage of these 'politically loaded' words.

was edited into the India (disambiguation) page by Wiki dr mahmad. I think it inappropriate there as - well - its a disambiguation page for quick access to the various uses of the word and not for the discussion of the word. I experienced first hand some of the difficulties of this topic when I attempted to standardize the dab page, so I know there is at least some truth to this statement. I would suggest a some mention of this difficulty on this page - or a short mention and further details on a referenced page.

I don't have the citations to create such content and, frankly, am far enough removed from the issues that I prefer not to get in the middle of any discussion that might ensue - but I think it is clearly a topic that should be addressed in Wikipedia. (John User:Jwy talk) 09:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

hello

hello —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.63.28 (talk) 23:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, how are you? Welcome to Wikipedia. If you need some help, please ask us. Saravask (talk) 04:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Why was the "Hindustan" etymology shortened?

Why was

Hindustan (/hin̪d̪ust̪ɑːn/ (info)), which is the Persian word for “Land of the Hindus” and historically referred to northern India, is also occasionally used as a synonym for all of India.

changed to

Hindustan (/hin̪d̪ust̪ɑːn/ (info)), is also occasionally used as a synonym for all of India

59.182.42.143 (talk) 18:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Old version reinstated. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

New data about the state of the world economy (and India's too!!!)

The ICP [7] released data for the year 2005, containing measured data from China (for the first time) and India (first time since 1985), as against EXTRAPOLATED data we had come to rely on (through CIA et. al.) over the last decade. The news item that compelled me to have a fresh look is here. Articles on Economy of India and others need to be updated.

I am looking forward to discussion/criticism, but please vet the data on the WB web site before refuting or undoing changes. The report (with individual tables, region wise data) is available here.

Pizzadeliveryboy (talk) 12:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The World Bank is literally a bank. Their use is to give loans and take interest...The International Monetary Fund, on the other hand, monitors money and the CIA World Fact book is also a credible source. The IMF and CIA both say that the Indian econ is 3rd or 4th so how can u justify that the World Bank's info is more credible that the first two combined? Nikkul (talk) 22:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
As I have already indicated above, both the World Bank and the IMF (according to the New York Times) will soon officially revise their PPP estimates. India will then be the fifth largest economy. The quibbling above will become moot. BTW, the World Bank is not "literally a bank." Both the World Bank and the IMF are nonprofit organizations that offer loans to needy countries and charge very low interest rates (0.5 to 1%). They are nothing like commercial banks. The money comes from donor countries, primarily the U.S., the advanced economies of Europe, and Japan. The donor countries provide the money interest-free and the minimal interest is used to finance the operating budgets of the two institutions (the salaries of the advisers, the economists, and the administrative staff). The difference between the World Bank and the IMF is that the former finances only development projects and gives advice on them, while the latter loans money and looks for implementation of changes in monetary policy and gives advice on that. To say that the World Bank or the IMF will somehow raise the PPP index so that they can get more interest, is ludicrous. The CIA book is fluff and usually outdated in any given year. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Nikkul. Either we list the CIA or the International Monetary Fund estimates (since their estimates are almost identical) or we put all 3. I've seen it on other countries page so I know it's an acceptable compromise. Cosmos416 23:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, maybe I'm missing something. If an institution lends money out for a specific period of time and charges interest on it, does it not make it a bank? Hence the World BANK is literally a bank, else it would not be called a bank, Fowler. The CIA and IMF, both credible sources, say that India is third for 07 and fourth for 06. These two, reliable sources together contradict and overpower the World Bank's opinion. And the fact that you think the CIA book is fluff is your opinion. It is considered very reliable and most country articles use it as a reference. Understand that when you have two equally reliable sources that contradict a third equally reliable source, the two overpower the one. Nikkul (talk) 05:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

You are missing a lot. A bank, according to the OED, is "An establishment for the custody of money received from, or on behalf of, its customers. Its essential duty is the payment of the orders given on it by the customers; its profits arise mainly from the investment of the money left unused by them."
  • A bank's principal function is not to lend money to customers, but rather to borrow money from them, provide them interest, and then invest the money elsewhere to make its profits.
  • Both the World Bank and the IMF are non-profit organizations.
  • The donor countries (principally the US, advanced economies of Europe, Australia, Canada, and Japan) do not receive any interest for the money that is borrowed from them. Their loans are interest free.
  • Neither the World Bank, nor the IMF invest the borrowed money in the private market to make profits (like commercial banks).
  • The very low interest, 0.5 to 1%, charged to developing countries like India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Tanzania, Malawi, etc. that borrow the money, is used to finance the operating costs of the institutions, and that alone.
  • The IMF is no more and no less a "bank" (in your terminology) than the World Bank is.
According to the New York Times, both the IMF and the World Bank will revise their PPP estimates (officially) in the next six months; in the interim, you are welcome to have your moment in the sun, and push India up to position three. Meanwhile, the other reality that India is ranked 126 in per capita income and 128 (slipped from 127 last year) in the UN's Human Development Index—well behind Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Thailand, Iran, and Malaysia—will remain the uncomfortable backdrop to the gloating. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Hopefully writing more realistically about India's state may make the country progress more quickly, since Wikipedia's article is heavily viewed and is growing in its influence. Glamorising India is not propaganda or anything, but doing so excessively will only create an arrogant and lazy society. GizzaDiscuss © 09:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Although I am inclined to accept Fowler's commentary as credible, it remains original research. Maybe some of the details from the new report from the World Bank can be included in the articles. The general attitude of a society is none of our business. We do not edit with an agenda. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Foreign Relations in Intro

Many major country articles have a sentence about foreign relations. India should have the same. I have added the sentence 'India is a founding member of the United Nations, Non-Aligned Movement and SAARC as well as an active member in the WTO, G8+5, and G20; India is also a nuclear power." to the intro, but Fowler keeps deleting it. Here are my reasons why this is important:

  • These countries all mention it: United States of America, United Kingdom, Japan, Pakistan, France, People's Republic of China, Russia, Malaysia, South Korea, Germany, Italy, (i can go on). This is an encyclopedia, meaning that every country article should be similar in format. This is not anyone's myspace. Thus, we should conform.
  • India's nuclear status is one that only 8 countries have, thus making India unique
  • India's nuclear weapons have made India stand out of the ordinary and have had a great impact on economic sanctions, global status and regional power
  • India is a founding memeber of many well-known international organizations and has served in the UN Peacekeeping missions.
  • An INTRO should introduce each section. This line introduces the foreign relations and miltary section.

Nikkul (talk) 05:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Most countries pages you have mentioned are not Featured Articles. Of the 16 country FAs (other than India), 11 (Australia, Cambodia, Canada, Cameroon, Chad, Indonesia, Israel, Libya, South Africa, Peru, and Turkey) do not mention "foreign relations," G-8, UN, Nuclear, etc. while only five (Bangladesh, Belgium, Germany, Japan, and Pakistan) do. What does that tell you?
  • Obviously, the lead doesn't introduce every section, otherwise, the 11 FAs would have the Foreign Relations information in the lead, or alternatively, India would have sentences on Government, Politics, and contemporary Culture in its lead.
  • WikiProject Countries doesn't say anything about mentioning foreign relations, nuclear, military, etc. in the lead.
  • This issue has been discussed many times before on this page. Each time the consensus has been against including this material. If you want to change it, you will have to establish new consensus. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

It makes sense for small nations like Cambodia, Cameroon, etc. not to mention foreign relations because they dont have much power and are not major players. India on the other hand is a global player with 1/6 of humanity. The India page should have the same foreign relations info that other major countries have. India is one of the few nuclear powers. India is one of the few major developing countries. We have to look at articles like USA, UK, Italy, Pakistan, Malaysia, etc. Not poor, under developed countries like Chad, Camerroon, Libya which have no influence on global politics.

If the Pakistan article can say 'Pakistan was a founding member of the OIC, SAARC, D8 and ECO. It is also a member of the UN, WTO, G33, G77 and is a nuclear power.' Why cant India??? Both are featured articles.

Even the Bangladesh article has a sentence on foreign relations. Why can't India??? Nikkul (talk) 15:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

  • "Not poor underdeveloped countries like Chad, Camerroon (sic), Libya ..." It would interest you to know that in the List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita, a leading measure of poverty, Libya is ranked 50, Cameroon is ranked 127. Where is India? It's rank is 132. As for the other country FAs, Australia, Canada, Israel, South Africa, and Turkey, which are every bit as much "international players" as India, don't include that information; similarly Brazil (often compared with India), Argentina, Chile don't include it either.
  • You can make ad hoc arguments all you want. I too can come up with ad hoc reasons. How about adding, "India has the highest number of malnourished people of any country in the world; this number includes one third of the world's malnourished children. A majority of its citizens do not have clean drinking water or drainage. Its last epidemic of the bubonic plague occurred in the western states of Maharashtra and Gujarat in 1994." right before you add the bit about the nuclear power?
The bottom line is that on this page, the consensus has been against including these details. You cannot add the material unless you establish new consensus. Until such time as a new consensus is reached in favor of your edits, I will either keep reverting them, or or keep adding balancing edits whose rationale will be equally ad hoc. So, I urge you to remove your edits before I get to them. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


My edits are backed with evidence that this has been done before.

  • Fowler- Can you find me any country article which says anything about malnourished children? or about clean drinking water in the intro? Your arguements are novice and havent been used before. Mine have been done before.
  • United States of America, United Kingdom, Japan, Pakistan, France, People's Republic of China, Russia, Malaysia, South Korea, Germany, Italy, Bangladesh (i can go on) ALL have something about foreign relations.
  • China and Pakistan, which is more often compared to India than Brazil both have foreign relations in their intro's
  • I can also delete all of your editions to the page like Skakuntala and say "please discuss before including" and then i can also make excuses for not including it on the page before consensus. This will just make everything harder, but it can be done. Also, fowler, India's per capita income is always going to be lower because of its population even if the economy exceed's the US. That is not a fair comparison. If you look at the total economy, India is ranked third while Libya, Camaroon, Chad, etc are far, far far away from the top. Nikkul (talk) 01:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Original image
Original image
Fake enhanced image
Fake enhanced image
As I said before, you can come up with ad hoc arguments all you want, but this page had a previous consensus not to include text on G-20, Nuclear power, and founding membership of the UN (in the lead). In any case, it was British India that was a founding member of the UN (which was founded in 1945, long before RoI's independence). There are at least three discussions in the archives. You need to establish new consensus. Plain and simple. Sakuntala, BTW, was discussed here for a long time and a consensus was established long before it made an appearance in the article. Also, please stop replacing user:Priyanath's original image of Kangchenjunga with a fake enhanced image that makes the clouds below Kangchenjunga appear blue and the Himalayan cedar trees a lime green (with highlights of electric green) when the latter are supposed to be fern green. OK? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Nikkul, without any intention to offend you, I see your additions as unnecessary. The lead as it is currently is solid and dense enough. Any further additions is likely to spark a chain reaction with others users wanting to add interesting, yet trivial facts on India which in turn will lead to a futile bloating of the lead section. I personally disagree with your opinion that measuring GDP per capita is unfair. Having the third largest economy is not anything to boast about when it is only high up in the ranks because of the 1.1+ billion people. It is in fact embarrassing that the children of the nation are becoming indirectly patriotic of India's overpopulation. GizzaDiscuss © 09:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is about India not Indians. Hence when you look at the economy, you should look at the overall economy. The per capita economy is more appropriate for the page describing an Indian. Similarly, when we look at culture, we look at overall Indian culture not each individuals culture. It's rediculious to look at per capita income because it will never measure up even if the country's economy grows to double of the US's. Nikkul (talk) 14:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

These countries all mention foreign relations in the intro:

  • Fluff = ridiculous sentences in the intro like “In 2001 The Ecologist magazine estimated that Central African Republic is the world's leading country in sustainable development, that go well beyond mentioning things and can be considered arbitrary bragging.

If all these countries mention Foreign Relations, India must. This is after all an encyclopedia, which means we must maintain uniformity. If we have country infoboxes and uniform layouts, we must also have uniform intros. Nikkul (talk) 17:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Update economy size

According to the latest list released by IMF for 2007, India is now 3rd largest economy in PPP terms ahead of Japan. Please update. --74.140.120.11 (talk) 04:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

done Nikkul (talk) 05:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
user:nikkul, please don't keep inserting the PPP listing first. PPP calculations, while aiming to be more comprehensive are also less accurate. This is especially true in view of the IMF's determination last week that the PPP computations for China and India need to be reduced by 40% on account of the higher price levels in both countries. (That also means that the PPP ranking that you changed above will soon have to be changed again in the opposite direction.) The countries who do list their GDP standing, all list nominal GDP ranking first and then (only sometimes) the PPP ranking. As I have explained in the edit summary, please see the People's Republic of China page, as well as United Kingdom, Germany, and Japan pages. This page itself always had the nominal ranking listed first until you started fiddling with it. Please desist. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Can someone who can please put the GDP (PPP) and per capita rank here? I don't know why it is missing it. User:rotinajeht —Preceding comment was added at 05:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
The Nominal GDP figure is also inaccurate. India's nominal GDP is now over one trillion dollars according to several news articles but if that is not a compelling enough source, the 2006 World Bank/IMF estimates still place it at 900 billion.99.238.137.107 (talk) 14:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Change Requested

Someone please change the fact that BSE is India's oldest stock exchange. The Calcutta stock exchange is the oldest stock exchange in India (maybe in Asia too). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.77.169 (talk) 00:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

"Foreign relations" in the lead: the correct numbers

user:Nikkul has stated above that the Wikipedia pages of the majority of the world's nations mention foreign (and/or military) relations in their leads. On the basis of this statement, he has seen fit to add the sentence, "India is a founding member of the United Nations, Non-Aligned Movement and SAARC as well as an active member in the WTO, G8+5, and G20; India is also a nuclear power." It turns out, however, that user:Nikkul's statistics are grossly inaccurate. A majority of the country pages do not make any such mention in their leads. In fact, 135 out of 184 country pages do not mention foreign relations, G-8, NATO, WTO, G20, UN, nuclear power etc. in their leads. This list of these nations is given below. (In it, a handful of European nations mention EU in the context of having no border controls (under the Schengen agreement) and a common currency; two CIS countries mention the UN in the context of their former soviet republic's history; a handful of ex-British colonies mention independence under the Commonwealth in describing their history.) In any case, the total number of such countries in 11 and indicated in parentheses below. Even without them, a substantial majority of the country pages do not have any mention of foreign relations.

Canada, Spain (mentions EU/Schengen), Brazil, India, Australia, Turkey, Sweden (hosts Red Cross and WTO), Taiwan, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Norway, South Africa, Ireland, Argentina, Thailand, Venezuala, United Arab Emirates, Chile, Israel, Colombia, Singapore, Philippines, Nigeria, Egypt, Ukraine (Ukrainian SSR founding member of UN in history), New Zealand, Kuwait, Peru, Kazhakstan, Vietnam, Qatar, Libya, Angola, Ecuador, Sudan, Belarus (Bylorussian SSR founding member of UN, in history), Oman, Syria, Serbia, Dominican Republic, Tunisia, Guatemala, Lithuania (EU/Schengen), Sri Lanka, Kenya, Lebanon, Turkmenistan, Costa Rica, Latvia (EU/Schengen), Yemen, Uruguay, El Salvador, Cameroon, Cyprus (EU/Schengen; independence within Commonwealth), Zimbabwe, Madagascar, Nicaragua, Benin, Niger, Laos, Barbados, Fiji, Malawi, Mongolia, Guinea, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Mauritania, Swaziland, Rwanda (independence within Commonwealth), Togo, Suriname, Lesotho, Central African Republic, Sierra Leone, Eritrea, Cape Verde, Antigua and Barbuda, Bhutan, Gabon, Paraguay, Uganda, Senegal, Honduras, Nepal, Equitorial Guinea, Afghanistan, Mozambique, Republic of Congo, Cambodia, Chad, Mauritius, The Bahamas, Mali, Burkina Faso, Papua New Guinea, Trinidad and Tobago (Port of Spain candidate for ...), Ivory Coast, Panama, Uzbekistan, Bahrain, Jordan, Myanmar, Ghana, Tanzania, Brunei, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bolivia, Zambia, Botswana (independence within Commonwealth), Jamaica, Saint Lucia (independence within Commonwealth), Burundi, Maldives, Guyana, Seychelles, Djibuti, Liberia, Grenada, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Vanuatu, East Timor, The Gambia, Solomon Islands, Guinea Bissau, Dominica, Tonga, São Tomé and Príncipe, Kiribati, Somalia, Cuba, North Korea, and Iraq.

This list does not included small states in Europe (Andorra, Monaco, San Marino, Liechtenstein, Vatican City) and the Pacific (Palau, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru and Tuvalu) or dependencies (Greenland, none of which mention foreign relations, etc. in their respective leads. If those are included as well, then 146 out of 195 national pages do not mention foreign relations in their leads.

Given such a overwhelming majority, and given the many previous consensuses on this page against any such mention, I am reverting user:Nikkul's edit. I would urge him not to keep pushing these edits and needlessly waste everyone's time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

user:Nikkul, I don't know what game you are trying to play, but you can't copy and paste the same long post here from a different section above as you did in this edit and then change the date stamp on the post, as you did in this edit. Please refrain from doing so. If you persist, I will ask for admin help. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Even I am of the opinion that foreign relations should not be mentioned in intro paras. Thanks. --Mellisa Anthony Jones (talk) 08:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I too feel that foreign relations and other trivia need not be added in the leadBinarymoron (talk) 16:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

user:Nikkul's persistent undiscussed edits

Since user:Nikkul has persisted in making edits without first discussing them on the talk page (and has thus flagrantly disregarded the long-standing consensus on this page), and since he has chosen to ignore my warning in the section above, I have now asked for admin help. For the record, user:Nikkul first tried to add sentences about foreign relations in the lead (without prior discussion). As he was prevented from doing so, he has now attempted to remove, again without prior discussion, mention of poverty, illiteracy and malnutrition from the lead, a sentence that have been a part of the stable article for more than a year. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


Oh Fowler, let me just say that what ever I do is based on other entries. I added a sentence on India's economic growth because it has brought tremendous change in India's social, cultural, demographic and economical sectors. I added a section on foreign relations because 60 other nation articles have it. If Pakistan, China and Bangladesh can have foreign relations,why can't India? I have taken away the sentence about social problems in India because no other featured article has such a section, even for poor nations which are featured.

You keep looking at featured articles to try to defend yourself, so look at the facts: Australia, Belarus, Belgium, Canada, Germany, Israel, Japan have no mention of social or other problems faced by the nation in their intro. Of the poorer countries, Chad, Indonesia, Libya, Nauru, Pakistan, Peru, South Africa, Turkey do not discuss social problems in their intros. All of them are featured. Why then should India? cameroon and bangladesh have one small sentence about poverty but nothing about environmental degradation, malnutrition, illiteracy, etc.

Now that you dont have any support, you have tried reporting me to an admin! And specifically an admin that you have spent much time pampering in the past [8]

You have persistently kept reverting my good faith edits Wikipedia encourages everyone to be bold. Why then do you consistently keep reverting all my edits? At one point, you have even supported a claim to stop edits on the India page. This just goes to show that your opinions and actions are misguided. Please think before reverting.

In the past, Fowler has told me I should be ashamed of myself[9]. What kind of user says this to others? He always criticizes images for not being good quality and being too purple or too small yet, he has himself added pictures that he knows do not show India correctly and are not good quality images[10]. Fowler is a rude, self-contradicting editor who keeps reverting any good faith edits anyone makes. Nikkul (talk) 19:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Umm, excuse me. Both Indonesia and Cameroon discuss political problems in the introduction. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 20:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Many of the countries that Nikkul claimed do not mention any problems in fact do. Chad (Chad remains plagued by political violence and recurrent attempted coups d'état, and is one of the poorest and most corrupt countries in Africa; most Chadians live in poverty as subsistence herders and farmers.), Libya (The country is led by Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi, whose foreign policy has often brought him into conflict with the West and governments of other African countries.), Pakistan (political instability), South Africa (Racial strife between the white minority and the black majority has played a large part in South Africa's history and politics), Peru (poverty level around 50%), Israel (Israel has been in conflict with many of the neighboring Arab countries, resulting in several major wars and decades of violence.), Belgium (cultural conflicts are reflected in the political history) and Nauru (its environment severely degraded by mining) all mention problems of some sort in their lead. GizzaDiscuss © 05:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Nanda Dynasty: Mention is needed?

In the subsection 'History', no mention is made of the large Nanda Empire, which predates the Mauryan Empire. Nanda Dynasty could come as the second para of this subsection. Authorised editors of this protected article may please see what is needed to be done. Thanks Wiki dr mahmad (talk) 13:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be good to add this in 'Ancient India'.There has been Hundereds of kingdoms in India, with many great kings. Also the article fails to mention that India was a Buddhist country under the Maurays. and Vedis hinduism originated after the Mauryas.Ajjay (talk) 04:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Demographics

I suggest the first sentence in demographics be shortened. Repeating that India is the world's largest democracy three times in the article (once at the top, once in government, and once in demographics) is quite enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.11.97.146 (talk) 19:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

True. Removed the redundant info from Demographics. KnowledgeHegemony 16:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)