Talk:India

India page without any Picture of Hindu temple?

While India is known for its Hindu temples and their architecture worldwide, this page didn't care to add even one picture of Hindu temple. Putting aside respective ideologies of editors here, none can deny Hindu temples are soul of Indian religious life. How can we try to hide that?

There are two pics of Lotus temple!! I suggest replacing the second one with Hindu temple picture. Holy Ganga ^talk 11:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a picture of Akshardham might work? With regards, Anupam^Talk 12:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggest to replace one of the lotus temples with Kandariya Mahadeva temple.203.212.232.208 (talk) 20:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Any picture of a famous temple would do the job.Arjun (talk) 14:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Note that the images in the Culture section are on a image rotation and the choice includes an images of Akshardham Temple, Konark temple, and a statue of Shiva. Abecedare (talk) 17:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Still NO HINDU TEMPLE PICTURE? Holy Ganga ^talk 17:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I too support the image of a Hindu Tempale on Idian page on rotation basis --Sandeepsp4u (talk) 07:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

what is the outcome of this discussion ? Is there any improvement made been done about changing the pictures of culture section ?--Sandeepsp4u (talk) 06:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Can i proceed in this work. Can i put a hindu temple pic on the article or some one have any arguments on this ??--Sandeep (talk) 07:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, there are already images of Hindu temples in the current image rotation for the Culture section. If you want to replace any of those images or have other high-quality, relevant images in mind, feel free to propose them here. Abecedare (talk) 08:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Hindu culture and religious doctrines are indigenous to India. Therefore a Hindu temple representing these values should be present in India page prominently and not in some "rotation".

~rAGU (talk)

Thanks for the information but i think there are more famous temples like Temple of Tirupat, Different Jyotirlings etc then the sun temple what do u say ? I think the sun temple dosent symblose the mass--Sandeep (talk) 12:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Well , we should have pics of temples of all Religions originated from India (Hinduism, Jainism, Budhism, Sikhism), this will show cultural heritage in better way--Migelot ^{Talk to me!} 03:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Addition of images

Please Note that the following images and details are being added in the Page India.

/* Culture */ Lord Nataraja Statue, Srirangam Temple and Rameswaram Temple images added with details

Kindly see the suitability of the Pictures and the wordings. At the same time refer the pages Srirangam and Rameswaram before taking any action. --TRYPPN (talk) 13:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The addition has been reverted. The existing images on the page are a result of consensus, please discuss here before adding any others. Also read the comments by Abecedare above regarding the rotation policy w.r.t. images in the culture section. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 13:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Pictures for Flora ans fauna

this section lacks pictures.It should have pictures of national animals ,birds etc like Dolphin, tiger etc.--Migelot (talk) 11:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Canary flowers?

Why not this pic

Cassia Fistula a.k.a. Amaltas.

--HFret (talk) 11:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it will make a nice addition to the Kerala page, since it is the state's State Flower. As for on India, I am not sure of whether we have a strong enough hook for it. Abecedare (talk) 13:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I have added a Featured Picture of the Lotus flower, the National flower of India, since there was no flora images in that rotation. Nikkul (talk) 20:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Abecedare for liking my shot, and Nikkul for contributing. --HFret (talk) 02:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add the Indian elephant to the fauna image rotation. This is a beautiful image taken in Nagarhole National Park, Karnataka, India. Any objections? Nikkul (talk) 07:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

While the subject is pertinent, can't we find a better quality and higher resolution picture of an elephant ? In general, I think it would be good if we tried to enhance the standards of photographs used on the India page, and prefer images that, if not featured standards, are at least close. Abecedare (talk) 16:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I searched flickr for 1 hour....this is the best elephant image I could find. It shows an elephant in its natural habitat. The photo is clear and shows all the detail. Nikkul (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I would encourage everyone to please go and try to find new images to improve our page before criticising the ones that other editors have spent time finding. It's a lot easier to criticise than to actually go find something you consider "better" Nikkul (talk) 19:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Any objections to the Elephant image shown here? Nikkul (talk) 03:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The elephant image is a good find and useful addition to the Indian Elephant and related pages. However, as I indicated above, we should demand higher standards when we add images to the India page, i.e., images like and , currently in the Flora and fauna rotation. Unlike on the Indian elephant page our choice is not limited to finding the best image of an elephant, but rather to choose among the best images of Indian flora and fauna.

Secondly, instead of adding another image of a mammal, I suggest that we broaden our search; for example consider the >1000 species of butterflies in India. We even have (at least) two editors User:AshLin and User:Vijaybarve who edit extensively in the area and may have particular suggestions. Abecedare (talk) 13:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the importance should be placed on content. The elephant is one of the most important animals in India. It's a significant part of Indian culture. Just because we don't have a Featured Picture does not mean we should not include an image of it. What you're saying is that it's better to put a featured image of a cow than put a good image of something more relevant like an elephant. Nikkul (talk) 19:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

By what standard is a cow less notable than an elephant, w.r.t. its significance in Indian culture? Please clarify. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 13:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I propose a gallary system of fauna and flora--Migelot ^{Talk to me!} 04:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Please read this policy guideline. What aspects of the subject cannot be described by text or the existing images, and would be better described by a gallary (sic)? Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 13:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

English language Navbars

I've been making a lot of improvements to The English-speaking world Navbar template, and I'd like to know how editors involved with the article on India would feel if I added the following to the bottom of the article?

{{Template group}}

• {{English dialects by continent}}
• {{English official language clickable map}}

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  04:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

They are not relevant to this article. Feel free to add the {{English dialects by continent}} navigational bar to the Indian English and Regional differences and dialects in Indian English page. The contents of {{English official language clickable map}} are not suitable for a navigational template since the linked articles are not related to the supposed template topic. Also IMO the "container template" should be removed since it just serves to reduce accessibility, and its title "More options for readers!" sounds more like an infomercial than a encyclopedic direction to related content. Abecedare (talk) 05:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, interesting comments, Abecedare. Of course the Navbars are relative to this article if for no other reason than they are about the people who live in India and their focused relation to people in other parts of the world, a reason similar to the supporting reason for the validity of the National personifications Navbar previously discussed. And we also disagree on the suitability of the Anglophone template as a navigational template. It is another focusing tool for readers. What is it that you're not seeing that prompts you to say that the linked articles are not related to the template topic? The topic is the English-speaking world. How can links to countries and territories of the world where English is either an official language and spoken by a significant number of people or an official language but only spoken by a relatively few inhabitants be unrelated to the topic "The English-speaking world"?

As for the Template group, the title was only for this discussion. When added to articles I usually name the group relative to the article, e.g., "Articles Related to India". You seem to see it as a "speed bump", when in reality it is used to make readers feel less threatened when they get to the end of an article by seeing so many links and perhaps an overwhelming number of reading options all at once. If they were not good tools for readers, then they wouldn't be utilized so widely on Wikipedia. Just recently template groups have been added to many entertainment articles (by other editors, not by myself), especially those where there were sometimes nine or ten awards-related Navbars. Template groups are really a good idea, and you might want to learn more about them.

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  06:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Paine, it's going to be no surprise to you what I have to say, but I'll say it, these nav bars do not belong in this or other country articles. Nav Bars are meant to be navigational tools for related topics and the relationship should be rather strong. A dialect of English should be linked to another through a nav bar, not a country where one dialect is spoken with another country where another dialect is spoken. Navigational tools have utility only when there is a strong connection and where it is obvious that the reader would move from one article to another. For a good part, many of the articles (not all), should be eligible to be covered in the main article, not the case here. This particular usage is better served by a category than a navigational template. Of course it's possible to cover every category with a navigational template, but when you do that, the main navigational templates lose their value (and that's a lot of value), the article becomes too large and instead of being a summary style article becomes a collection of links, albeit all hidden until the show button is clicked. -SpacemanSpiff 16:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I do understand, SS, and that is why I am here discussing it with ya'll instead of just adding in the templates. Does it say nothing to you that you two and only one other editor out of the many, many other actively involved editors in other country articles seem to be the only ones who feel this way? All those other editors either agree with me and support the Navbar additions, or they acquiesce and don't show strong feelings either way. With the other Navbar in the previous discussion, you two (and of course the third party editor) are the only editors who were against the addition of the Np Navbar to a country article. And now you join one other editor (who might be in a different category since the article in question is a continent article rather than a country article) who feels that the two new Navbars above are "irrelevant" to the article. Again, all the other editors of the other continent articles have supported the additions. I'm not saying that a majority should rule– far from that. Yet I have to wonder why you two are so adamant about the irrelevancy of a highly relevant set of Navbars.

You say Navbars are supposed to be navigational tools for related topics. These new Navbars are just that! The relationship is a strong one, and frankly I'm surprised that it's not obvious to you. In India, English is an "official" language, however only a small number of the population actually speak English. India shares this with several other countries as shown by the clickable map template. How is this not a strong connection? a strong relationship? You also say, "For a good part, many of the articles [in the template] (not all), should be eligible to be covered in the main article." I've seen very few Navbars that meet this dubious distinction. And that is only right, because what good would it be to have a Navbar at the bottom of an article that contains mainly links that were or should have been discussed in the article? Sorry but that makes absolutely no sense to me. Navbars should have related articles (like these have) that would NOT necessarily be covered in the main article, so as to give readers NEW choices for their reading pleasure. I really think you're being very unreasonable here, both of you, and I think this for several reasons, most of which I've already stated. India's article and readers ought not be deprived of this useful and relevant information!

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  17:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's just that people may not notice template additions, I know that I scan content addition to articles I'm involved in with a finer tooth comb than I do addition of nav bars. And yes, I agree with the other editor, that these nav bars are irrelevant to a majority of the articles they are being added to, countries or continents. -SpacemanSpiff 20:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Your thought above, ". . . it's just that people may not notice the template additions," immediately implies that there are people who may notice them, but only if they are there to notice. Not every reader out there is like you, Spaceman. They may not read as fast as you seem to read, and therefore they won't see closed Navbars as "speedbumps" as you appear to. Many readers are reading the English Wikipedia using English they've learned as a second or even third language. So they might not read as quickly as you and may want to take time to try to understand better. When you grow to appreciate this and the fact that there are a fast-growing number of readers of Wikipedia, you might ask yourself just who actually reads these articles. Most of those readers are very different from you... and me. Don't you think there might be readers out there who are interested in how the English language has spread throughout the globe? Even though English is very difficult to learn (right up there with Russian and German), it is becoming more and more popular throughout the world. Even some of those "gray" colored countries on the map (well, the only one I can truly speak for is Ethiopia, having lived there for a time) have a significant number of English speakers and readers even though English is not an "official" language there. But every dark-blue- and light-blue-colored country on that clickable map, including India, has declared English to be an official language. None of this may seem relevant to you. But does this have to mean that it isn't relevant to dozens, hundreds, maybe thousands of Wikipedia readers?

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  22:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Once again you're completely missing the point. Where does this indiscriminate nav boxing stop? What about coffee growing countries? Shall we link them all using another nav box? Of course, every coffee drinker is likely to be interested in where his beans come from, and if he sees that India is a coffee growing country, he's likely to want to navigate to other coffee growing countries, but not want to make that effort to actually look at the article on coffee production, so should we get a nav box for that? To answer your question, yes, these nav bars that you're adding to country articles are irrelevant to readers of those articles, not to mention the size/bloat factor. We have categories for a reason, and nav bars for another, don't mix the two. -SpacemanSpiff 05:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Abecedare and SpacemanSpiff - the number of templates could become endless. Categories are much more appropriate in most cases. Category:English-speaking countries and territories already serves that purpose here, and does it quite well, for example. Priyanath ^talk 05:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

(out). Ha! I was just rereading your analogy above, SS, and went looking and found... {{coffee}} just FYI. Cats are seldom used and understood by readers. In fact, I read WP since its inception and never once paid attention to cats until recently when I opened an account. Navbar links, on the other hand, I used quite a lot. Is my experience so very unconventional?
 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  04:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

If you notice the links, you'll see that they don't take you to India or Costa Rica etc, rather, they take you to Coffee production in India and Coffee production in Costa Rica and that is where the templates reside. That's exactly where the language templates need to reside - The dialects should (and does) link to Indian English and be placed there. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 06:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

(out). Wrong... You are all three very wrong about all this. You harbor unrealistic concerns about things like "bloat" and numbers of things that "could become endless". This is especially true when it comes to your relevancy misjudgements. But sadly, once again I have been overruled– not sad for me, of course, for I will go on trying to improve Wikipedia wherever I can– sad for all those many readers of this article whom you're depriving of all this useful and relevant information. It is hoped that you will rethink and reconsider, and best of everything to you and yours!
 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  07:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• PS. Something for you to read, or reread as the case may be. If you cannot fathom the great importance of the Anglophone states template to the spread of the English language, the expansion of the Internet and the growth of Wikipedia, then you just might need to add that to your personal list of challenges. —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  07:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Category

I removed the category for Hindustani language that was added recently. If a Hindi speaking cat is created, then the article belongs there, but Hindustani isn't exactly a term in use to define significant linguistic groups (as opposed to the nationalistic Hindustani). Category:Hindustani-speaking countries and territories would be somewhere between 25 and 30 on the priority list of categories based on languages. -SpacemanSpiff 02:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I am curious about that removal. Hindustani was, and likely still is, the 'language in use' in most of Northern India and India would seem to the natural candidate (more so than Pakistan or Fiji, for sure!) for including the category. (Also, I thought that the nationalistic groups want Hindi rather than Hindustani?) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Technically, Hindustani is a hybrid of Hindi and Urdu. The concept of the Hindustani language came about during the independence movt, but it hasn't exactly seen much since then. The vocabulary of Hindi and Hindustani are pretty much similar but the grammar is a bit different. Also, it isn't one of the 22 "national"/"eighth schedule" languages. As far as Pakistan/Fiji not belonging, I'd agree to that. Hindi also tends to cover more dialects than Hindustani (Gscholar should help on this, but I don't have academic access to papers). -SpacemanSpiff 02:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I think Hindustani well predates independence (as well as Hindi which has far more nationalistic overtones than Hindustani!). However, I agree with the broader point - which I should have caught earlier :-) - that we don't want category-explosion on the India page. No sense in getting into which language categories to include and which to exclude. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 12:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, should have been clearer on that point, but my premise was two language cats for the official languages should suffice and then you go through the list of eighth schedule languages and so on. On a different note, but since this topic is being disucssed here, Tamil Nadu ws added to Category:Tamil-speaking countries and territories. I don't think TN is a territory per se, so should that category be renamed or should TN not belong there? -SpacemanSpiff 17:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I see that the cat has been added again. I disagree with the addition and the logic presented, but I'm not removing it now, will wait for more people to chime in to gain consensus. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 00:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Ahem, does no one else have an opinion? -SpacemanSpiff 03:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Expressed in the article :) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 20:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

plz include

i would like to include following facts

*include current Governor of Reserve Bank of India (RBI) .
*speaker of parliament
*foreign Minister
*defence minister 

these are some major facts so it will be nice to see them included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.143.92.115 (talk) 08:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I think its not good to discuss about RBI as it is supposed to be confidencial,becase few information which might be misused by wrong people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphajane (talk • contribs) 00:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Why Does the China page get to brag but the India page doesn't?

A while ago I wanted to put some thing's down on India's page that was factual and giving credit to things that had to do with India. But I was told that it wasnt proper because basically it's like im just bragging about India, and this is about facts....so....I asked how come the China page gets to say nice things and the India page cant then? For example on the China page it get's to say thing's like China is one of the oldest civilazations, and how it was one of the leader in the world of arts, etc. etc.....but....if I want to say thing's like that regarding India, the rulers of Wikipedia won't let me.....and I was told the reason is, because, that India is an offical page, and China isn't. So now im asking has that changed? Is China an offical page? If so then someone please tell me why does the page on China get to say some nice things that elevate the country and can I please put down things of that nature for the India page then so here the and ? ? 71.105.87.54 (talk) 23:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Since, according to you, the China page allows bragging, the easiest solution would be to brag about India on the China page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Your suggesting POV pushing? Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 02:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

it ain't worth a dime replying to wiki-disneylanders. --CarTick 03:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I could give you examples of what I think should be added here, and it's actually pretty logical. But I get the feeling, judging from my history of dealing with you dictators and those of you like to "pick and choose here" , that your probably not going to read down everything I write, and if you do, you probably won't take it into consideration and / or give me logic.....I mean none of you have explained why it's ok to prep up China on it's article, but you can't allow that with India then. I mean would any of you people like examples on what I think can be added to this India page? ? 71.105.87.54 (talk) 22:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not a question about being ok for China but not for India. Unwarranted promotion is not good for either article. If you think that the China article 'brags' in a way that is not suitably referenced, you should comment on the Talk:China page or just go ahead and boldly remove material that is unwarranted. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Even if I did that, isn't their a chance someone might just undo what I might do? And then if I kept doing it they might block me......anyway where is the consistency? If China is allowed to say things that might elevate it, which I dont neceessarily object to, why can't India then? If it's not ok for China why is it allowed? If it is ok for China, why can't India get it....I mean im not saying can I just lie and say India is great. But their are things that the dictators won't let me put, and it's not even that bad then. But they won't let me put it. If you want I can give you examples. So if I can't put things that I don't even think are that bad then, and someone might make it seem like I just want to brag about India then, which might be true, why does the article on China get to have thing's that might seem like it's being bragged about then so? Im not saying I necessarily object to what's on China's page . But it's a matter of consistency....for example....I can't put down how India has Aryan hertiage, which is true then. But China get have something like how it was a leader in the arts then? So I cant put something thats at least maybe somewhat true, but China can put something like that (which is ok then) but isn't that kind of a contradiction then? Kind of maybe then? Water then? 71.105.87.54 (talk) 03:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

ARYAN818, your posts are getting fouler and fouler, stop calling people dictators and perhaps take Fowler&fowler's advice. -SpacemanSpiff 03:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Dont feed the troll. It's pointless trying to make him understand anything because he has porved it four times on this talk page that he doesnt want to. And he isnt realy concerned about the article, ultimately all he cares about is the Aryan race and proving that it is supreme. For those of you who dont know User:Aryan818 was blocked because his username was offensive. 818 is the numerical for H-A-H: Heil Adolf Hitler. (Now watch as he says that 818 is his area code and not HAH ). So the next time this IP makes any edits, save yourself and others some trouble and revert his trolling. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 04:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Althought, I don't agree with what this IP is saying, I do understand where he is coming from and it is a problem. There are many instances where certain topics have been left off this page, such as the Science & Technology section, which many other countries have. Similarly, a template with multiple city skylines is present on many many country pages. Nikkul (talk) 19:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Who keep's erasing my replies? And some of you wonder why when I use the word dictator? lol 71.105.87.54 (talk) 01:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I do, and here's why: Its because you treat wikipedia like some forum. Your messages are all about "I, me , myself" not about "improving the article". You are an attention seeking little kid who does not understand that building an encyclopedia is a serious activity. You treat talk pages like some chat group on orkut or facebook. Your "cool dude" kind of talk only , calling others names only betrays your lack of seriousness. You have failed to get consensus four times but that has only added to your self-centered wailing, not encouraged you to become more constructive. Your behaviour on this page falls into the category of trolling. That is why you get reverted all the time. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 04:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Science and Technology section

There is a need for science and Technology section with the latest being the Chandrayaan mission. This kind of important information is lacking in the page.Bcs09 (talk) 14:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree Nikkul (talk) 19:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

--TRYPPN (talk) 04:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree on this point. Indian mission found that Water is there in the surface of Moon, before NASA. NASA confirmed afterwards.

All the good achievements, which were in great detail shown on TV and other public media should be included in the INDIA page article to show that we are NOT just a developing Country but we are going towards as a Developed country.

--TRYPPN (talk) 04:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC) I agree too--Baloria88 (talk) 04:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey I was wondering if I could add a new section about quotes on India then? ?

Hey I was wondering if I could add a new section about quotes on India then? ? 71.105.87.54 (talk) 05:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Our sister project's wikiquote:India page should be a good fit for this purpose. Make sure that you double check, and cite, your sources before adding a quote, since I have often seen fake and wrongly attributed quotes online. Abecedare (talk) 06:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Well ! I have a suggession. Can anyone create a section for Legends of India. In all fields, who have made Indians to be proud of and also to be inspired. I think it is a good idea ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphajane (talk • contribs) 23:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

So I can't do that then? ? 71.105.87.54 (talk) 01:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Most populous democracy ???

Why cant we just say the second-most populous country in the world ? --Zhonghuo (talk) 11:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The fact of India being the most populous democracy in the world acquires notability since the most populous country in the world is not a democracy. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 12:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It is a well referenced and well recognized term. Please also see this archived discussion. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 13:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

"The fact of India being the most populous democracy in the world acquires notability since the most populous country in the world is not a democracy" => and why is it important ? --Zhonghuo (talk) 00:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It is important because multiple sources, both scholarly and news media, consider that qualifying label to be important. If there's a change in that status such as the larger nation becoming a democracy or India becomes a dictatorship or something, we should change it, but until then, it's a perfectly valid point to include for our readers and to maintain our integrity. -SpacemanSpiff 02:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with SpacemanSpiff and RegentsPark. To manage democracy in a large country with many economic and social problems for a period of 60 years (with one gap of two years) is no small feat. Even if China did become a liberal democracy tomorrow, India's achievement will not be one whit diminished since its democracy has been sustained through a very long time. No other developing country, and no country other than Japan, Israel, US, Canada, and the democracies of Western Europe (minus Portugal, Spain, Greece) has been able to achieve this. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Slightly off-topic, but ... Ramachandra Guha's recent tome India after Gandhi: The history of the world's largest democracy lays quite a stress on how sustaining the democracy and territorial unity were significant and non-inevitable achievements in post-independence India. Abecedare (talk) 22:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Subsection on health

I would like to add a subsection on health to the introduction section. Sarcelles (talk) 12:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I meant the demographics section. Sarcelles (talk) 20:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you outline what content you are thinking of, so that we can discuss it here ? Also consider expanding the Demographics of India, or Healthcare in India articles. Abecedare (talk) 23:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I would like to state major diseases and mention statistical data on topics such as government health expenditure and physicians per 100,000 people. Sarcelles (talk) 10:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Sarcelles, sorry I missed your earlier reply. I just saw your addition and while I think the 2-3 sentences don't need a separate sub-section of their own, some of the content is indeed pertinent to the article. For instance, I was surprised that we don't talk about disease and malnutrition anywhere outside the lede. However I am not sure how the topics you included in your draft were selected; for example, why mention pollution and malaria and not water borne disease etc ? Also family planning, and immunization programs may well worth be mentioning, and we need to give an idea of historic trends rather than just the recent some statistic.
Here are the sentences you added:

According to the World Health Organization 900,000 Indians die each year from drinking contaminated water and breathing in polluted air. ^{http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1736516,00.html} Malaria is endemic in India.^{"Status of Malaria in India" (PDF).} Half of children in India are underweight, one of the highest rates in the world and nearly same as Sub-Saharan Africa.^{"India: Undernourished Children: A Call for Reform and Action". World Bank.} Many women are malnourished, too. There are about 60 physicians per 100,000 people in India. ^{http://india-reports.in/transitions/global-skills/doctors-per-one-hundred-thousand-people-in-india}

Can you and others comment on what information we should include in talking about healthcare in India, and what are the most authoritative sources for a short 2-4 sentence summary ? Once we have those, we can craft the exact language and placement. (I don't care whether the above senetences remain in the article or not, while the discussion is ongoing). Abecedare (talk) 04:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd say this needs a paragraph with the history of health issues in India, status of healthcare and availability mixed with a few stats. I think the above stats are interesting, but I don't know if they are the most important. -SpacemanSpiff 06:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we need a separate section on health issues. Rather, some of the material can be included under demographics. Particularly, IMO, the material on malnourished children. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 11:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on a separate section vs the info being inserted in different parts of the article, but I think it has a place in the article. The above edit introduced the word "health" to the article, that's kind of a mismatch given the significance of healthcare issues in India. Access to healthcare (and therefore the history, is it improving etc), one major problem, and major disease might be good enough. -SpacemanSpiff 17:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

What could be added? If noone has another idea, I would be in favour of mentioning leprosy and blindness. Sarcelles (talk) 06:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Why leprosy and blindness, in particular ? Instead of selecting arbitrary diseases and ailments, we need to look what the reliable sources and perhaps only list the the main contributors to morbidity and mortality. I am sure there are standard reference works, or reports produced by WHO and other organizations, that provide an overview of health and healthcare in India, and I can look for some in the next few days. Feel free to list any authoritative references you find here too. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 09:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

This is the healthcare section of the (excellent) German article. Should it be a model? Sarcelles (talk) 20:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

congress historians

We have read enough by congress biased historians in our textbooks in our childhood. And deceived enough times by maps to think whole "kashmir" is owned by us. But now let us be neutral in wikipedia. Doorvery far (talk) 05:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable scholarly references for your claims about "congress biased historians" and "other organizations" which started the modern independence movement. Please do not discuss Kashmir here. Stick to the topic of the article. Wikipedia is not a forum. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 06:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) Doorvery far, I have reverted your edits to the India page since the current sentence has been discussed extensively at these talk pages before, including a formal RFC: see Archive 14 that deals almost exclusively with the topic, and the conclusion of the discussion in Archive 15. For a quick overview, you can consult these charts: File:India_freedom_bar_chart.jpg or File:Indian_freedom_pie_chart.jpg, which also provide links to sevral references, any of which can be used as an explicit source for the sentence, if needed. Abecedare (talk) 06:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I need any of those links as ref. It is easy to synthesise into desired sentence, but i need an inline citation, i dont want to go though archives to find one. Burden of providing ref lies with you people. And being admin, you removing fact tag is unfortunate, and please dont block people with whom you have directly engaged in disagreement. Doorvery far (talk) 08:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. (From WP:V) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 15:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I have added a reference for the sentence, since you insist. But to be frank, plain verifiability has never an issue with various versions of the sentences that have been proposed to describe the Indian independence movement - all could have been trivially verified by reference to any standard text on modern Indian history. The issue has always been due weight. These have been the most scrutinized 3-4 sentences in the article, and after all that discussion (some of which I have linked above) and consultation of dozens of sources the current version was deemed to be the most appropriate description of that part of Indian history. You are free to propose an alternate, but for that you will need to read the past discussion and then compile suitably compelling evidence to establish a new consensus. Abecedare (talk) 16:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

An inline citation needs to be precise, not pages 345-385. The "due weight" need to be mentioned by the ref cited, but condensing 40 pages into one sentence is exactly what is synthesis. I will replace the vague ref given with citation needed tag if it does not point to single page/paragraph. And I will look for more such vague refs used for synthesis in this article and replace them with citation needed tag. Doorvery far (talk) 04:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

You are confusing summarizing with synthesizing. The former is what we always do in writing a tertiary source, especially in a summary style article]]. Also as explained above, the current 3-4 sentences on Indian independence movement have been determined to be a good summary of the material and sources. If you want to propose a change, and establish a new consensus, that is fine. However, if you continue disruption and edit-warring, you will be blocked from editing. Abecedare (talk) 04:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Asking for ref DOES NOT need consensus. And so is tagging for ref. I wait for a third opinion and remove sentence if it is not given correct ref. Doorvery far (talk) 06:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It is sufficiently referenced, and that has also been attested to by the RfC linked above. -SpacemanSpiff 06:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion

There is no good ref that mentions both Congress party and Gandhi and skips all others in Indian freedom struggle. Not just the text, even the image there gives all credit of freedom struggle to congress party. Summary article need to mention another summary article by third party source as ref, instead of synthesizing 40 pages into one sentence which is ridiculous WP:SYN. There is no point of inline citation if the whole book is cited for single sentence. Is it only me who thinks 40 page inline citation is not at all specific and needs replacement by a different ref? And the admin threatens to block me for asking for exact page in the ref given - [1]. Doorvery far (talk) 03:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your objection. Are you saying that India's independence struggle was launched by parties other than the INC? Your previous edit says "different" political parties and I'm not sure what you mean by that. Sources would also help. Also, are you contesting the fact that Gandhi is the main persona linked with India's struggle for Independence? (BTW, it is customary to post requests for third opinions on the WP:3O page. In this case a 3O may not be accepted because of two reasons: (1) there are more than two editors involved and (2) there has already been an RfC on this issue.) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 03:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps if the statement was changed to remove the Indian National Congress, and reword the sentence to say that multiple groups rallied and worked towards Indian independence, the undue weight nature of singling out a single group or individual would ratchet down the current conflict in opinions of how the sentence is worded. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

That depends. If the INC was the principal party behind the rallying around India's independence, then removing that would be incorrect. We don't necessarily want to satisfy the diverse opinions on our editorial body. Rather, we want to be in concordance with what reliable sources say. I'm curious as to whether doorvery far wants to correct what he perceives to be a bias in our article or whether he wants to correct what, if we went by reliable sources, would be an incorrect weighting in our article. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 04:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

That depends not on opinions, but on refs. Show me one ref that mentions only congress in the summary and nothing else, then i will take back. Summarizing is not limited to wikipedia, but most books/refs have that at starting. Give me such a ref, or remove sentence. Pages 435-485 for a single sentence doesn't make any sense. There is INA "organisation" by Subhas chandra bose, and he is considered no.2 freedom leader - not Nehru(no.3). Doorvery far (talk) 08:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I must agree with Doorvery far here, references do need to be as specific as possible to provide proper referencing to the material. That being said, if multiple organizations, including the Indian National Congress, worked towards the independence of India, then other notable organizations should be listed as well (or none at all), and in a manor that isn't related to one's opinion of which was more important than the other, but something neutral such as alphabetically or first recorded and properly referenced action. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

This issue has come up many times, prinicpally borught on by Congress-hating[2] RSS supporters who want to deny that the INC was the leading force in the Indian independence and want "due credit" to all who particpiated. And the conclusion has been the same every time. Do we need to discuss this again? --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 08:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

RightCowLeftCoast, have you taken at the RFC on this exact topic that is linked above ? The question about the non-existence of other notable organizations/persons was examined there in great detail. Are there any particular organizations that you have in mind, that you think played a role comparable to INC ? Abecedare (talk) 08:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I dont hate congress, let me be frank and Khan is mentioned in refs there, @Deepak. There is gaming going on in this article (1) Giving some random ref as inline citation and another guy SpacemanSpiff supprots saying it is properly referenced. (2) It is said to every user here that it is "summary" article so go away, summary is common in most refs/books - nothing new. Doorvery far (talk) 09:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I actually came here after seeing this discussion highlighted at third opinion, but did not come here as an offical third opinion provider. I have skimmed over some of the discussion linked above, but have not read it in depth. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Take your time - it is only around 200 kilobytes! :-)

The reason I asked is so that we can avoid retreading that well-beaten paths again, and continue this debate only if some new and equally good sources are produced as the ones that were analysed during the RFC. Abecedare (talk) 09:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

This issue is not about the beaten path of old RFC. It is precisely about the "inline citation" you added [3], Abecedare, which is not an acceptable ref in the context. I wish to remove that ref and put fact tag there. Doorvery far (talk) 10:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you point out which sources cite Feroze Gandhi as a Khan on that article's talk page, please? And you haven't given any sources for your claims that "biased congress historians" wrote this history ; so the essential substance of your argument is unsubtantiated. And since when is there a "ranking" of freedom fighters? Again with reliable refs , please. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 10:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request (Disagreement about vague inline citation given.):

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on India and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

A more specific edit should be provided, in order for readers to be able to find supporting material in the referenced source.—RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Since my statement of this being a proper reference has been questioned above by User:Doorvery far. Let me quote from the opening (summary) passage of the associated reference:

British rule was soon contested by a nationalist movement, which was embodied by the Indian National Congress, founded in 1885. From 1905, a protest movement developed...

— Claude Markovits, A history of modern India, 1480-1950, p. 345, Part Five, From the British Indian Empire to Indian Independence, Anthem, 2004

Other organizations are also mentioned in the rest of the chapter, but the number of mentions of INC/Congress outweighs them all. Now let's see what the article currently says:

In the 20th century, a nationwide struggle for independence was launched by the Indian National Congress and other political organisations.^[34]

20th century vs 1905, embodied by INC vs launched by INC and other political orgs (included in the rest of the chapter). I fail to see how this classifies as synthesis.

In response to RightCowLeftCoast, I hope this addresses your comment though, which was more in line of a clarification being required. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 11:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I have fixed the ref for now, but currently unable to access the book. If content of p345 of the book were like what SpacemanSpiff told, then it is definitely specific enough and does not amount to synthesis. Thanks to RightCowLeftCoast for the third opinion. I will try to get some internet ref, which are user friendly, maybe with the help of archived discussion. Doorvery far (talk) 14:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It does, and the reference should be changed to indicate the specific page provided which supports the statement in the article, if it hasn't been done already. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a minor issue, but the remainder of the pages in the citation were for the "and other organisations" included in that sentence, as those orgs aren't discussed in p345. This is not a matter that's worth back and forth arguments, but it's the reason the pages were all listed initially (at least my interpretation of it). -SpacemanSpiff 15:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Just for clarification: I had cited the 40 pages from the book because those provided an overview of the main post-1857 political developments that led to the end of the British rule in India - the events we are summarizing in 2 sentences in this article. In general, I don't think it is a good idea to simply pick one-two isolated sentences from a reference and use them as a basis for such a highly condensed article, since such a method can be gravely abused. But in this case since the sentence being discussed is frankly absolutely non-contentious from a verifiability point of view, and can be so easily confirmed by referring to any of the dozens of reputable undergraduate texts on Indian history, that I have no problem if editors prefer to cite a single page from the reference. I assume the immediate issue is resolved now ? Abecedare (talk) 15:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It is definitely not a minor issue, because those are blind ref for the majority. All those books we cannot access, and authority of those books not known and zero internet links are there to support. Directing to utterly ridiculous WP:OR "freedom pie chart" and "bar graph" and 201kb discussion is not acceptable, dodging the straight question. This being likely first stop for new wiki editors from india, scaring behavior should stop, remind again since im dealing with 3 "admins", admins not supposed to block users for issue with whom they directly engaged with. Doorvery far (talk) 08:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) This is a topic that keeps reappearing in talk page discussions here. The larger topic is driven (in my view) by the belated frustration felt in certain political constituencies in present-day India (the Hindu right wing, many Bengalis (although this might be restricted to an older passing generation), and many elites of former princely states) at having played very little part in the Indian nationalist movement, at least in the last 30 years of it. They try to make up for this sense of historical inadequacy by diminishing Gandhi and by subscribing to certain myths, among which are: the so-called "freedom struggle" began in 1857, the "revolutionaries" really sent a shiver down the British spine, and Subhas Chandra Bose came within a hair's breadth of liberating India. What they forget is that the Indian National Congress's monopoly was so complete that even many revolutionaries were not outside its pale of influence. Bhagat Singh, for example, was a graduate of a nationalist college in the Punjab that was founded by Lala Lajpat Rai in response to Gandhi's call for non-cooperation in 1921. Bose, as is well known, spent much much more time in the INC than he did in the INA.

The best brief statement of the nationalist movement in India in the period 1917 to 1947 is provided by Rajat Kanta Ray (Professor of History, Calcutta University) in his introduction to Anthony Low's edited volume Congress and the Raj: Facets of the struggle, 1917–1947, OUP, :

The narratives make three things very clear: the Congress brought the country and the 'peasants' (whoever they might be) into its orbit to the dismay of the Raj in the 1930s; the rural upsurge did not prevent the Raj from reimposing its grip on the country; indirectly, however, it destroyed the Raj because the British had taken to governing India by certain electoral rules which Congress turned to its advantage.

In any case, if other people are required to be mentioned in the Indian nationalist movement, they would be among the likes of Sayed Ahmad Khan, Dadabhai Naoroji, Gopal Krishna Gokhale, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Surendranath Banerjee, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the Muslim League, the two Nehrus, Maulana Azad, Vallabhbhai Patel, Rajendra Prasad and so forth. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

You are living in past referring to paper books, which are currently very difficult to access for common man. And books by Indian authors (like one you mentioned above) about indian politics is likely to be biased. And authority of those books need to be justified, just because they are printed by publishers doesnt mean the book is good. I will look for neutral web refs and come back. And it would be nice if you justify the rationale of purely misleading "freedom pie chart" in its deletion discussion, which you failed to do in your comment above. Doorvery far (talk) 04:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

hi i need helpppp

hi i a doin h/w and i am really stuck. u have 2 do a spider diagram on india, with all art and gods and religion comin off it. can ani 1 help me to fill it in???? pllzz taa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.222.122 (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

May I direct you to the reference desk. The talk pages of the article is for improvement of the article, and not for questions regarding the article's subject. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)