Talk:India

Guidelines for editing the India page

• The article is written in summary style in Indian English.
• All sections are a summary of more detailed articles. If you find any points missing, please add it in the section's main article rather than on this page to keep this page size within reasonable limits.
• Only external links pertaining to India as a whole are solicited here. Please add other links in the most appropriate article.
• India-related matters should be discussed at Wikipedia:Notice board for India-related topics.
• See the FAQ section before posting a topic on the page.

/Infobox /Economy /Demographics —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarvagnya (talk • contribs) 06:59, 13 October 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)

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)

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

The ICP [1] 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. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 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)

Why was the "Hindustan" etymology shortened?

Why was

Hindustan (), 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 (), 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)

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

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. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 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:

• United States of America,
• United Kingdom,
• Japan,
• Pakistan,
• France,
• People's Republic of China,
• Russia,
• Malaysia,
• South Korea
• Germany,
• Spain
• Italy,
• Algeria
• Austria
• Armenia
• Azerbaijan
• Bangladesh
• Barbados
• Belarus
• Belgium
• Central African Republic fluff in intro
• Colombiafluff about size in intro
• Comoros
• Croatia
• Cyprus
• Czech Republic
• Denmark
• Equatorial Guinea
• Estonia
• Ethiopia
• Finland
• [[Georgia[]]
• Germany
• Greece
• Hungary
• Iceland
• Iran
• Kazakhstan
• Lithuania
• Luxembourg
• Macedonia
• Malta
• Moldova
• Montenegro
• Morocco
• Mozambique
• Namibia
• Netherlands
• Norway fluff
• Portugal
• Romania
• Rwanda
• Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
• Singapore
• Slovakia
• Slovenia
• Switzerland
• Taiwan
• Ukraine
• Uruguay fluff

• 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)

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 [2]

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[3]. 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[4]. 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)