Talk:India

Languages

Proposal 1: to add Devanagari to the infobox.

• Republic of India (present)
• भारत गणराज्य (proposal to add)
• Bhārat Gaṇarājya (present)

Why Devanagari? We all know that India does not have a national language defined, Great. Though India has a set of official languages defined by it's constitution. While we look at any country's article on the English Wikipedia, it bears the country's official language. Here in India, English and Hindi (in Devanagari) is defined as Union official language (central official language - for the entire country). Hence, I think the infobox must carry English, Devanagari and IAST.

Proposal 2: to change "Official languages = Hindi/English; Recognised regional languages = 8th Schedule (22 languages)" to "Union official languages = Hindi/English; State official languages = Assamese · Bengali · Gujarati · Kannada · Kokborok · Konkani · Malayalam · Manipuri · Marathi · Mizo · Nepali · Odia · Punjabi · Tamil · Telugu · Urdu" in the infobox.

When coming to the state official languages, state official languages are used officially by states, whereas 8th scheduled list is just a list of recorgnized languages when some of it are not even officially used in India like Bodo, Dogri, Maithili, Santali and Sindhi. Hence I also propose the display of union/state official languages, instead of official language/8th scheduled.

Regards, Hydloc009 (talk) 15:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

A nation and a government are not necessarily identical. India, as a nation, does not have a national language. Neither does it impose a language on all its people. The Government of India uses Hindi and English as official languages but many states don't include Hindi as an official language. I suppose it is ok for the Government of India article to include devanagri, but it certainly isn't for the India article. --regentspark (comment) 16:47, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

The national map of India is a result of its government's outstanding issues. Government and national are completely identical. A country is upto where its official boundaries are. Anyway, there is this issue again below. And I support the proposal. Quite interesting points written below actually. There may be 300 languages in India but what India is called in those languages is not officially recognized. Mousanonyy (talk) 20:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Collapsible list under Republic of India

I have tentatively created a collapsible list of names (see articles: European Union and Indian rupee) with India's official names on the Eighth schedule (lifted from Names of the Republic of India in its official languages). This has not been attempted by any editor before. I think this is a good compromise: Indic script is excluded from view unless someone actively wants to see it (then they can click on 'show'), and all of India's official languages are represented, so there won't be any catfighting over linguistic and regional differences. If any editor feels that this violates Wikipedia policy, feel free to revert it. Tiger7253 (talk) 06:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Nirinsanity (talk · contribs) for being receptive towards my edit! I've been trying to fix the Santali rendering error, but to no avail. Can anything be done about this? Tiger7253 (talk) 05:34, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I weakly oppose this. MOS:FOREIGN says just use it sparingly, MOS:FORLANG says (concerning lead) that more than one should be avoided there. Problem is there's not much in MOS saying what to do about it since its the infobox. Its actual use for a reader, given this is English Wikipedia, is debateable. Besides this, I don't know what's the usual arguments involved for opposing it or keeping it. I don't intend to dwell on them.

The main problem I'll highlight here is, can you vouch for its accuracy? Names of the Republic of India in its official languages has two sources which only support the actual official languages not the actual equivalent scripts, leading me to accept its OR tag. I personally can only understand the ones in Devnagari and we can't possibly expect any editor to know all of them. Say someone says so and so language is spelled wrong or makes a change...how do we verify? Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

rti

Ugog Nizdast (talk · contribs), you have valid points. I think I'll try to verify each and every single name by going over the India articles in their respective language wikis, and then comparing it with the names in Names of the Republic of India in its official languages. I'll also try to find official resources from Indian govt pages and I'll report my findings back by next week. Tiger7253 (talk) 08:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Merely verifying is not enough. It would be better if you could find reliable sources for each name.--regentspark (comment) 13:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, I'm dead against these laundry lists of multiple languages for anything and everything, this doesn't add any value to the reader, just increases article bloat, a link to any relevant articles is more than sufficient. —SpacemanSpiff 14:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

SpacemanSpiff (talk · contribs) Which is why I made it a collapsible list. Anyone who does not want to see it can refrain from clicking on 'show'. Otherwise, from the surface, the article looks exactly the same as it was before. Tiger7253 (talk) 14:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not just visibility, it's also WP:SIZE and this is precisely unwanted clutter, a link is more than sufficient. —SpacemanSpiff 03:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Lead changing in FAQ

I think we should add something regarding changing the lead wording in /FAQ. There's the issue of repeated additions which aren't even mentioned in the body, thus failing WP:LEAD instantly, and of course, due weight. The first statement gets a lot of attention too and evidently multiple editors agree it's fine as it is; that coupled with its last FAR version being almost the same. Before I dig through the archives, which are the main discussions links regarding this? Ugog Nizdast (talk) 22:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

The current first statement is too brief and vague. If you look at other good or featured articles (e.g. Germany & United States), they usually mention the political system, which is highly correlated with the country itself, instead of simply saying "it is a country" (that sounds like "I am a thing"). Futher, I'm afraid I can't see the reason why my edition is too cluttered. This is not an article in Simple English Wikipedia but a featured article in (adult) English. I guess the language also matters for maintainng its quality status which is supposed to be a model for others.

I agree that the lead should be a precise and concise summary of the whole article without giving undue weight to a particular issue or mentioning sth not in the article. That may be a concern.

Cheers!

^{In dialogue with} Biomedicinal 03:11:00 Thursday, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

The problem is, the most cited reasoning is comparing to other articles for that edit. As such, there's no "more right" way of doing this. So changing it would be just a matter of style preference to me. I feel both are equally fine, since the lead just needs to stand on its own, the first para or sentence doesn't. Add this to it being the long-standing agreed-on version. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 00:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey RegentsPark, do you agree with the FAQ additon and I was hoping you would know something about my initial post about linking the correct archive? Ugog Nizdast (talk) 00:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I assume this refers to adding 'parliamentary republic' or some such to the lead? I personally don't like the idea because a country and its form of government are two different things. --regentspark (comment) 16:08, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes besides that I meant regarding adding another clause in the /FAQ regarding changing the lead. Like which discussion to link to? Do you recall any specific one, given that you were there during its FAR? rather than me manually searching. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 16:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

This was the post FAR version which sticks to plain old country. I don't think the parliamentary stuff was discussed during the FAR and I don't think we've ever formally discussed whether country should be replaced by the form of government. Perhaps @SpacemanSpiff: can help?--regentspark (comment) 17:05, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I personally don't have a specific preference on this. While country is concise, the government types are quite descriptive to the reader and if it comes in early on instead of searching for it then it adds value to the reader. I could go either way on this —SpacemanSpiff 05:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

@Biomedicinal, Ugog Nizdast, RegentsPark, and SpacemanSpiff: India is the oldest surviving Featured Article on Wikipedia. The US is not a featured article; to my knowledge it never has been. Traditionally, many FAs were modeled on India. I agree though that the lead is a little light. At the time of the last FAR, and of the significant rewriting of the page, or soon thereafter, there was a discussion also on the rewriting of the lead, but consensus eluded us on how best to summarize the article in four meaningful paragraphs. So the old lead stayed. The lead, as most of you no doubt know know, is the place where most drive-bys and POV warriors attempt to leave their mark on humanity (per WP: Lead fixation). These people hardly ever bother with reading FAQs, but an FAQ is still useful for mention in an edit summary during the inevitable revert by vigilant editors. As for the order of topics in the lead, when I came on board Wikipedia in 2006, the advice in WikiProject Countries on how to write a country page lead was taken quite literally. Although skimpy, it did talk about an order in the writing, beginning with geography, moving to history, and only then to the forms of governance. I will try to look for that discussion soon after the last FAR. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@Biomedicinal, Ugog Nizdast, RegentsPark, and SpacemanSpiff: I did manage to find the discussion. My proposal for a revamped history section in the lead received conditional approval from Saravask, but never elicited much discussion thereafter. It is at the end of this section from October 2011. My proposal, with some corrections, would now read:

India's history encompasses local histories, imperial histories, and bonds with other cultures. The earliest neolithic cultures of the Indian subcontinent belonged to an arc of similar cultures cutting across West Asia. The bronze age cities of the Indus Valley Civilization participated in a broad trend of urbanism running through southern Eurasia. The iron age Indo-European languages-speaking culture that created the mythologically opulent Vedic Hinduism in India had also spread among pastoral people in Central and West Asia. The major political consolidations of ancient India, under the Maurya and Gupta empires took place not long after Buddhism and Jainism arose in India, Hinduism matured, and the caste system created uniquely Indian hierarchies, even as it excluded large swathes of India's indigenous adivasi people. The culture and political systems of early medieval Southern India were spread to Southeast Asia by the Chola and Pallava empires around the same time that Zoroastrianism, Christianity and Islam arrived in India and helped shape its diverse culture. Much of late medieval Northern India was influenced by the Turko-Persian tradition for several centuries during which syncretic cultures took hold under the Delhi sultanate and the Mughal empire. From the mid-18th century, India was gradually annexed and unified by the British East India Company. From the mid-19th century it was ruled directly by the United Kingdom, becoming a colonial economy which was exploited for its resources, but also modernizing and allowing some Indian elites to engage the Western world. Eventually, a more inclusive nationalist struggle emerged, which under Mahatma Gandhi was noted for non-violent resistance, and led to India's political freedom in 1947.

Perhaps we can have another discussion on this, if there's appetite. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I'll put something in the FAQ regarding basic lead guidelines (which do get broken) and not to simply revert between to a different style (in terms of copy editing, rearranging it without adding anything) when there's no net benefit.

I think we'll all agree the lead can be expanded; it fails WP:LEADLENGTH as it can do one another para--given the size of this article. Problem is I (we?) don't know what to include and as you've said, no one has the appetite for it. Probably previously, there were more incentive and editors; now, with an already polished lead, no one has the energy to discuss making it even better?

Two preliminary questions about this draft: doesn't it expand a little too much just on the history? There should be four paras, this one would make one of them a little too big. As usual, your language is brilliant...I daresay too much..."mythologically opulent","pastoral people", "large swathes", I'm all of plain English and a more disinterested tone. Really just a minor quibble and no offence, but I can tell sometimes you've been the editor of some articles just by your trademark writing. :) Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:44, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

As far as history is concerned, I am more or less happily with the current second paragraph. We don't need much more than that in a country article. I would want to add a prominent mention of the Mughal Empire which was the first to politically unify India in modern times (an honour I notice Fowler wants to claim for the East India Company). We also need something on the caste system, which has been a 'defining feature' of the Indian society for a long time. The Caste system in India article has improved a lot over the last year or so, which is not yet reflected in this article. I think F&F's draft is overweight on the "bonds with other cultures". While such bonds are undeniable, India is also endowed with a subcontinental geography which led to its relative isolation and indigenous developments. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

@Biomedicinal, Ugog Nizdast, RegentsPark, SpacemanSpiff, and Kautilya3: In a new section below, "Lead redux" I will soon be copying my original proposal of October 2011, (and not the hurriedly amended one of a few days ago). It is long to be sure, but attempts to say something more than Kautilya3's paraphrase of it. As for "pastoral," the Indo-Aryan culture was very much pastoral in contrast to the urban IVC, but I do agree with Ugog Nizdast that some over the top flourishes can be done away with. Please continue in that section. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Meitei vs Manipuri

There's a dispute between me and Filpro + Tiger7253 about whether to use the self-designation and more common linguistic name Meit(h)ei (perhaps more common in anthropology as well?) or the official government name Manipuri. Wikipedia has been using the name Meit(h)ei for several years in the main articles on the language and the ethnic group (although recently Filpro has tried to change this).

I suggest that Meitei is preferred following the WP:ETHNICGROUP policy. As stated in Chelliah (1997)'s grammar of Meit(h)ei, the Meitei themselves favor the Meitei term. Generally, it seems that Wikipedia favors self-designation since we use Sami instead of Lappish, Nuu-chah-nulth instead of Nootka, etc.

A secondary consideration involves ambiguity resolution as Manipuri the noun & adjective can refer to (1) the Meitei ethnic group, (2) the Manipuri Bishnupriya ethnic group, and (3) a resident of the Manipuri state. Thus, WP:PRECISE may apply.

Filpro + Tiger7253 apparently give greater weight to using official names than to self-designation, which I suggest is incorrect. Thus, the implicit political bias here favors government over ethnic groups. Therefore, Filpro + Tiger7253 prefer using the redirected Manipuri > Meitei language instead of using my suggestion which is a direct link to Meitei language with the government term in parentheses.

– ishwar  (speak) 17:12, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

This should be discussed at Meitei language. It is preferable to use the same name thru-out Wikipedia. If Manipuri is correct here, then shouldn't the article Meitei language be titled Manipuri language? If that is the case, then before changing it here, it should changed there first. We ran into this with Odia vs Oriya. Even discussing it here is bad, because it spreads the discussion all over Wikipedia, when a discussion about this should be centralized where everyone can post comments and see all the arguments in one place. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 03:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok, that's fine and preferable. But, some folks might not go to that page and actually comment. (I dont know just speculating.) Instead of the back & forth snide edit summaries without any discussion and argumentation, I've protected this page. It's easily unprotected of course. But, let's have some constructive discussion. – ishwar  (speak) 17:00, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ish ishwar: If someone were to edit Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and modify the excerpt "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" to: "...the right of the people to keep and bear guns" because 'Arms' is an archaic term that has mostly dropped out of common usage, it would be wrong, because the excerpt merely documents what is written in the U.S. constitution, and is not affected by Wiki rules pertaining to common names.

This is exactly why people are opposed to you changing Manipuri to Meitei. Think of the list as a snapshot, as an unchanging picture of what is written in a sacrosanct document. I respect your linguistic expertise, but I'm not sure if your reasoning is sound. Tiger7253 (talk) 00:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, it depends on whether weapons are the same as people. If arms = ethnic group in naming respects, then your comparison is apt. However, I reject that and believe that inanimate objects are not the same as people. Therefore, the issues involved in naming them differs. If you do accept they differ, then it depends on whether and/or to what degree you favor naming authority stemming from government or favor naming authority originating from the ethnic group being named.

Of course, feel free to leave a comment at: Talk:Meitei language. – ishwar  (speak) 01:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Ish ishwar, you say I suggest that Meitei is preferred following the WP:ETHNICGROUP policy.. Please explain that. What part of the policy are you referring to? And, how is Meitei preferred according to it? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

§Self-identification: ‘How the group self-identifies should be considered. If their autonym is commonly used in English, it would be the best article title. Any terms regarded as derogatory by members of the ethnic group in question should be avoided.’ Meitei is an autonym and is commonly used in English. – ishwar  (speak) 15:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

See also the similar principle #5 from this paper: https://www.academia.edu/29826079/Some_principles_for_language_names – ishwar  (speak) 15:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, when the Government of Manipur itself calls it "Manipuri", you can't make the claim that the autonym is "commonly used in English". I suggest using something like "Manipuri (Meitei)" or "Manipuri (also known as Meitei)". "Manipuri" has the advantage of being recognizable. Hardly anybody knows what "Meitei" means. It is not our job to right great wrongs. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Sure, I can make that claim since official name status is largely independent of word frequency. (Note, no one has defined what common means here.) As Chelliah states, Meit(h)ei is used by western academic literature while Manipuri is used by the government and non-Meitei Indian literature as well as probably some Meitei Indian literature as well. I suggest using "Meitei (Manipuri)" instead. How are you determining that 'hardly anybody knows what Meitei means'? These terms have been used on Wikipedia for a decade. And, you find the terms reported in the news and in English language academic literature on Meitei-related topics. It's not about righting wrongs. It's about following (or changing) Wikipedia policy. What Wikipedia does not explicitly state is the appropriate weight to give to each policy position. But, to be clear, you favor government/nationalist considerations over self-determination considerations regardless, right? What is your opinion on the ambiguity issue? – ishwar  (speak) 18:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME is reasonably clear to me. "Manipuri language" on Google Books produces over 3,000 hits whereas "Meitei language" produces 800. I recommend that you spend your energies on improving the Meitei language page, which is in dire shape, instead of fighting nomenclature battles on the talk pages. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok, so you feel that WP:ETHNICGROUP is overruled in this case. Can you explain why a common self-determination is to be ignored? Is it that a certain ratio threshold on your chosen Google Books corpus is met? Or, is it that a threshold is met + having official government status overrules a common self-determination? Should the Wikipedia policy be amended to reflect this? – ishwar  (speak) 19:36, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

You are picking and choosing what you want from the policy page, but that is not its intent. It says right at the beginning In general, the common English-language term for an ethnic group should be used, whether in nounal or adjectival form.. I think you have been given enough WP:ROPE. You should drop this now. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I think I can make the same claim that you are picking and choosing what you want from the policy page. It says in the earlier mentioned section: If their autonym is commonly used in English, it would be the best article title. and that those guidelines should be read in conjunction with Wikipedia's general policy on article naming. (I'm assuming article names follow the same principles as terms used throughout Wikipedia. If that's in error, then let me know.) – ishwar  (speak) 20:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Content from 5 February 2016 removed

Content[1] on the state of the Indian economy/population based on Angus Maddison's work[2] has been removed without warning/notification. Any information on why this was done would be most useful in posting an improved version of the content, if required.

Vanya (talk)

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=703385709&diff=prev

[2]: http://www.theworldeconomy.org/MaddisonTables/MaddisontableB-18.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanya (talk • contribs) 04:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

The content mentioned above is:

Economists estimate India to have been the most populous and wealthiest region of the world throughout the first millennium CE. This advantage was lost in the 18th century as other regions edged forward.

References

With this edit the content was added by Vanya in February and then the next day was moved and edited with this edit by Kautilya3. In April it was removed by Fowler&fowler with this edit along with a transliteration of India as Bhārat. Fowler&fowler's edit summary was "Removing Bharat and the Angus Maddison fantasy per lack of consensus on talk page, especially for a WP:FA. Please read WP:Lead fixation". The talkpage at the time looked like this and had nothing about Vanya's addition on it. There was a discussion about the transliteration of India as Bhārat. So it not clear what Fowler&fowler's edit summary refereed to.

All that said, it shouldn't be in the lead if it not in the body of the article as the lead summarizes the article. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Infobox Flag and State Emblem

Could someone help me reinstate the hyperlinks to Flag of India and State Emblem of India in the infobox (example can be seen in China)? It was there a few days ago but then mysteriously vanished - I think I might have accidentally gotten rid of it but I'm not sure. I have no idea how to reinstate it, I'm stumped. Thanks! Tiger7253 (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't know exactly what happened, but it happened on 20 November when you inserted the complex collapsible list just before those parameters. Perhaps some part of the list didn't get closed correctly, or maybe just the length of it causes some hiccup. There's nothing obvious to me. Dhtwiki (talk) 07:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Per the discussion above that list should be removed, so this problem will likely go away without any investigation. —SpacemanSpiff 09:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Indian mountain

it has a mountain called Kanchenjunga which is the third biggest mountain in the worldhttp://www.highhimalayan.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Kanchenjunga.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by AD11444 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, you just stated a fact. May be you should try to tel what you want to do with this. Mousanonyy (talk) 20:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

3 new sections

I want to propose 3 sections-

Socking, prevents editors in good standing to have a reasonable discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Tourism, Education and Science & Technology. Before I provide my citations of their significance or contribution, i would like to know all that other wikipedians require me to provide. Then, after gathering all your insights on the requirements to propose these 3 sections, I will write here the text and citations on those points. Thanks Pppooojjjaaa (talk) 00:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC) This is overkill in a summary style article. We have sections based on importance and ictopical linkage, some points are already covered in the article. If anything in particular has to be added we can discuss one sentence additions with context under existing sections. —SpacemanSpiff 05:12, 9 December 2016 (UTC) I am sorry. Thanks SpacemanSpiff} for bringing to my notice. 3 sections will be too much. I used the wrong word. I meant sub-sections. So I propose- 1. A section titled "Infrastructure" to contain sub section economy- Economy be further divided into existing 2 poverty and sectors and a third new one- tourism. 2. A sub-section education under infrastructure 3. A sub section science and technology under infrastructure. By doing so, we will not increase the total number of sections at all. So, first point we have here is importance. I will keep in mind to bring resources and citations which prove the importance of each proposed sub-section. Please tell me more. ThanksPppooojjjaaa (talk) 13:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC) Hello Wikipedians I am so looking forward to your suggestions. For example, the consensus on the placement of the 3 new sub-sections, and the requirements for their text- like- threshold contribution to GDP, prominence of education Institutes on international level/world rankings, size/success of Space programs compared to others. All these 3 sub-sections have really impressve and promising citations. Just let me know the checklist and I will compile them. Thanks!! :) Pppooojjjaaa (talk) 23:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC) As a Wikipedian, I think you are yet to become one. "Wikipedians" are interested in informing, not in advertising or showing off. Take that as a hint! Infrastructure and education never warrant sections in a country page, because every country has them and is expected to have them. "It is not as bad as you think it is", is not a good reason to include sections in a country article. Science and technology probably merits a paragraph. The right thing for you to do, if you are truly interested in the topic, is to review and develop Science and technology in India and History of science and technology in India pages, and come back with a sample paragraph that we can review. In my opinion, those pages are far from satisfactory. Until they are fully developed, it is premature to consider covering them here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC) This discussion is not to ask you for your opinion of my being a wikipedian. Anyway, so, again, I repeat, "sub-section" is what I am asking for here. Secondly, thanks for the words on Science and Technology. Noted  Done. About this "Infrastructure and education never warrant sections in a country page"- so I think you were talking about sections, but again , I am talking about sub-sections and from poor to rich countries- more than 50% have sub-sections on education and infrastructure. Anyway, noted your point about Science & technology. By the way, so poverty is "information", and tourism, contributing 6.3% to economy (2011 data) is show off? I would be glad if you come here to speak facts and not your personal feelings. Most importantly, India or any other country, does not need a non-profit website (or profit website) to show off, I think that is one fact without needing any citation. India's tourism would not get a boost if wiki creates a sub-section on its tourism. Pppooojjjaaa (talk) 02:40, 10 December 2016 (UTC) I am new/irregular, so I don't know how much this helps/matters- but this article- needs more than just facts to be edited may be. Established editors generally edit this. I agree with your points technically though- as long as they are factual, considerable on GDP contribution, and have proofs in newspapers online for references. But again, that's just my opinion. Mousanonyy (talk) 20:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

WB Poverty and Culture additions

Socking, prevents editors in good standing to have a reasonable discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I've reverted most and the only edit I've kept is the rewording of it to " In 2006, India contained the largest number". Both additions to Culture section cross the level of details here, their subarticles can mention it, if not already. Not to mention 45% misrepresents that source (it says only Pookutty says so). The culture section was redone recently to my knowledge so I don't support it accuracy in any case. Do not BOMBARD refs just to support one thing, that only makes the article worse. One high-quality ref is enough. "According to the World Bank, 25% in 2011," will be checked since you've challenged it. But I've reverted your additions all the same. If there's a mistake, it will be corrected but I doubt four refs need to be crammed in there just for that. I'm looking into it. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC) I included one high quality ref at once. But it was reverted nonetheless, so I added one reference of each possible kind. You can delete rest and keep whichever you like the best according to your taste. Yes, please click on those references, and check the fact, and make the change. All the 4 references tell the same poverty percentage. Also, the 75% source was even worse as it did not say anyone said so. So, at least the other one told us" Pookutty said it". Thanks Pppooojjjaaa (talk) 18:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC) The poverty details say its per WB, thus adding any others would require us to say so and that goes way too much into detail citing more than one study. Multiple refs citing the same report add no further value. It does, check the ref again. See page 2. Add it back. Honestly prefer the Culture section here after the Featured article review, since lot of additions happened since then which haven't been checked. Will do something later. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 00:18, 10 December 2016 (UTC) I checked page 2, but apart from title I can not see it anywhere, but anyway I will add it back. Although I do not agree at all with it. Meanwhile, I feel all are ganging up on me, I have a really genuine request. Please comment on the other 2 sections. I need to know if really structure of India's article has nothing to do with articles of other countries? It is one simple point- 6.3% of India's GDP came from tourism in 2015. India has one of the 7 wonders of the world and a huge number of UNESCO world heritage sites. Government expenditure on tourism has significantly increased in the past 2 years. Why can there not be a tourism section with all these citations. ThanksPppooojjjaaa (talk) 03:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC) I've checked the WB ref (which is a dead link) and scoured through the archive.org copies of it in 2011 but failed to find that page which supports the figure. Problem here is, they revised their standard of living from 1.25$ to 1.90$, so the sources which say 21~% refer to that revised figure. Either we find the proper archive link supporting 25% or completely reword that statement--but that may mean removing the 2006 mention of it being the highest. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 01:29, 11 December 2016 (UTC) Hello Ugog Nizdast and Pppooojjjaaa, may be this can help http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/world-bank-estimates-show-fall-in-indias-poverty-rate/article7727591.ece, it says both things- " India’s poverty rate for 2011/12 to be 21.2 per cent." and The World Bank has revised the global poverty line, previously pegged at $1.25 a day to $1.90 a day. Mousanonyy (talk) 20:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Devanagari Script (have read the FAQ) Discussion Re-open

Socking, prevents editors in good standing to have a reasonable discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Reopening the discussion- I read the FAQ on why Devanagari is not used for writing Bharat Ganarajya. What I understood was that it is because "India has so many native languages that it will be impossible/non-feasible to write it in each of them". So, 1. like in Indian passports, government papers, VISAS etc, two languages are used- Hindi and English- none other. Because, these two are in a special category called "official languages" as described well in the article itself. 2. Bharay Ganrajya is a Hindi word. Why would someone bother to translate it into another Indian language and then write it? India's official 2 names, according to 2 official languages are Republic of India and Bharat Ganrajya. Any other name in any other Indian language is not its official name. 3. It is English Wikipedia- sure, so without talking about why Greek and all the other names in the world are written in their scripts, I will say- is it a wiki policy to use only and only English characters? The policy should be the same for every article. And since non Englosh characters appear throughout ENglish wikipedia, this argument does not hold any significance. Non-English characters are used to introduce the appearance/feeling related to that article's subject. Pppooojjjaaa (talk) 23:37, 9 December 2016 (UTC) It is not translated, we use IAST. You seriously need to go slow here as you seem to be just trying to stir the pot but not really doing anything to really add value to the article. If so many people disagree with different things that you're trying to do here, then you should realize that the problem is your approach. —SpacemanSpiff 01:13, 10 December 2016 (UTC) Currently two open discussions of mine are open here. One this- and one where I am still expecting really specific and solid advice- "tell me what are the requirements- I will bring all the material". As an Indian, having travelled much of India- if I feel that this article is a very one sided representation which I can not find myself connected to- then there is a problem. And adhering to Wiki policy- not violating any- I invite suggestions on ""all possible"" requirements to make the changes. Unless each and every of those requirements is met- it will not be published. Just that the requirements not be based on personal opinion but wiki guidelines. If I am told tourism can't be there because it does not contribute significantly to GDP, and I present reputed citations that it contributes more than 6%, then it appears more like a stereotyped page for non-Indian readers then a neutral and fair representation of the India I have seen. If there is a poverty section, there ought to be an appearance complementing the fact that India is not only top 20 in per capita poverty, but also top 20 in most millionaires. There is huge disparity, which should be reflected. It is 2016. Coming back to devnagri- Can you please explain what is IAST. And when you say- "It is not translated"- I do not know what it means because I have nowhere mentioned that anything is translated. I said why should there be a confusion/perplexion/worry about translating it to all Indian languages when it is a Hindi word used as it is - with no other counterparts in official use. Only two names- only in two languages- are used for India all over India- English- Republic of India and Hindi-Bharat Ganrajya. Pppooojjjaaa (talk) 01:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC) Wikipedia has a search box at the top right. Please use it. And read the policy pages you have been pointed to in your welcome message. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC) Ok, so kautilya, you give one voteY to allow me to add content as long as it does not violate Wiki policies. Thanks. THough in this section you might as well want to answer one or more of the three points I mentioned about Devnagri. Thanks again Pppooojjjaaa (talk) 02:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC) "Bharay Ganrajya is a Hindi word. Why would someone bother to translate it into another Indian language and then write it? India's official 2 names, according to 2 official languages are Republic of India and Bharat Ganrajya. Any other name in any other Indian language is not its official name." and now you're claiming that you didn't say that? You really need to understand about editing and not waste other people's time with such frivolous arguments.—SpacemanSpiff 02:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC) That is an attack which I might report. Right now , I will say you did not understand what I said- I said that this argument is not making sense- "Devnagri script should not be used because all other translations of this word in all other Indian scripts will also have to be used then". But my point is why should we translate this word to all other scripts when it is an official Hindi word? I hope it is clearer now. You really thought I am so stupid that I will claim I did not say something which is written by me right above? You could have also focused on telling what is IAST. Plus- no one is forcing you to "waste your time". I will go through wiki policies and start editing if talk page results are unproductive. Pppooojjjaaa (talk) 02:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC) It's not a personal attack because you are repeatedly making dubious changes to the article and rehashing arguments here just because you don't like it. You are free to report anywhere of course. You are forcing us to waste our time by correcting the errors you introduce. —SpacemanSpiff 02:26, 10 December 2016 (UTC) From the time I posted on the talk page, I have not made a single attempt to include any sub-section on tourism on the article. Secondly, I assume you understood what I was trying to say earlier about the "translation". Thirdly, what is IAST? Because I feel it was related to one of my 3 points. (in case it was due to the misunderstanding on "translation" thing, I would welcome any further comment on the 3 points I mentioned above.) And yes, calling those original 3 points (that I wrote before the misunderstanding of "translation started") as frivolous is indeed an attack. Also, when I am told tourism contribution to GDP is not significant, and in fact it is more than 6.3%, it is "fact"backed by hundreds of reputed sources, not a subject of my "liking or disliking". Pppooojjjaaa (talk) 02:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC) Given that you've been here for over two years fighting this very battle but are using a six month old account I'm not sure your remonstration can be taken seriously. —SpacemanSpiff 04:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC) SpacemanSpiff (talk · contribs) To be honest, this is one of the reasons why I added the collapsible list (and why I support its inclusion in the infobox). The never-ending squabble over the inclusion of Indic script gets tiring, and the list is a loophole/compromise that makes everyone happy and shuts them up too. Tiger7253 (talk) 19:28, 10 December 2016 (UTC) This is so unfair, I propose we write it in all the Languages of India; at least the 122 major ones. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:48, 12 December 2016 (UTC) I actually support it. And I also agree with the points he/she has said. It is a Hindi(devnagari) word, and need not be translated into any other language. Dharmadhyaksha actually he/she already answered it - why to think of translating in all 122 languages- when 2 official languages are the only ones which have official name of India. Mousanonyy (talk) 20:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC) Both Bhārata and Gaṇarājya are Sanskrit words dating back to times before Christ. And, IAST is a perfectly fine way to write Sanskrit. Let it go people! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC) Yes, origin is definitely Sanskrit, but today- official names of India are 2; one in hindi one in english. Tomorrow, they made be again different. Sure whatever everyone decide just feeling free to drop my opinion on a talkpage. Mousanonyy (talk) 20:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Lead redux

Here is the unedited original proposal on expanding the lead, starting with the history section, (after the FAR of summer 2011) and Saravask's feedback. It is not what I would write today, but it might be a good place to begin. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:04, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

---

I read a number of introductions and conclusions in Indian history books, as well as survey articles on Indian history and historiography, and this, in my considered opinion, is the modern historically sophisticated assessment of India's history that has the support of many of the leading historians of India. It is necessarily quite a bit longer than the old lead, but I have seen leads that are longer. With this history paragraph, the lead would be the same size as that of the United States page. Here it is:

Never truly isolated, India has had bonds with other cultures throughout its history. Never homogeneous, its many peoples and regions have charted distinctive historical courses. India's history encompasses the interleaving and mutual play of these bonds and local histories with what one historian has called the unifying "empires of rule, custom, and belief.^a" The earliest neolithic cultures of the Indian subcontinent belonged to an arc of such cultures cutting through West Asia. The bronze age cities of the Indus Valley Civilization participated in a broad trend of urbanism running across southern Eurasia. The iron age Indo-European languages-speaking culture that created the mythologically opulent Vedic Hinduism in India had also spread among pastoral people in Central and West Asia. The major political consolidations of ancient India, under the Maurya and Gupta empires took place not long after Buddhism and Jainism arose in India, Hinduism matured, and the caste system created uniquely Indian hierarchies, but even as large swathes of the indigenous adivasi people of India continued to lead lives largely untouched by these. The culture and political systems of early medieval Southern India were spread to South East Asia by the Chola and Pallava empires around the same time that Zoroastrianism, Christianity and Islam arrived in India and helped shape its diverse culture. Much of late medieval Northern India was influenced by the Turko-Persian tradition for several centuries, as syncretic cultures took hold under the Delhi sultanate and the Mughal empire, as Sikhism arose, and as Southern India was united for the last time under the Vijayanagara empire. Gradually annexed and unified by the British East India Company from the mid-18th century and ruled directly by the United Kingdom from the mid-19th, India became a colonial economy, as parts of it modernized, and as some elites commenced engaging the Western world, leading ultimately to a nationalist struggle noted for non-violence, and to India's political freedom in 1947.

Let me know what you think. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: a Robb, Peter (2011). A History of India. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 31. ISBN 978-0-230-34549-2. Retrieved 25 October 2011.

PS. Of course the explanatory first three sentences (ending ... custom, and belief.") could be left out entirely. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

---

But for a few stylistic quibbles, I support this paragraph:

• Like rgpk, I think that Gandhi can be added back.
• The first sentence is somewhat vacuous: other than perhaps pre-contact Nauruans, Rapa Nui, and other island societies, what cultural entity has been utterly isolated? Even the technologically backward ancient Chacoans were trading with Mesoamericans thousands of miles away. Not to mention Arab traders, Varangians, etc. Most everywhere, members of most every group has been seemingly going here, there, and back over the long term. Is there something unique about those "bonds"—were they uniquely strong or tenuous, were they long-run, was there a distinctly Indian way in which those bonds trended or developed? If not, it and everything else not uniquely characteristic of India should be pruned.
• I prefer serial commas for the same reason MOS regular Noetica insists upon them in the "Australia" page—they help rather than hinder clarity. And if we are going to keep this as one paragraph, we should split it into two for (perhaps frivolous) aesthetic reasons: you would otherwise have this huge thing more than twice the size of the preceding one. The current third and fourth paragraphs should be merged for the same reason. Of course it is ultimately Fowler's choice whether and where the break should occur.
• I think there are way too many links—stuff like "Northern India", "Hinduism", "Western world", "South East Asia", "colonialism", "Central Asia", and many, many others, when blue, are just crowding out the really helpful India-related essential-context links like "Maurya empire" or to EIC. The surplus links are either patently obvious in meaning or are mere dictionary terms. See User:Tony1/Build your linking skills.

Again, I cannot offer informed comments on topical balance and other less superficial issues. But this one seems to sink its teeth into the subject. After critiquing is over, it should replace the current paragraph pronto. Saravask 22:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a pretty good replacement for the current one but I feel that in this one there is a also lot missing from 1947 to 2016. The paragraph ends as if Independence was the last major historical event in Indian history. What about Nehruvian Socialism, the Indo-Pakistani wars, inclusion of various states into the Union (Kashmir, Hyderabad, Puducherry, Goa, Sikkim, etc), Bangladesh Liberation War, and the millions lifted out of poverty since the economic reforms? Filpro (talk) 04:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the first three sentences are vacuous without greater context and should be removed. I also agree with Saravask that bits not characteristic of India can be pruned for concision. Parts such as "arc of such cultures cutting through West Asia", "broad trend of urbanism running across southern Eurasia", and "also spread among pastoral people in Central and West Asia" are unnecessary, evidenced perhaps by the fact such links are not mentioned in the actual History section (which should bar such information from the lead as well, although it can be added to History if very important). The spread to Southeast Asia is perhaps similarly undue, although this is in the body. The sentence beginning with "The major political consolidations" runs on a bit and tries to do too much on its own, as does the last sentence. I agree that despite the length an additional sentence discussing post-independent history would be worthwhile, although perhaps not mentioning all the events Filpro mentions. CMD (talk) 05:19, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with others that the first three sentences, although polished and evocative, are too vague to remain. "Indo-European languages-speaking" should be hyphenated throughout, or at least have the hyphen break after "languages" rather than before. "...mythologically opulent..." is another instance of evocative but vague language. "...but even as large swathes..." should read "...even as large swaths...". Dhtwiki (talk) 03:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

6th vs 7th largest economy

The Forbes guest column is by a grad student and has been subsequently refuted by a journalist with vast experience at The Hindu, Live Mint, The Financial Express (India) etc. I've reverted back to the original version, unless some well established analytical survey (IMF/WB etc) is published, we should stick to the current factual one. —SpacemanSpiff 13:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Republic versus Constitutional Republic

@B.Lameira:, could you clarify your reasoning from your edit summary for this? I don't know why one should be preferred (no opinion on this, right now) but that was the long-standing wording. It's also a redirect to it anyway. How are both contradictory? Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:40, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

"Constitutional" republic has no special meaning. It is a term coined by American republicans which has no relevant encyclopaedic meaning other than being an oxymoron. Also, the infobox must be kept simple as possible. If all republics abide by rule of law, does it not make having a constitution, either written or unwritten? --B.Lameira (talk) 17:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Dhtwiki:, could you explain me what makes a "constitutional republic" to be any different from just being a republic? As far as I know, this was made a redirect to republic because the term was original research, even the republic article makes no special reference to it. --B.Lameira (talk) 17:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Sections missing and Featured Article problem

On what criteria is India is supposed and selected to be a Featured Article on Wikipedia. I see there are numerous logical problems in this. The Wikipedia article "India" does not compare near to China (which is now recently has become a good article) or the United States of America. I am not sorry to say, that India's article is shoddy and not to the standard of a featured article.

• First, there is wordiness in sentences in the lead part of the article. How does an international encyclopedia have sentences constructed like these?
  • It is the seventh-largest country by area, the second-most populous country (with over 1.2 billion people), and the most populous democracy in the world.
• Second, to have the below sentence(s) as first paragraph on a country's article should be wrong. There is again wordiness in sentences. The below sentence should be like the 2nd or 3rd paragraph (somewhere later down the lead; looks like some kind of advertisement).
  • It shares land borders with Pakistan to the west; China, Nepal, and Bhutan to the northeast; and Myanmar (Burma) and Bangladesh to the east. In the Indian Ocean, India is in the vicinity of Sri Lanka and the Maldives. India's Andaman and Nicobar Islands share a maritime border with Thailand and Indonesia. Its capital is New Delhi; other metropolises include Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai, Bangalore, Hyderabad and Ahmedabad.
• Third, how is it that India which is seventh-largest sovereign country and second-most populous country has these following sections missing in India main article - Science and technology, Education and Infrastructure. China article as a whole has 504 supporting sources, whereas India has only 350 sources.
  • Under the new section, Science and technology, there should be mention on Mars Orbiter Mission, Supercomputing in India and Thirty Meter Telescope. The Mars mission made ISRO the fourth space agency to reach Mars, after the Soviet space program, NASA, and the European Space Agency and the first Asian nation to reach Mars orbit, and the first nation to do so on its first attempt. Government of India approved the launch of the National Supercomputing Mission in 2015. The first of the 70 supercomputers will be ready by August 2017. In addition, Indians were the first people to win Nobel Prize from the continent of Asia.
  • Under the new section, Education, there should be mention on Indian Institutes of Technology, Indian Institutes of Management and other global ranked and popular schools like Indian School of Business, Indian Institute of Science, Institute of Chemical Technology, Birla Institute of Technology and Science, University of Delhi and University of Mumbai.
  • Under the new section, Infrastructure, there should be mention on Delhi Metro, Kochi Metro, Bangalore Metro, Rapid transit in India, Diamond Quadrilateral and Mumbai–Ahmedabad high-speed rail corridor.

Thanks, Motbag12 —Preceding undated comment added 17:49, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

If you haven't already, read the FAQ above. To prevent old arguments from being repeated, suggest you search the archives for old discussions regarding this. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:33, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Read it. Does not have much sense in it with a trash logic. Thanks, Motbag12

Given that, I'm sure you can find a better venue like your own blog to propagate your views, clearly, an encyclopaedia doesn't seem to be right for you. —SpacemanSpiff 08:12, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I think the user has provided legitimate sources to back up his statements. Blogs are for personal opinions and observations. However sources that have been provided are not opinions but facts and media citations. I thinks Indians like you User:SpacemanSpiff are a disgrace to India and educated people in the world. If you do have a personal opinion as an administrator keep it to yourself and Wikipedia is free and this is not Britannica.

References

Semi-protected edit request on 25 December 2016

National game of India is hockey. This has not been mentioned in the article. Shreyasharma2120 (talk) 18:38, 25 December 2016 (UTC) National symbols[1]

→→Game Not declared[177]

 Not done See the FAQ above which will answer your question. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:25, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2016

49.207.232.40 (talk) 07:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Blank request. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)