Talk:India

India as the bigger picture

RRRAD (talk) 18:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)RRRAD. This is probably more suited in the 'History of India' section but is important here nonetheless. I think that Kingdoms and Empires of India should be mentioned here. What i mean to say is that those countries whose roots and civilisations have found origin in India should be included here and should be stated as such. These could include the Philippines, Tibet, Vietnam, Malayasia, Singapore, Burma(Myanmar), Bhutan, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Indonesia and all other countries, particularly from South and Southeast asia and territories, disputed or otherwise that in reality originated from India. For anyone who thinks this is a joke, its not. It is the interpretation of history and influence of other civilisations which have clouded the past and which have played an important role in your judgement against me.

But it seams that India will cut to small states sooner or later due to biased attitude of govt. and cruel Hindus against minorities as already 150 different groups are struggling against govt. for separation therefore no need to mentioned the roots as its size is already reducing (as concluded by facts and figure). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.19.25 (talk) 18:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

India is already many nations. Indian nationalism, which developed against colonial British rule, is weaker as compared to various regional nationalism, which are more realistic and acceptable to the people. I would refer the book 'India-A nation in the making' by Arvind N. Das.Manoj nav (talk) 17:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

economy of india

It needs to be updated, most of the information is from 2005 and 2007. I made some changes.(Dewan S. Ahsan 13:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)) Also I made some changes in the beginning of the India section by adding other aspects of the Indian civilization.

Rabindranath Tagore's name written as "Rabindranath Thakur" when the page is viewed in German(Deutsch) language.

Kindly take necessary actions Thanks

Shouldn't this issue be brought up with on the German Wikipedia (dewiki), specifically Rabindranath Tagore's page instead of India on the English version? It is probably best to notify the equivalent of Wikiproject India there, even in English if you can't speak German because there is bound to be at least a few editors who could understand English. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 12:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Some Indians, specifically people in West Bengal pronounce the name as Rabindranath Thakur. It is perfectly valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.212.232.208 (talk) 20:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Indian Famines

I edited about Indian famines in the history section. Since perhaps tens of millions died during the British era famines, I think that is worth mentioning. Editingman (talk)

I think that is useful information and source, and can be added (with greater details) to Famine in India; Famines, epidemics, and public health in the British Raj; and possibly in the British Raj article. However the information is undue in this article, which deals with (post-independence) Republic of India. Abecedare (talk) 17:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not see it. The article really 'deals with (post-independence) republic of india'? The history section I edited in describes the whole Indian history. Editingman (talk)

I agree that the famines were important and huge but don't think the sentence fits in with the rest of the article. It would go in the British Raj para but, since there is no other detail about the Raj, this one detail stands out as WP:UNDUE. (I reverted Editingman's addition because it would be better to discuss it first here and seek consensus.) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 23:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't be included because it is WP:UNDUE...there are several calamities that have taken the lives of thousands in India - famines being just one of the them. Many lives are also unfortunately lost because of monsoons, droughts, heatwaves, cold waves, earthquakes, etc. This would, however, imo be beyond the scope of this mainspace article. AreJay (talk) 02:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Famines have occoured even before the British came and even after they have left. Althoug I must say that with India becomming self-sufficient in foodgrain production and the tons of grains stored( or rotting ) in FCI godowns, the chances of a famine are rare now. If I remeber, there were a number of AfDs last year for a string of articles with titles such as Victorian Holocaust and British Indian holocaust etc which focused on the same source and dubbed it as unreliable. --Deepak D'Souza 04:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Undue. Famines were common in most countries in teh old days. Especially with such a large population in India (are these stats inclusive of the pre-partition India?) YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 04:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

According to B.M. Bhatia's "Famines in India: A study in Some Aspects of the Economic History of India with Special Reference to Food Problem"(1985), there were disproportionately more famines in British India than at any other time in its history.(The rate was 25 times more). That parts of the government had a role to play in the famine in the name of free trade, as in the Irish famine, is widely unknown and perhaps debatable but that does not make it a fringe theory. Thus, mentioning government policy killing tens of millions is going to be due weight, it would be not unlike having the history section of Germany or Poland without the holocaust, a disaster they suffered that killed far less. Editingman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC).

Nevertheless, this has no place in the main article on India. Not only is it WP:UNDUE but also there is no place in a summary article to present the various causes of famines. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 14:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

What makes somebody claim that Bharadhanatyam is not exclusive to Tamil Nadu ?

Hey there are many points ablout Bharadhantyam in Tamil epic Chilapadhikaram which predates any written literature in Kannada.Just because Bharathanatyam is the most wide spread Classical dance in India ,it doesn't mean Bharadhantyam is not exclusive to Tamil nadu (arun1paladinArun1paladin (talk) 12:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC))

Refer this http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/64017/bharata-natyam —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arun1paladin (talk • contribs) 12:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrong info about poverty

85.7% of the population was living on less than $2.50 (PPP) a day in 2005, compared with 80.5% for Sub-Saharan Africa.[108]- This information is wrong, please check and correct. It should be below 40%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bimgeorge (talk • contribs) 01:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

That is in accordance with the source. Note that the poverty line is at $1.08 and about 40% are below the poverty line in India. I'm not sure why the article chooses to highlight the $2.50 level rather than the poverty line - I don't think the $2.50 figure has any meaning. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

As RegentsPark says. the $2.50 figure was correct but arbitrary, since that corresponds to neither the Indian, nor the World Bank standard.

The $1.08 was the World Bank's 1993 poverty line. World Bank's new standard is $1.25 in 2005 prices (which is not equivalent to the old figure; see page 11 of the the paper). I have corrected the first sentence of the paragraph according, and removed the comparison to Bangladesh and Nepal, since (1) it was not supported by the source and (2) would be undue in this page anyway. Abecedare (talk) 02:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

About the President and PM

Under the Government type in the front page for India, aren't you just supposed to put the President and Prime Minister. Why would you need the VP and Chief Justice? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.62.224.107 (talk) 19:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the chief justice is included as the most senior representative of the judiciary. The VP is less obvious; perhaps one can argue that he is representing the legislative branch as the chairman of the Rajya Sabha. The issue is minor so I won't remove these from the infobox myself, but won't object either if someone else decides to do so. Abecedare (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

is a strange question. The IP should explain why he doesnt like VP and Chief Justice there? --L I C 18:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

No question is too strange :-). I got rid of the VP, it is not really an important post. I think the chief justice should also go because the judiciary is not technically in the job of governing.--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not too uncommon to have the above stuff in the article. It's included in United States, the speaker is also included in that page; same case with Pakistan, but not so with England or United Kingdom. From a logical perspective, it does make sense, as like in the US, the Judiciary, Legislature and Executive are the three branches of the government with distinct responsibilities. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 19:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

True (about the chief justice). I don't think that the VP has an important role to play in India but will defer to whatever you guys think is appropriate. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 03:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Jammu & Kasmir shortened?

The entire Jammu and Kashmir belongs to India and no other Country can even touch it. Just draw the map to its original one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.183.242.98 (talk) 21:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Etymology of India

I want to add in the etymology section that the name Bharat was derived from the name Bharata the son of King Dushyanta. The information is already there in wiki under Emperor Bharata category. So if there are no concerns I will make the edit after a day or two. Manohar.sram (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC).

Made the above change. Manohar.sram (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC).

Alexander

Where is Alexander the Great in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.105.128.38 (talk) 18:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

What does ALexander got to do with Republic of India?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.120.40 (talk • contribs)

First century B.C. & A.D.

Wherever I read, Indian history seems to jump from Asoka to Gupta. What was happening from (say) 100 B.C. to 100 A.D.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.42.142.2 (talk) 04:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Image in History Section

I would suggest to rotate the both image in History section as there are many historical facts about india which are very famous and have lots of images for the same. Moreover i would alos suggest to rotate the image showing Gandhi Ji as there were many gr8 incident in Indian Independence so i think we must show them aslso. --Sandeepsp4u (talk) 07:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Not again! this thing has already been discussed twice over. Please dont keep repeating the same thing all over again. --Deepak D'Souza 08:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

what was the outcome of the discussion please let me know and why can't we discusse this again is there any ruel of Wiki stoping this discussion ?.--Sandeepsp4u (talk) 06:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Didnt you read it? You should have. --Deepak D'Souza 07:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I request you to pelase give me the location of that discussion which happened earlier regarding this issue. --Sandeepsp4u (talk) 08:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I think Deepak is referring to this previous where your contention regarding Gandhi's importance relative to other freedom fighters was discussed.

The current image depicts Gandhi and Nehru who were the most notable actors in Indian history in the decades preceding and following Indian independence. In that sense it is hard to better. But there are other images with similar subject matter, for example this one that not only depict the two, but is also higher quality and was taken at the 1942 AICC session where the Quit India Movement was launched. There are other options available at commons, for example in this and this category. We can even go with a documentary video, though that may raise accessibility issues. Did you have a particular image in mind ? If so, bring it up here and briefly describe why it would be a good candidate. Abecedare (talk) 09:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the documentary video is the best since we can actually hear him speak and see what he did and how he led the people. A video is worth a thousand pictures. Nikkul (talk) 04:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

This photo is very nice. Nikkul (talk) 04:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thnaks for your suggestion and guidence. But how can one say that only M.K.Gandhi and Nehru were responsible for the indian independence. We can't compare any one's secrifice and if yes then please let me know how ? There are lots of people like Bal Ganga Dhar Tilak, Subhash Chandra Bose, Sardar Patel, etc etc.. Even we can think about M.K.Gandhi but Nehru was not grater or more prominent among in compare with the name i had suggested. Please think over it--Sandeepsp4u (talk) 06:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

There are billions of people who have made India what it is today. Each person who has lived in India has contributed to what India is today. But we can't include all their photos here. Nehru and Gandhi took the lead role in freeing India. When you think of India and History, Gandhi is the first person who comes around and then Nehru. Nikkul (talk) 20:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Nikkul I agree on Gandhi but not on Nehru Sardar Patel was more then him. How can you compare all with the contribution of Subhahs, Tilak etc do u think that contribution is less then the nehru and if u think that then i think we need to discusses on this --Sandeepsp4u (talk) 07:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

As the first Prime Minister of India, Nehru's contributions as PM, good or bad, have changed modern India forever. Like him or hate him, Nehru's image does deserve to be there. --Deepak D'Souza 08:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Deepak That's ur POV about Nehru but its not general thinking about Nehru. I think we must discusses about this if you want.--Sandeepsp4u (talk) 07:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Not here. Gnanapiti (talk) 16:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm.. let me see: If I say that Nehru's image deserves to be here, it is POV. But if you say that Nehru's contributions were less than X,Y,Z, it is not POV?? --Deepak D'Souza 09:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Deepak ya i am correct becuase u are only promoting whome u liks and that's nehru but i am promoting all x,y,z. What do u say now ?--Sandeepsp4u (talk) 10:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Er, no. In addition to being recognized for his contributions to the independence movement, he was also India's first PM, and that provides significant reason for his picture being up there. Also, please note that Wikipedia is not a soapbox to correct perceived wrongs. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 17:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice joke my friend then u must put the picture of first president of India, the Constitution writter of india etc etc.. Please read my sentence carefully i am not neglecting him i am just asking that how one can compare the amount of contribution so to justify every secrifice few more pictures must be included.--Sandeepsp4u (talk) 07:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Any objections to replacing by in the History section ? The latter picture is of higher image quality and was taken at a specific historic moment (the 1942 Congress session, where the Quit India resolution was adopted, which can be mentioned in the caption). The basic subject matter is the same so there is no POV/UNDUE issue raised by this change. Abecedare (talk) 23:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Either image works. The second one is of better quality, but the first is a better picture IMHO. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 00:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Ill give the second image a plus point for quality. --Deepak D'Souza 07:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I still support the rotation of image in this section. I am opposing this move as its same as was earlier. There must be rotation of image in history section of as indian history is evolved around Nehru Gandhi it is much longer then that. I think we are only showing the 60 yrs history by this picture. If we try to rotate the image with various others then only the history section will be justified.--Sandeepsp4u (talk) 10:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

support 1942 image. Better quality. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I also support the second Image (1942). Much better quality than the first one. Gandhi and Nehru are more clearly visible in the second image. Good idea to replace it. Kensplanet^T_C 15:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Largest cities of India

Do we need the template {{Largest cities of India}} in the Demographics section of this article, and if so what version is preferred ?

• Compact version without images: [1]
• Version with 3 skyline/iconic images: [2]
• Version with even more images: [3]

The template, especially with the images, adds considerable bloat to the article and is almost as large as some other sections. The images are completely decorative, since there is insufficient room in the template to even add a caption explaining what is being shown. Also the Lotus Temple image in the template is repeated in the cultural section image rotation; consequently on some days we diplay the same image twice in this article.
The template is trsncluded into this article and is not used anywhere else; attempts to reduce or remove images from the template are regularly reverted - most recently by User:Nikkul. Can other editors comment on what they prefer and consider encyclopedic ?
My opinion is that either the template should not be used at all since we can provide more useful information more compactly through text (eg, "India has X number of cities with population over 10 million, Y number over 1 million ... " The article already says, "India's largest cities are Mumbai, Delhi, Kolkata, Chennai, Bangalore, Hyderabad and Ahmedabad."); and if it is to be used, it should not be bloated with decorative content. Abecedare (talk) 13:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the template is hideous and ungainly and shouldn't be in the article. My thoughts:

• If the purpose of the section is to provide detail on the population of the 20 largest cities in India, I would submit that this is probably WP:UNDUE as far as the Demographics section is concerned.
• The images dumb-down the article and have zero encyclopedic value. Nowhere in the India article are "downtown Mumbai", the "Lotus Temple" or "downtown Bangalore" discussed. So what's the point of including these images? If I had to pick one monument or structure to represent Delhi, the Lotus Temple would not be it. Neither would UB City be representative of Bangalore.
• The title of the template is confusing to the average reader, who may be unable to distinguish the concepts of "largest municipality" vs. "largest urban agglomeration". This template basically highlights India's 20 largest municipalities, while the average reader more than likely takes the term "city" (especially in the context of "20 largest cities") to mean "urban agglomeration". There is considerable difference between India's 20 largest municipalities and 20 largest urban agglomerations, both in terms of population and relative rank. I am opposed to this template.

AreJay (talk) 17:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree, the template is distracting and the current pictures aren't exactly the best choices either (in the earlier rev, Chennai pic was the railway station!), but even if the pictures were good choices, the structure of the template doesn't fit well within the article. Prose on the number of cities with greater than X million population and the largest should suffice. A link to a list of cities and their population, area, density, GDP etc might be useful once that list is created. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 18:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

So many country articles on Wikipedia have this same template with thumbnails of two major cities. Why shouldn't India? This is an encyclopedia- meaning that similar articles should be uniform! This is not a MySpace, where each page is customizable as we like. We must strive to create a uniform encyclopedia where similar pages are uniform.

Pakistan, USA, China, Brazil, Australia, Mexico, Russia, Canada, Argentina, Ukraine, UK, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bulgaria, Iran, Malaysia, Netherlands, North Korea, Turkey, Japan, South Korea, Philippines, etc. ALL have this same template. Why shouldn't India have the same template?

I support having two images in that template. We can change the way we define "city" if you want, but I think this template helps the usual reader learn about India's main cities. Keep in mind that the usual reader does NOT analyze the "bloat" of an article. There are sooo many featured country articles which have larger sections and much more information about each individual aspect of the country (Infrastructure, Language, Religion, TV & Broadcasting, Heritage Sites, Education, Science, Tourism, etc.) Saying that this template makes this page bloated is ridiculous. Please have a look at the Germany, Japan, or Israel pages! Nikkul (talk) 00:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia- meaning that similar articles should be uniform! Is this your opinion or a reflection of Wikipedia policy? If all articles should be uniform, can you explain why Wikipedia has article assessment classes? It's interesting that you bring up MySpace because my own reaction to seeing that garish table in the article was that the table belonged on MySpace and not on Wikipedia. So many country articles on Wikipedia have this same template with thumbnails of two major cities. Why shouldn't India? isn't a half convincing argument. So many Wikipedia articles have poor grammar and POV. Why shouldn't India? AreJay (talk) 00:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

To add: Other stuff exists is not a good argument; its more productive to discuss encyclopedic value and due weight. Nikkul, can you address the substantive issues AreJay, SpacemanSpiff and I raised above ? For example:

• Why is listing populations of 20 cities upto with a false precision of 7/8 significant digits due in this summary style article ?
• How does slapping on a random images and labeling them "Delhi", "Mumbai" etc serve any encyclopedic purpose ? What understanding or information is the reader supposed to gain from those decorative images, without even knowing what they depict.

Abecedare (talk) 01:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

AreJay, you clearly do not understand what I'm saying. I am saying that the FORMAT of similar articles should be the same. If there's a common template that many country articles use, then we should include that on the India page to keep uniformity.

If all articles should be uniform, can you explain why Wikipedia has article assessment classes? If you are saying that all articles do not have to be uniform, then can you explain why country articles follow the same format (History, Government, Economy, Culture, etc)? If each country article had its own way of doing things, the USA page would start with Military, the Japan page would start with Economy, the Sweden page would start with Healthcare, and the Canada page would start with a section on Hockey. There is a reason we have uniformity in encyclopedic articles.

Please go read World Book or Encyclopedia Britannica. You will see that every article has the same tables the same sections, and the same format. That's what makes an encyclopedia. Nikkul (talk) 02:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, is this bit about uniformity your opinion or Wikipedia policy? If it is policy, I am compelled (at least in the short term) to accept it; if it is your opinion, I don't have to accept it. The distinction is necessary. I don't want to get caught up with semantics, but feel the distinction needed to be made - especially given how you've made your point in bold above. That's besides the point. Per Abecedare, please address the substantive issues that this user, SpacemanSpiff and I have raised in your subsequent reply. AreJay (talk) 02:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Any responses to this, or are am I to take it that there is consensus to remove the template from the article? AreJay (talk) 07:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that appears to be consensus. When you do that, please add the prose too. I'll look for the appropriate list of cities to link, if there isn't any, I'll create one. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 17:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

As per the above discussion, I have removed the template and added content about the urban-rural population. Interestingly, despite common perception, the urban share of India's population has not increased dramatically post-independence (it has gone up from ~17% in 1951 to 27% in 2001); however the concentration in the large cities (as opposed to small and medium towns) has increased significantly (see [4]).
Also, the article stated previously (without any source) that "in recent decades migration to larger cities has led to a dramatic increase in the country's urban population." I thought that too, but that reasoning turns out to be a urban legend (couldn't resist!) - the "natural increase" in the existing population, rather than migration, is the most significant contributor to urban population growth (see last para on page 116 and Table 6.5; I saw other references about this too). Just another example of why simply including what we think is right is so risky.
Feel free to copyedit, trim or otherwise improve my addition. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 22:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Ajanta Image Replacement

I think the Ajanta image needs to be replaced. India has a rich history and the Ajanta image just does not satisfy. It is unclear, irrelevant, and unnecessary.

Are there any other candidates images? Nikkul (talk) 01:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think the Ajanta Image is basically included since it is a featured picture :) Kensplanet^T_C 15:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

small-car export hub

I disagree with the Nano immage summary:

Firstly, I totally disagree with this statement :"India's strong engineering base and expertise ". It is a personal opinion. None of the refs say that. And that is true only if you count the number of engineering graduates passing out. Quality wise India's engineering talents are hardly world-beating. Really, think about it: what percentage of your PC is Indian in origin? And what Indian product (apart from Nano) does the world talk about? I dont know any.

For the second part :India as a small-car hub

1. This link is a blog of questionable reliability:[5]. The title says "India a car export hub.." but the text doesnt.
2. This link[6] says: India is becomming a hub, not that it is already one.
3. This link [7] also says "India is becoming a small-car manufacturing " not that it is one.

--Deepak D'Souza 14:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up Deepak, I was going to bring it up yesterday, but completely forgot. This bit is entirely POV, and treats the future is bright statements as representing the past and present. In addition, while the Nano is a good product, it is not representative of the Indian economy, the section where it is placed. If at all, a business house like the Tatas should be out there, not a car that is being talked about but hasn't yet become a significant player in the world market. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 15:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and made changes to the POV sentence. Gnanapiti (talk) 17:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I also removed the unnecessary statement about patents from the caption - filing is not the same as holding (the ref only supports filing) and reformatted the refs, removing the link to the wordpress blog etc. However, I still hold that this picture doesn't belong there, the auto industry is a rather small part of the Indian economy and is not representative of the section. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 16:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

True. I think the BSE image is sufficient. The Nano image would be more appropritate if there was some section on Engineering and Industry. How about a GDP chart or something lieke that?--Deepak D'Souza 11:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Concur, I believe one image is sufficient for the section and BSE is the best choice for that; this is not a picture book. That said, if we need another image, I agree with your suggestion that a GDP chart would be a better choice. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 15:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

New image in the demography section

Why is there a new image of the Hoysaleshvara temple in the demography section? No context, bleeds into the next section and is in excess of already existing good architectural images. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 21:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

New nav bar

The addition of the National personifications nav bar in the article is absurd. I reverted addition once, but it's been added back. A link to Bharat Mata if there's context is acceptable, but a nav bar with links to every other country's personifications?? -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 06:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that that template is completely undue; the personifications are not even worth mentioning in the article, let alone adding a whole navigational template for the purpose. The various names and official symbols of India are already covered in the article, and the term Bharat Mata belongs in the Names of India article. The {{National personifications}} should perhaps be deleted, as it is a list masquerading as a navigational template; for the moment, I have removed it from this article. I have also removed an extra and unnecessary layer of collapse box that was recently added, which just added a navigational speed bump without any countervailing gain. I also removed the SAARC and Commonwealth navigational templates, since we already provide links to all the significant international organisations of which India is a member. Abecedare (talk) 07:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Please forgive me, editors SpacemanSpiff and Abecedare, as I find both your arguments quite untenable. Even though the names and official symbols of India are covered in the article, there is not one link in the article that points to Bharat Mata, the long-term personification of India, and powerful in the minds of the Indian people. No not one. You want absurd? That's absurd. The addition of the Np Navbar might seem absurd to you, however it is anything but absurd. If you were a citizen of a country, who happened to hold high the symbols of your country, such as the flag, the colossal statue in the harbor, the sculpture in front of the leader's building, whatever the widely recognized symbols may be, you might sing a different tune.

You say that the Np Navbar should be deleted on the grounds that it is "a list masquerading as a navigational template". What is any nav. template but a list of other articles that are related to the subject of the article? If this is your reason for disliking the navbar, then you must dislike ALL navbars for the exact same reason. Are you beginning to see why your reasons for reverting my edits cannot hold up to scrutiny? And the other navboxes you removed, Abecedare, are also very important tools for readers to use, including the Template group you dismiss on a whim. Template grouping is a practice designed to make this encyclopedia appear more like an encyclopedia and less like a circus. If, when readers finish an article and come to the Template group, they want to see what's inside, then viola! a whole new array of choices for further reading open up to them!

Rather than being a "speed bump", this and other Navbars help readers to smoothly make a transition to whatever other related articles they may want to peruse. Moreover, this particular Navbar, which holds the historical personifications of twenty one countries including India, can give readers the important information that other people in other countries also personify their beloved countries, and they get the feeling that we're not so different after all, are we.

In the end, the purpose of all Navboxes is to FOCUS readers on the related articles and subjects under certain headings and titles. Navboxes give people reading choices so that their curiosity may continue to be piqued by the subject that interests them. They serve several important functions in this encyclopedia, and they deserve better than the negatives you have tossed at them. I shall not revert your edits again for a few days to allow some time for you to perhaps rethink your positions. Then, if you still feel the same, there may come a need for some uninvolved editors to come and help us arbitrate this conflict. I say this because I strongly believe that I am right about all this; however, I have been wrong before, so it's always good to seek the opinions of others.

I do respect you and your opinions, and I want to make that very clear to both of you. It's just that your arguments for noninclusion of these important navigational aids to readers make absolutely no sense to me. Please do reconsider.
 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  08:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

To continue

So, editors Abecedare and SpacemanSpiff, here we are a few days later, and it's time to go forward on these issues. Let me say first that, even though some of the things said above (like "absurd", "completely undue", "not even worth mentioning", "list masquerading as") might be construed by some editors who have put as much time and work into a template as I have to be uncalled for, even uncivil, I on the other hand will continue to assume good faith on your parts. I see by both your contributions that you have the same end in mind that I have... to improve this article and, ultimately, this encyclopedia.

The reason I assume good faith on your parts and, as well, respect your opinions, is because I'm acutely aware that I am far less involved in this particular article and its related articles than the two of you are. Hopefully, you will understand that I have put a lot of work into the Np Navbar just to get it to hold more than twenty countries. It's entire focus is to show the people of the various countries in the Navbar that they are not alone when it comes to personifying their beloved nations, that they can stretch their imaginations and learn about the historic personifications of other people in other areas of the world. That's the focus. That's the purpose and focus of this {{National personifications}} Navbar.

When we left this, we seemed to be in complete disagreement about the Np Navbar and the other Navbars, as well as the Template group issue. Since none of the Navbars have been reinstated, I take this to mean that neither of you feel differently than you did a few days ago? That would seem to be the prudent conclusion. Is there room in your opinion set for reaching a settlement via compromise? Please let me know your thoughts on these matters, as I am always willing to learn from editors who've been working on the Wikipedia for as long as both of you have.
 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  11:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I somehow missed your previous reply, or I would have responded earlier. Anyway, lets keep the issue of whether the {{National personifications}} template should be deleted or not aside (since this is not the right venue for that discussion, and I don't have strong feelings about that point) and concentrate on whether the template should be added to this article.

I continue to believe that it is not suitable for the India page.

• Firstly, this is a summary style article and while it necessarily mentions the national flag, national emblem, national anthem and national song, and even lists the national animal, flower, tree, fruit etc., getting into the various unofficial designations and symbols for India would be undue. That is the reason, the personification Bharat Mata is not mentioned in this article text or in the table of national symbols. Also as a summary style article, it cannot possibly list navigational templates for the 1000s of subjects that are linked to India, let alone their analogs for all other countries (say, a template each for {{National animals}}, {{National plants}}, ...; you'll note that these are redlinks, since the content is correctly centralised to a single article like List of national animals, instead of being transcluded across 100s of pages).
• Secondly, the relevance of the template to this page and other country pages is doubtful: while it is reasonable to expect that a reader of the article Uncle Sam will be interested in learning about other national personifications, it is a stretch to argue that a person reading about United States will want to next navigate to Bharat Mata.

So if you do want to retain the template, add it to the pages on the individual national personifications (although I believe that even on those pages it is better to simply link to the National personification page instead), rather than adding it to the country mainpages themselves. Hope this post makes my reasoning clearer. Abecedare (talk) 12:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I called the addition of the nav bar to this page absurd, not the nav bar itself. If you think that is uncivil, that isn't something I can do much about. I stand by my statement, a nav bar with 20+ links being added to an article should have a majority of those links related to that article. In this case, there is just one link that is related to this article, making the nav bar undue in this article. As far as adding a link to Bharat Mata within the article if there's context, I'm not opposed to it; I'm not exactly for it either, but I don't have any specific objections. As far as {{National personifications}} goes, I did not comment on its utility, value or structure, and I have no intention of doing so, my only opinion, and a very valid one is that it doesn't belong in this or any other country articles, but given that I'm not involved in any of the other country pages, I'm not going to revert or start a discussion on any of those, unless it comes to a general forum. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 16:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

(out) Thank you both for your further comments. We seem to be at an impasse as concerns the National personifications template. Abecedare, you did not address the issue of those other templates you removed, which I also oppose. Those templates were in place when I installed the National personifications template, so removing them may go against the information preservation policy. Nor was the issue of the Template group addressed. Do you agree then that those Navbars you removed and the Template group can be reinstated?

On to the next step, then. Since there are just the three of us involved in this discussion, and the two of you appear to be fairly like-minded, I shall ask for a third party opinion as soon as I have some time. Thank you again very much for your welcome participation!
 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  20:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll be happy to expand upon the reasoning for removing the SAARC and Commonwealth template, and the encapsulating navbar, but it may be better to address the issues sequentially, since this is not really an emergency. Perhaps we can reach a consensus on the {{National personfications}} template first with, hopefully, other editors chiming in ? Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 21:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion

Hi, I came here from WP:3O. A navbar on national personifications seems to me completely out of context in this article. A navbar is meant to help people navigate between subjects which are all strictly related with the article, sharing a common theme and/or of the same category of the article itself. This is not the case Therefore, the navbar is properly located to the articles of the national personifications themselves, not on the nation's article. I understand the concern of Paine Ellesworth in wanting a link to the national personification of India, and I agree on such link to be added, but the navbar is not at all the right way. Hope it helps. --Cyclopia (talk) 14:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Cyclopia, for coming and for posting your opinion! I shall accede then to the wishes of the two involved editors. Abecedare, there is no reason for you to expand upon your reasoning for removing the SAARC and Commonwealth template. You and SpacemanSpiff appear to have the best interests of India at heart.

So I will leave you with one thought... I have checked every article, each and every country article on the National personifications template. I did this to see if there were any other editors who felt the same way you do about my adding that template to the country pages about a week ago. There are several other editors involved with those articles and who have made recent editorial improvements. And there are several recent to fairly recent discussions on each of their talk pages, and yet no discussions about the additions of either the Np template nor about the Template group. The two of you jumped on this directly after I added the template and the Template group. And we must accept that all the other country pages are also watched very closely, just as you watch the India-related articles. So the question that arises is... Out of 21 countries, each with several different editors improving their country article, why do all of those editors accept the changes, and why is India the only country article that is not allowed to benefit from the inclusion of these templates?

Eventually, there will be more countries added to the template. Before I fixed it, it would only hold twenty countries. Now it can hold as many countries as have national personifications.

I very humbly ask that both of you reread the points I made above. I personally believe that every Navbar belongs on every page to which it links, no exceptions. This is because every Navbar has a different focus for the readers, and every reader of this encyclopedia is entitled to the reading choices that these Navbars provide. They are located at the ends of the articles for a reason. The Navbars are there to give readers choices for further reading. And all of our readers deserve these options.

Thank you very much for the time and trouble you both have taken to debate this issue with me. Whatever your final decision is about the Np Navbar and the Template group, I firmly believe that the article on India and all the other India-related articles you are involved with are truly in good hands!

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  02:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Paine. First of all, thanks for your nice words. It doesn't happen often to find such high courtesy in editors with which there is a disagreement. That's the spirit of WP at its best, and I thank you. That said, I fully understand your points, yet they do not convince me completely. I want to make it clear that it is purely, let's say, a consistency matter.

The use of a navbar is that of helping the reader to go and look articles which fall under the same category or that bring a strict relationship to each other. For example, if you look at University of Cambridge navbars, you will find that such navbars all link to other universities. For the same reason, a navbar of personifications should be put on articles about personifications, to allow the reader to find other examples of personification. The problem is: the other national personifications of the navbar would be not related to India, and as such would be out of place.

I understand your concern of India's personification not being linked. For this, I suggest you two things. First: include the national personification of India within the India topic navbar. It makes complete sense for it being linked there, and it would be a nice addition. Second: find also, if needed, a suitable place in the article for it to stay.

I think this can satisfy your requirements. I hope it helped. --Cyclopia (talk) 03:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a very good idea, Cyclopia, especially if the involved editors agree. It can be easily and subtley done by placing the Np template at the Bottom, under "Portal", in brackets rather than template nesting, which appears to introduce some interesting and undesirable effects that I'm not yet savvy enough to deal with. It would look like this...

Except, of course, it would only be collapsed when it is used with other Navbars. Thank you for the suggestion. If editors SpacemanSpiff and Abecedare accept this compromise, then I can offer it up to the Talk page of the India Topics template.

Paine, though I know this is not the right forum for the discussion, let me briefly outline a couple of reasons I don't believe that "every Navbar belongs on every page to which it links"

• Firstly, for an article like India the number of related nav. bars easily numbers in the thousands (there are ~100 potential navbars just for the international organizations India belongs to). While one may argue that all these navbars can be collapsed and thus hidden from the disinterested user, the transclusions still increase the page size by several megabytes, thus increasing the page download time, and even making it inaccessible for many readers without fast internet connections. Of course, in practice we will hit the Mediawiki transclusion limits before then, but we can look past such technical detail for this thought experiment.
• More importantly, as editors of encyclopedic content, it behooves us to exercise editorial control, which involves deciding what to say and what to leave out from a particular article. We need to provide a reader with guidance on what we think (based on reliable sources and our judgment) is the most relevant information he needs to know on a subject, and this is true even for the links we choose to include withing the article body or through navbars. By dumping all related links at the end of the article, we re-mix the wheat with the chaff, and do our readers a disservice.

That said, I do appreciate the polite tone of this discussion. If anyone can suggest an appropriate means for linking to the Bharat Mata directly or indirectly from India, and especially from Names of India, I am all ears. PS: Can we remove the {{3O}} template from the article now ? Abecedare (talk) 03:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done. And I do see the wisdom in your above reasoning. How do you feel about the Third Party compromise that Cyclopia suggested above?

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  04:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you (or me!) misunderstood Cyclopia's suggestion: he is suggesting adding a link to Bharat Mata from India or {{India topics}}; not adding the {{National personifications}} template in toto to the {{India topics}} template. The latter is not a good idea since that means that we link to national personifications of Iceland, Poland, Portugal UK, etc not only from this article (where we now agree they don't belong) but also from around 100 odd articles that transclude the India topics template.

As for linking to Bharat Mata: I don't think the link to this unofficial symbolism belongs in the India topics template, given the fact that the template doesn't even link to the official national symbols of India. As I have stated before, the concept of Bharat Mata should be described in, and linked from, the article Names of India, and the {{National personifications}} template can be added to the Bharat Mata article. Abecedare (talk) 04:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes, after rereading Cyclopia's suggestion, I see that you are correct. So I modified the Navbar above. I know you think that Bharat Mata should not be in the India Topics Navbar, however if it were to find a place there, it would probably fit best in the "Culture" section. As I said, I will leave that up to you and other involved editors who may take an interest.

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  05:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

While I still believe that a link to Bharat Mata would be undue in the {{India topics}} template, if you, or anyone else, adds it there, I am not going to revert or even object. After all that would hardly be a momentous change; nor would it be in the top million list of things-that-can-be-improved on wikipedia. :-) I know none of us planned to discuss this issue at the length we did, but I have no regrets since it was all polite and thoughtful. Happy editing! Abecedare (talk) 06:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Abecedare, and as I said, I will make no more changes involving India's national personification, Bharat Mata, anywhere. I will leave that to any involved editors such as yourself and SpacemanSpiff who may want to make any changes either to the India article or to the India Topics navbar.

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  06:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Goa

A previous sentence describes unresolved terriorial claims, which is a good preface for the resolved territorial claims. Goa is one of them. India drove Portugal out and now everyone recognizes the India governing of Goa.

So the article says (paraphrasing): India has unresolved territorial claims. (adding) Some territorial claims have been resolved, such as reclaiming Goa from Portugal in 1961 when the Portuguese were driven out by military conquest.

This new sentence can be reworded, no problem. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

We have well-developed article on Goa, History of Goa and Invasion of Goa that progressively go into greater detail on how the Portuguese rule over Goa ended. Similarly we have articles on Puducherry, History of Pondicherry and French India on French enclaves in India. However, adding details about these events into this summary style article, which covers five wars with China/Pakistan in 1 sentence (!), is undue in my opinion. Also trying to balance the existing significant territorial disputes with China and especially Pakistan (which regularly invite, IMO hyperbolic, descriptions of nuclear tinderbox etc) with the resolved issues with Portugal or France, is POV synthesis. Finally note that Lonely Planet guides are not a reliable source for Indian history, especially in a well-developed article like this one. Abecedare (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Goa is a very significant part of Indian history. I agree having sources is important. However, I don't know anyone who denies the retaking of Goa happened, not even those that deny the Holocaust happened or who believe the Moon landing was fake. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 23:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Goa may be significant, but an article that doesn't have space for outlining the nature of the territorial disputes between India and Pakistan and China, both issues that are important to know about today, cannot possibly allocate space to an issue that has no current significance. Also, though this is beside the point, I'm not sure if 'territorial dispute' is the proper characterization of the reclaiming of Goa. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 01:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted this latest edit by Suomi Finland 2009, which expanded the existing sentence,

"On 15 August 1947, India gained independence from British rule, but at the same time Muslim-majority areas were partitioned to form a separate state of Pakistan"

with the addendum,

"and Goa remained under foreign control until a 1961 liberation."

I believe this addition is undue, since many large princely states (including Kashmir and Hyderabad) and French and Portuguese enclaves (including Goa, Pondicherry, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Daman and Diu) joined India post-15th August 1947, and singling out Goa for mention is inappropriate. All this is covered in the linked article History of the Republic of India, and further details are included in Political integration of India and dozens of others linked from there. Abecedare (talk) 03:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Goa is the only territory of the Indian sub-continent whose legal status is yet to be ascertained. The 'de facto' control by India has not been legally recognised by the United Nations, and the 'de jure' status can only come through the self-determination of the indigenous people of Goa. All information regards Goa is misleading and should be put under a big question mark. An effort was made to bring out the legal facts (with sources, references) as regards Goa, but it was too good for wikipedia to consider. Those who wish to know more can find it all on our website. --Gaunkars of Goa (talk) 05:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Gaunkars of Goa, please stop your continuous soapboxing. Your posts have been reverted by many editors multiple times, this time, I've chosen to reply instead, hoping that you'll stop. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 08:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear Proffessor, Your editors are mere editors most ignorant of facts, if wikipedia doesn't want to look into the fact of the matter and just keep on editing nonsense then its not my problem, I just did my duty of objecting for which I have all the right. I just don't understand your real problem.--Gaunkars of Goa (talk) 15:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Why are you afraid to keep my discussion open? Keep it open, you will get the real feedback.--Gaunkars of Goa (talk) 15:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Now this is not from me but from a political party in Goa, http://www.goasu-raj.org/gen/articles/19.asp, wake up guys!--Gaunkars of Goa (talk) 16:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

And can you tell us ignorant peasants how many seats has the Goa Su Raj party won since inception? Just give us the number, no rants please. --Deepak D'Souza 08:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Science & Tecnology

Any reason why there is no section on Science & Technology? 71.198.231.7 (talk) 09:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The Stereotype Image of India

I miss the good ol' days when the Taj's image was removed from the article... It felt good without the hyper-cliched-styreotype India icon that it had turned into. I'm not trying to racially isolate the mausoleum for being Persian and not Indian, but the point is that it's picture just doesn't faithfully represent the diverse cultures of the country.

The Mahabodhi Temple picture is a great one. It signifies an integeral culture of India, the Buddhists'. But, as far as my knowledge goes, the Mughal culture had died out centuries ago... (with remainants only in Indonesia). (extinct, defunct, ... desperate?) The building sure is a prized possession of the nation. An antique, exotic (def: from another part of the world ), and gigantic Showpiece(simile)... and the World wants to see it. But, it is not a part of the "culture".

Astonishingly, India's national monument has no mention whatsoever... any clues to what it is?? (clue: not the Taj Mahal of course)

It is..ahem..The India Gate. (Ta-da!)

Moral o' the story: We shouldn't be bound to stereotypical point-o-views, they're misleading.

On a lighter note, India isn't all about the Taj, elephants 'n' turbaned camel-guys drinking a holy cow's 'you know what'.

--HFret (talk) 08:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this comes as a surprise to me. When was the India gate declared the Monument of India? To my knowledge, there is no single "National Monument" in India. And the India Gate article does not provide any reference for the claim.--Deepak D'Souza 08:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)