Talk:India

Template:WP1.0

Guidelines for editing the India page

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

Demographics Image Poll

A Note to fellow voters:

Though Wikipedia's primary method of determining consensus is discussion, not voting. Editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys may actually impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, if at all, and may not be treated as binding.

How to vote

Sign with "# ~~~~" on the end of the list of the article you want to vote. Opposing votes are not counted; see approval voting. Only a single vote is valid.

---

Replace
Support:-

1. Nikkul 16:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
2. Sarvagnya 18:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
3. Universe=atom^{•Talk•Contributions•} 14:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
4. Chanakyathegreat 09:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep without any changes(ie.leave the article as it currently is)
Support:-

Keep but add another along with it
Support:-

1. KnowledgeHegemony 15:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
2. Vishnuchakra 20:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This is stupid! =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Frankly speaking I have no problem with the Apatani tribal lady image. A free image of this quality like the Apatani one is hard to get. We all should feel fortunate. It alone gives an incomplete outlook. But now lets drop the issue(came to this conclusion seeing the archives).

Still, I feel we should be more open to improvements to this already very good article. As far as the text is concerned its excellent. But if you compare the pictures to that of Australia, Germany, Japan and Pakistan this article lacks images. Not a single picture of any landscape in a natural resource rich country as India.

• There is not a single picture of the Himalayas.
• India being an agricultural nation we could have a pic of tea-garden(since its the largest producer of tea) or some paddy field of farmers tilling a field or some farmers sowing rice
• Not a pic of any river, lake, waterfall.
• Picture in culture depicting popularity of Cricket.
• Picture to depict Bollywood or any Indian film industry. When we all know films play a major role in our culture!

Atleast one of these could be included.

--KnowledgeHegemony 16:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

This debate will never end will it? The reason why the Aptani image was chosen was because 1. It comes from NE India giving the page a regional balance and 2. it is a featured picture. So by all means change it, BUT get a suitable replacement for NE India without disturbing the regional balance or section relavence and 2. Get the image featured! =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Who cares if it is a featured picture or not? We need pictures, and the topic, not the merits, of a picture should be looked at. Universe=atom^{•Talk•Contributions•} 17:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see the archives of past discussions. That should answer why. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Nichalp, do not call our efforts stupid. They are completely relevant. The term Demographics certainly does not mean "characteristics of .00006 percent of a population" Also, there is no regional balance unless you consider a hut to represent the culture of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala and Tamil Nadu. Also, please read the discussion about attachment to featured images.

Also, an image has to relate to the text. There is no mention of tribes in the demographics section The India article summerizes. The demographic section summerizes the demographics of India. The demographics image should also summerize the dems of India. The Apatani image is too specific Nikkul 21:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Really Nikkul, how many polls does it take make this effort stupid? The last time you were banned for bringing on sockpuppets and accusing me of harassment. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I am a frequent reader of Wikipedia. I dont edit, but my schoolwork requires me to use the site a lot. I have just realized that the talk pages of each article are more interesting than the article itself. Anyway, when I read an article, I do not see any difference between a featured image or a normal image (that shows a lot). So i just wanted to comment on that since you people are discussing this and since editors probably dont see it through a readers perspective. Anyway I respect what you do. Thanks 68.36.160.96 19:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

According to Nicahlp - "...The reason why the Aptani image was chosen was because 1. It comes from NE India giving the page a regional balance and 2. it is a featured picture...". This is the most ridiculous thing I've heard in defense of that image. The "featured pic" pitch is a joke. As the previous arguments(which Nichalp ask us to refer) show, the consensus was "relevance first, featured next". And saying that the pic has been added just to provide regional balance is condescending and borders on bad taste. It almost like somebody pointing out... "Hey... this article is lopsided in favour of the more high profile regions... it doesnt talk much about NE..." and Nichalp responding..."hey.. dont worry.. we'll throw in a pic and be done with it." Talk of systemic bias!

As for the replacement, I feel the demographics map that was suggested recently would be a more relevant pic for the section and the Apatani pic needs to be replaced. Sarvagnya 03:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing funny about having a featured picture. It represents a level quality that we can certainly do with. Have you even read my proposals in a previous talk page archive on why I mentioned it? Please do before accusing me of what not. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes, perfectly good pictures can not be featured because they are a tad bit smaller than the required resolution. This is why they dont get featured status. But does that mean that they are any less good?? Not at all. I think we're all on the same page except user:nichalp Nikkul 14:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by a tad smaller? Do you know what a featured picture is? Please try and get some featured. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Nichalp: A reading of the archives of a talk page is not needed to judge common sense. It is not at all important whether a picture is featured or not. We have to look at how it relates to the text and what it actually is. For example, a picture of a piece of crap can be featured. Does that mean that we should include it in the "Culture" section just because all Indians, sooner or later, have to excrete waste products? Universe=atom^{•Talk•Contributions•} 18:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is. Featured pictures cut down subjectivity. Please let me know if you read the recent archives first. If not, I won't waste my time typing the same stuff again. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Nichalp: By your comment "Yes it is," do you mean yes to the comment on the featured crap or yes to the comment of the reading of the talk archives? Universe=atom^{•Talk•Contributions•} 17:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW, Nichalp: Yes, I just read the archive that you were probably talking about. There, you point out why a picture should be featured to be on this article, which is a comment on which I partially agree and partially disagree. However, in the same comment, you also put that the pictures should be regionally balanced and should relate to the topic. This comment, which is you own, contradicts your own favorite picture (Apatani). Talk about wasting time on typing! Universe=atom^{•Talk•Contributions•} 17:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Aptani was never my favourite image. I only defended it's featured status and regional balance to the hilt. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

No please don't. You, Nikkul and Sarvagyna have already done that a few times on this page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

F&F, can you please specify what exactly you are talking about? Universe=atom^{•Talk•Contributions•} 20:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Spoken article?

While the article claims to have a spoken version, all I can hear is the Indian national anthem playing. Did somebody replace the original recording?--Seraphiel 10:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, is there something I am missing? Did I play the wrong file?--Seraphiel 06:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything wrong. Did you play the right file? Image:India.ogg? =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I followed this link from the article itself. And it seems to be playing the same file that you just linked to. I tried again, and all I can hear is a rendering of the Indian national anthem with some extra stuff added. No voice recording at all.--Seraphiel 16:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the spoken article link from the article now.--Seraphiel 10:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess you are playing the wrong file. I can hear a spoken article. --(Sumanth|Talk) 10:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

How can that be? Did you try the link I pasted above?--Seraphiel 10:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I downloaded the file [1] and played it in Windows media player (you need install a plugin for that).--(Sumanth|Talk) 10:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

What difference does it make if I stream the file (using Wikipedia's built-in Java based player) or download and play it? It should give the same output, right? Why is it that I hear the national anthem playing?--Seraphiel 10:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Streaming doesn't seem to work for me. It shows some error and doesn't play the file at all. Someone else needs to check this--(Sumanth|Talk) 10:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

So can someone with Java installed try out the link above?--Seraphiel 10:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Demographics Vote Results

The proposed replacement - This pic is as good as FA quality. It is .svg. It pertains to "Demographics". It also shows state borders and capitals which is a bonus.

From the vote taken a few weeks ago [2], here are the results:

Those Who Favor Replacement [11]: The Behnam, Sarvagnya, Abecedare, Nikkul, Effer, Sumanth, Haphar, Blacksun, Indianstar, Naresh, Ambuj Saxena

Those Who Favor Retainment [7]: Fowler&fowler, Ragib, Ekantik, Gizza, Saravask, Nichalp, Madhu

It's certainly not as black and white as you put it. Please read the comments carefully before assuming that people voted in entiretly for removing/keeping. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

No. Nikkul was closer. Though, it certainly wasnt as black and white Fowler had counted it last time around. Sarvagnya 09:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Counting again

I took a closer look at the previous vote and here is what I found.

The results of the previous vote were as follows -

Remove: Users The Behnam, Sarvagyna, Ekantik, Nikkul, Effer, Sumanth, Indianstar, Naresh, Incman, and Khazadum. + Chanakyathegreat. universe=atom, Total votes: 12.

Conditional keep(ie., "remove if replaced by a graph") - Users Ragib, Abecedare, Ambuj.Saxena, Blacksun, dab. Total: 5

Keep: Haphar, Gizza, Nichalp, Saravask, Madhu, Fowler&fowler, Chanakyathegreat, Maquahuitl, BovineBeast, and user:129.125.7.218. Total votes: 9

Now since we have a very good replacement in Image:India_population_density_map_en.svg, it is fair to count the "conditional keep"s as remove.

That would bring the tally to,

• Remove - 15 17
• Keep - 10 9

Unless there are any objections in the next few days, I will replace the existing Apatani pic with the pic above. Sarvagnya 08:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Chanakyathegreat has just voted in favour of replacing the pic. I have updated the scores. Sarvagnya 09:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Adding a map of India will solve all problems since it includes all of India. This debate going on for such a long time. Beats all records of negotiations. A.K Anthony can be proud that his department is much better. Chanakyathegreat 09:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too keen on the map of India. It seems, well, sterile. I'd rather, as I said in the last debate, have two contrasting pictures of Indian people. BovineBeast 13:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, even my views match Bovine's. That's why I voted for Keep but add another pic too. --KnowledgeHegemony 14:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Nichalp will argue that this will disturb the regional diversity...but there is none unless a hut represents the culture of AP, TN, Kerala, and Karnataka. Also, if we want regional balance, we can change another image in another section and make it an image from the north east. There is no condition that only the demographics image must be from the north east to preserve any sort of regional balance that apparently exists.Nikkul 14:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I totally support the addition of the Population Density map and the replacement of the Apatani image with it. Nikkul 14:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the population density map is a good replacement because it shows the demographics of all of India, instead of just a small corner. Also, the votes show that most people are in favor of replacing it. So, the times are just right to do so. BTW, does anybody think that it is good enough to be nominated for Featured status? Universe=atom^{•Talk•Contributions•} 16:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

KH - I am afraid, adding an extra pic is not an option here. Grave concerns have been expressed over article size and 'unnecessary bloat' and it is feared that adding any more content/pics to the article will take it past the tipping point and the article may self destruct. Sorry. If you want an extra pic, start a new discussion about it and in my humble opinion, such a discussion may take the good part of the next six months to bear fruit. There are far too many filibusters around here. Thanks. Sarvagnya 18:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Some people just think that they own this page and that this page is their property. So, according to me, such a discussion will never get anywhere. Universe=atom^{•Talk•Contributions•} 18:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I am about to replace the Apatani image with the population density map due to the recent vote. If you have any objections, speak now or hold your peace forever. Universe=atom^{•Talk•Contributions•} 18:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! MUBARAK HO! THE PROBABLY-LONGEST-NEGOTIATIONS IN THE WORLD HAS BEEN PEACEFULLY RESOLVED AFTER LONG MONTHS OF DISCUSSIONS! CONGRATULATIONS TO EVERYONE HERE! Universe=atom^{•Talk•Contributions•} 20:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

:) Sarvagnya 21:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank god. Nikkul 01:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Hallelujah! I never knew if this would happen. Thanks all. The Behnam 18:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Delhi is a state since long

I am surprised to see Delhi as 'Union Teritory' under the section 'Administrative divisions'

Delhi has been a State since many years and I am surprised not to see it in States list.

It says article got updated on 26 may 2007. Even then delhi is not a state according to this article.

I hope it gets corrected soon.

Thanks,

Nitin

nitinoct@yahoo.com

--Nitinoct 06:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a recurring question. Please see the FAQ section. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW, Manorama Yearbook 2003(don't have the latest) while stating the administrative divisions states-

• the States separately
• the Union Territories separately and
• Delhi separately as National Capital Territory(NCT).

It does not consider NCT a part of Union Territories.

--KnowledgeHegemony 15:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It's an error on their part.

• As per Part I, Article 1 of the Constitution of India, the sudivisions can only be 1. States 2. Union Territories 3. Acquired territories
• As per Part I, Article 2, the Parliament may admit new states when it sees fit.

=Nichalp «Talk»= 17:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

SORRY, I went through Manorama again and realized I comprehended it incorrectly even they regard NCT a part of Union Territories.

--KnowledgeHegemony 06:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It wouldn't be a bad idea to insert a note about the official status of Delhi.

--KnowledgeHegemony 14:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Constitutional status of Delhi- Stating Delhi a Union Territory from WikiSourceKnowledgeHegemony 15:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Pics from the NE

Has anyone thought of getting pictures from NE India featured? I'm sure our resident scout Nikkul can get some good ones. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Why only the NE??KnowledgeHegemony 06:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing that he'd like to counter bias...--Seraphiel 10:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we should first think about getting pictures from NE. Then we can get them featured (which is not a requirement). I think we should replace the Ajanta caves pic with one from the NE to create regional balance since BSE already represents central india. Nikkul 11:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

What's the harm in gunning for featured status? =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Nikkul, BSE (Bombay Stock Exchange) is in Western India.--KnowledgeHegemony 06:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Since Ajanta Caves and BSE both represent Western India, and since there is no pic from NE India, we should replace the Ajanta Caves image with a historic pic from the NE. Once we do have a pic, Nichalp, we should try to get it featured. Nikkul 11:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Following are some beautiful pictures from North-east India (even though some are from near-Northeast India and they do not relate to history):

• 
  The Himalayas in Sikkim
• 
  The Vaishno Devi shrine in Jammu, India
• Gurudogmar, India, a high Himalayan lake at an altitude of 5,148 meters
  Gurudogmar, India, a high Himalayan lake at an altitude of 5,148 meters
• 
  This is a glacier between Delhi and Ladack. It is in Western India, though.

I know that all these images relate to the Himalayas, but that is what Northeast India is famous for. Also, please add more images relating to NE India if you find more good ones. Thank you. Universe=atom^{•Talk•Contributions•} 15:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

None of the above images are from NE India, geographically speaking. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Indian Copyright Law

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Notice board for India-related topics#Indian Copyright Law =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

TODA HUT

Problems with the Toda Hut Image:

• There is no mention of housing in the culture section at all
• Toda Image does not represent the culture of Karnataka, Andra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, and Kerala
• Toda Image does not represent all of South India
• Toda Image does not represent culture of all of India

The reason why the Toda image is there is because no other picture represents South India. Unfortunately, the Toda image does not represent the culture of South India. We should change the Toda hut image and replace it with an image that represents more of South Indian culture.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nikkul (talk • contribs). at 11:51, 30 May 2007.

I do not see why it occurred to you that it should represent southern India at all. It is a fine picture representing a little known culture in India. But I do have an apprehension about the image. I cant get a perspective on its size. The door seems too small to let humans inside. Can someone clarify?--Seraphiel 16:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess it shows the back side of the hut.--(Sumanth|Talk) 11:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, personally, I do not have any affinity to regional balance. But one of our "fine" administrators insists that regional balance be conserved. Because of this, it is said that the Toda image represents South India since no other image is from South India. But the problem is that the Toda image doesnt represent Indian culture since most Indians dont wake up ina Toda hut every morning. Nikkul 02:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

If anyone is interested in what official guidelines have to say about these matters, it should be noted that WP:Images#Image choice and placement says nothing about the supposed 'need for regional balance.' The Behnam 06:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

To an extent, it is a matter of common sense to have the main zones of the country represented. Also their are relevant Wikipedia policies on such matters that tend to give examples of East versus West but the logic applies. Fact of the matter is that lot of "mainstream" Indians cannot even relate to parts of country like North East. At a time when those parts of the country are facing rebellions, it would certainly be best to underscore them being an integral part of India by representing them in the article or so I would think? --Blacksun 11:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You will find little support for your cause by being sarcastic and condescending towards a member of as high a caliber such as Nichalp. He IS a fine administrator and has certainly contributed more than most of us. Toodles. --Blacksun 11:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't push my luck if I were you Nikkul for fear that I might awaken some sleeping giants. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

PS To Seraphiel, The is indeed designed to be small to keep wild animals out, so says the Toda people page, which also gives the width of the door to be 3 feet. I agree with you that in this particular image the door seems to be only about a foot or foot and a half wide (upon comparing it with the adjacent patch of grass). It could be that the Toda doors are a foot and a half wide and people have to squeeze through, or that this particular hut is a "demo" hut and therefore smaller in size than a functional one. But, yes, the caption should say something about the door. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Most of the poor in rural India live under thatched roofs. So a hut (whatever type it is) would be representative of a major chunk of Indian population. --(Sumanth|Talk) 12:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW- a little off this topic, I replaced the BSE pic with another(which is without wires hanging and the satellite). The new pic is taken from a different angle hiding the ugly satellite. worth mentioning both pics were taken by NichalpKnowledgeHegemony 16:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Nikkul, your proposals are as usual ridiculous and baseless. If as you say the Todas are not part of India culture, then they do not deserve to be on this page. So what are they? Aliens? Why are you on a witchhunt to purge images from rural India? =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

As Behnam, pointed out there is no wiki rule which says regional balance has to be maintained. Whether Australia article has pictures for North, South, East, West, Northwest Australia?. Whether United States article has pictures for all regions?. Those articles has pictures which represent the country as a whole. Tajmahal/BSE Building/Parliament has to be kept because it represents India not because it represents north or west. Let us not allocate regionwise Quota. Toda Hut is beautiful picture, I understand its artistic value... but it was here for such a long time.... Let it be replaced by another beautiful picture. Nikkul, I suggest you to put forward your points instead of passing sarcastic comments against people who contributed more for this project.--Indianstar 14:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The issue is not if the image represents N,S,E,W but having all regions of India adequately balanced while still being something very unique to "India". There may be no official rule about regional balance for images, but there is certainly a project Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias which deals with this for the article scope. Nikkul could very well read the project details. I still reiterate with my proposal that images should be featured, regionally balanced and pertinent. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Images should be pertinent and featured and I have no adversity towards rural images as long as they represent most of the rural areas. What I do not like is having images of very very very small groups representing a culture of a huge country. Say, hypothetically, there are a 100 people in India who dance around a fire and live in holes in the ground. They eat leaves for lunch and never wear clothes. Could we put an image of them dancing around a fire semi-naked as an image representing the culture of India? If we follow Nichalp's logic, They might be part of Indian culture (since they are Indian) and yes, they do deserve to be on Wiki India... but then dont Keralites, Maharastrians, Todas, Apatanis, Tamil Nadu people, Assamese, Kashmiri's, also deserve to be on the page? Who's going to decide which group deserves to be on the page? Nikkul 17:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

You misread the plot Nikkul. Nobody is stating that Keralites, Maharashtrians et al shouldn't be in culture. Neither have I defended any single image. Instead I've consistently maintained that the images should be featured, pertinent, and should be regionally balanced across the page. If you find a suitable image from South India which is a) featured b) apposite in the culture section, I'm sure no one is going to stop you from repacing the Toda hut. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Nichalp, an image must not have to be featured in order to be on this page. Yes, it would be a plus, but it should not be a requirement. Also, a Toda hut is not apposite in the culture section since there is no mention of housing in that section. Nikkul 23:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not about housing (as has been repeatedly stated on this page before), but rather about folk art, which is inextricably a part of culture. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

This page from Frontline magazine says Todas mostly live in modern bungalows.(Not even in regular huts). There are hardly very few Toda huts available. Many information about Todas are myths. They never lived near forest so there is no need for door design to prevent wild animals. Door in the picture definitely shows not only wild animals even human beings cannot enter inside it. Toda people article itself is marked as POV for having copied from old version of Britanicca.(Information is Based on 1911 state of Toda's).

Today Todas don't follow tribal lifestyle. There are so many tribals still living in India managing their tribal lifestyle. United states has lakhs of Amish population some of them don't use electricity or modern technology in any form. Most of the countries have aboriginal or tribal population. But when we talk about culture for country, Culture of majority followers is normally discussed. So I am not convinced about arguments for retaining Toda Hut Picture to maintain regional balance for south India.--Indianstar 01:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)