Talk:India

Gandhi

I think its abit incorrect to state Gandhi as the main independence leader , in 200 years of occupation there were many . The article should also include that india had huge instability of the 1980s and 1990s in which 2 PMs were kiled the economy grew below the rate of population growth and multiple insurgencies came about in punjab and North East —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.151.0.13 (talk) 01:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I know that many people contributed towards the independence of India but Mahatma Gandhi was the main leader who kind of lead the whole country towards the independence. It was his ideology to follow ahimsa beacuse of which India is independent today. I agree that there were many people supporting him, without their support this would have never happened but Gandhi was the one who encouraged them.So, I think there should be a seperate section for Mahatma Gandhi and I don't there is any problem in calling him the main independence leader.Gandhi is called the father of the nation so when people read about India they should read about him too.

Ammend to create two titles: Foreign relations and military

Foreign relations and military are two different subjects and deals with two different things. Basically to make a distinction officially, foreign relations deals with relation with other countries, diplomacy whereas military deals with armed forces, military stats, info ; military exercices etc... of similar kind and nature.

There is no country in the wiki which has termed 'Foreign relations and military' together in one heading. Neighboring countries like Japan, China, Pakistan, South Korea, USA, UK etc .... articles has formatted as such (Foreign relations and military - under two different title headings.

Under what circumstance, conditions, perception, economics and reality is Foreign relations and military termed under one heading and one section? I adhere and ammend to change this to different title i.e one is "Foreign relations" and the other is "military". Both title should have their own relevant materials not mixing up and making a ketchup article.

I commend each contributor who has contributed in growing and taking my suggestion to vastly improve the article. Though we can improve it more and it should be done. But now, it looks far much perfect than any time before.

--Varghese Jacob (talk)

Proposed addition of images to Geography section

I don't feel there are enough images to illustrate the diversity of India in the Geography section. I propose adding the following images:-

A beach side resort at Kadmat Island in the Lakshadweep island archipelago

Camel Riding in the Khuri sand dunes in the Thar desert near Jaisalmer in the state of Rajasthan

--RaviC (talk) 21:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd say no to both. The Lakshadweep image is of poor quality and the image doesn't show much either. The Jaisalmer one looks good for a tourist brochure but it's too "commercial" for this article. —SpacemanSpiff 16:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with SS. The image of Lakshadweep is a nice composition but is of low-resolution, while the Jaisalmer image does very little to illustrate anything about geography - the camels, their shadows and riders distract too much from the desert landscape. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 13:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

IMO, another minus point is that both represent aspects of India's geography that aren't very significant. Our islands are too few (as compared to say Indonesia), a coastline image would be better. As far as desert is concenred a picture of Jaipur or Udaipur may be more relevant than an image of camels in the desert: this could be anywhere, Sahara or Gobi too. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 12:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

As per Deepak, could anyone suggest some better images to be added to the article, as one image does not represent the diversity of the country. --RaviC (talk) 14:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Based on what is said, why not these images? --92.4.51.64 (talk) 15:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

A beach in Kerala, South India

A beach in Kerala, South India

Mehrangarh Fort, Jodhpur

These are all TERRIBLE pictures! The current geography pic is fine. Nikkul (talk) 03:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The probolem, again, lies in image quality and composition. The Mehrangarh Fort image is a low-res, poor-quality image, and the structure in the foreground takes away the focus from the fort and the surrounding topography. The Varkala image, likewise, focuses more on the paragliders (who are a major distraction in the pic) than the beach itself, and consequently also fails. I'd give a thumbs down to both. This is not to take away from the main point here — while the existing picture is good, I do agree that we could have a couple more, perhaps in rotation, for a better illustration of the geographic diversity of the country — it's just that none of the images proposed so far are of quality good enough for an FA-class article. I'm sure better images exist and can be found. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 14:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

User SBC-YPR is completely correct. Any western tourist may go to India expecting that all regions have a cold Himalayan environment, which is far from the truth! Anyway, regarding the Varkala image, there is a version below not focusing on the paragliders. I would also appreciate if others could suggest some images that would be appropriate here as well. --92.8.35.103 (talk) 21:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Varkala Beach Kerala.jpg

Update: There are images at Commons:Category:Featured pictures of India that may be suitable. Some of them I have placed below:

A view of the Agasthyamala range from the Tirunelveli rainshadow region to the east.

Periyar River, Munnar

It seems there are a lot more suggestions since last time I joined this conversation.. Could we please choose at least one more, one picture does not reflect the diverse features of India! --92.3.239.11 (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Driving side should be changed

Driving in India isn't left, it's right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vimal.ramaka (talk • contribs) 22:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure - it was on the left in 2007 in this image File:Delhi-Gurgaon Airport Expressway, 2007.jpg, have they modified all the roads and signage recently? You would think a major change would get some press attention. MilborneOne (talk) 23:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Requester is hoaxing--Sodabottle (talk) 03:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a misunderstanding of terminology. Our cars are 'right-hand drive' as against most of the world's 'left-hand drive'. But in india we still drive on the LEFT side of the road. Romitmitra (talk) 04:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romitmitra (talk • contribs) 04:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Sports Image

I have changed the IPL image with the Olympic Gold winning Hockey team image. The reason being:

1. The IPL image doesn't signify any glorifying moment / personality for India. It is merely a trivial moment during a domestic sports.
2. Field Hockey being the national sports - the hockey image is more appropriate. It also goes well with the beginning paragraph.
3. The hokey image signifies a glorious moment / team for India sports. A comparable alternative would be Kapil Dev's world cup winning team - but unforunately a free image is not available. Arman ^(Talk) 09:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Cricket is the biggest sport in India. Hockey is significantly less popular than cricket. We should wait and see what others say before changing this image. Nikkul (talk) 05:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Nikkul here. In terms of popularity, cricket clearly overshadows hockey and therefore, an image on cricket is more than appropriate. Secondly, I cannot see any "glorifying moment for India" in this image, especially considering the fact that it was British India which took part in 1936 Olympics, not Republic of India. --King Zebu (talk) 17:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Language categories

The languages categories on this article still need sorted out. The current situation (English being the only language category) gives an inaccurate impression of the linguistic situation in India. English is spoken by only a small proportion of the Indian population as first language but there are many other languages that are. Thus the language categories should be edited to reflect this. This should be either by removing that category, or by adding other categories relating to language(s) which are widely spoken in India as first language(s). Hindustani, the language of which Hindi is a register, and possibly also Tamil and Bengali among others would be appropriate. If the current category isn't removed that is. Munci (talk) 03:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

References

I support removing the English language cat. Adding a few languages will open a can of worms. We need 22 cats just to cover schedule 8. So removing eng lang cat is the better option.--Sodabottle (talk) 09:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

You're the only that responded in 2 weeks so I'll go with what you say. Munci (talk) 16:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Inconsistent claim about Islam in introduction

The intro to this article says that Islam was brought to India in the first millenium CE. If one clicks on the word "Islam" in that sentence, one is taken to "Islam in India". This page says in its intro that the religion entered India in the 12th century CE. This is clearly a date that is difficult to pin down, as it was probably gradual, but it seems that there should be some consistency here. Bentheimmigrant (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Cuisine

In the Cuisine section, the staple foods of India mentioned are rice and wheat. I propose we add lentils to that. Lentils are universally consumed in some form or the other across all parts of India. Romitmitra (talk) 04:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

i agree. if you can find a WP:RS for this, we can add it?.--Sodabottle (talk) 05:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

This fine?: But it has been red lentils which have 'fed the masses' particularly in the Indian subcontinent. Lentils are a staple food in many regions Munci (talk) 14:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that looks good.--Sodabottle (talk) 14:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

You told me my request was granted regarding the "india is third most powerful country in the world" to put it in the "india" article. But where did you put it?.

Previous request and your acceptance: request: I have already put a request to put the follwing data in "INDIA" web page in the beginning. But you can put it in the politics, you can create global power one more headline and put this news under that heading. I am giving more news regarding this. This is an important news and must be in the india website. I hope there will not be any other reports such as this. This Report is the standard and final deceisions report as of my knowledge. "According to "Global Governance 2025" jointly issued by the National Intelligence Council (NIC) of the US and the European Union's Institute for Security Studies (EUISS): They recognized india as the thrid most powerful country after the USA and China. There will not be any change in the order of powerful countries upto 2025. China and india will become even more powerful".

http://news.in.msn.com/national/article.aspx?cp-documentid=4404832 http://news.rediff.com/report/2010/sep/22/slide-show-1-india-is-the-third-most-powerful-nation-in-the-world.htm

Acceptance: Done: I agree that this definitely belongs in the article. This is a high profile document put out jointly by 2 key analysts of international politics and relations. I have added this information to the "Foreign relations" section and directly cite the Global Governance 2025 report. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Narayanam5 (talk • contribs)

Edit request from Narayanam5, 15 January 2011

Could you add this before the etymology paragraph ie> at the beginning of the web page of "India": "India is listed as the third most powerful country in the world after the US and China and the fourth most powerful bloc after the US, China and the European Union in a new official US report" Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/India-third-most-powerful-nation-US-report/articleshow/6598434.cms

Narayanam5 (talk) 04:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done. That is WP:UNDUE here without proper context. Probably in the foreign relations or the global power article but it is only one report and has to be presented with proper context, which we cant do in the lead.--Sodabottle (talk) 05:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

You told me my request was granted regarding the "india is third most powerful country in the world" to put it in the "india" article. But where did you put it?.

Previous request and your acceptance: request: I have already put a request to put the follwing data in "INDIA" web page in the beginning. But you can put it in the politics, you can create global power one more headline and put this news under that heading. I am giving more news regarding this. This is an important news and must be in the india website. I hope there will not be any other reports such as this. This Report is the standard and final deceisions report as of my knowledge. "According to "Global Governance 2025" jointly issued by the National Intelligence Council (NIC) of the US and the European Union's Institute for Security Studies (EUISS): They recognized india as the thrid most powerful country after the USA and China. There will not be any change in the order of powerful countries upto 2025. China and india will become even more powerful".

http://news.in.msn.com/national/article.aspx?cp-documentid=4404832 http://news.rediff.com/report/2010/sep/22/slide-show-1-india-is-the-third-most-powerful-nation-in-the-world.htm

Acceptance: Done: I agree that this definitely belongs in the article. This is a high profile document put out jointly by 2 key analysts of international politics and relations. I have added this information to the "Foreign relations" section and directly cite the Global Governance 2025 report. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC

{{edit semi-protected}} I have already put a request to put the follwing data in "INDIA" web page in the beginning. But you can put it in the politics, you can create global power one more headline and put this news under that heading. I am giving more news regarding this. This is an important news and must be in the india website. I hope there will not be any other reports such as this. This Report is the standard and final deceisions report as of my knowledge. "According to "Global Governance 2025" jointly issued by the National Intelligence Council (NIC) of the US and the European Union's Institute for Security Studies (EUISS): They recognized india as the thrid most powerful country after the USA and China. There will not be any change in the order of powerful countries upto 2025. China and india will become even more powerful".

http://news.in.msn.com/national/article.aspx?cp-documentid=4404832 http://news.rediff.com/report/2010/sep/22/slide-show-1-india-is-the-third-most-powerful-nation-in-the-world.htm

Previous request and your answer:

Could you add this before the etymology paragraph ie> at the beginning of the web page of "India": "India is listed as the third most powerful country in the world after the US and China and the fourth most powerful bloc after the US, China and the European Union in a new official US report" Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/India-third-most-powerful-nation-US-report/articleshow/6598434.cms

Narayanam5 (talk) 04:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done. That is WP:UNDUE here without proper context. Probably in the foreign relations or the global power article but it is only one report and has to be presented with proper context, which we cant do in the lead.--Sodabottle (talk) 05:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:India"

Narayanam5 (talk) 16:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done I agree that this definitely belongs in the article. This is a high profile document put out jointly by 2 key analysts of international politics and relations. I have added this information to the "Foreign relations" section and directly cite the Global Governance 2025 report. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the edit summary, every year, several reports are published which express the viewpoints of these "key analysts". The main India article is not the place for these reports which provide rather subjective information on India's "global power". We have separate articles such as foreign relations of India for this kind of information. --King Zebu (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, except for the fact that this report is by two remarkably important international political/economic analysts. Note, further, that these are both government agencies, not independent think tanks. Furthermore, note that the claim it makes is quite broad and striking--it, effectively, ranks India as the fourth most "important"/"powerful" country in the world. For example, I'd argue that's more important than the claim that India has the 11th biggest economy in the world, has the third largest standing army, and the extremely vacuous claim of "regional power in South Asia" (in the lead), all of which are mentioned in the lead. So, yes, we can't include every such analysis, but it seems like the GG2025 has more prominence than, for instance, the analysis in the Washington Quarterly on which the claim of India being a "regional power" rests. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with King Zebu on this one, this is WP:UNDUE here as it is the opinion of (reputable) analysts. The rest of the statements that this is being compared to (with the exception of regional power) are statistical claims of importance. However, all these are supported by multiple reliable sources (including the regional power), that we don't use all of the sources in the article shouldn't matter. In addition, if at all this statement merits inclusion, it needs to be attributed to the analysts and the agency as it is in effect their opinion. —SpacemanSpiff 06:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It is very likely that this is a minority opinion and we should avoid making such claims until it becomes a substantially mainstream view. Zuggernaut (talk) 06:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, my thought was that two of the world's 2 premier governmental policy analysis groups would constitute an opinion that legitimately meets WP:DUE. But, I may well be over-rating the importance of this document. Perhaps I'll start an RfC on the matter--it's not that I think either SpacemanSpiff or Zuggernaut are necessarily wrong, it's just that I think that more than the opinions of the 4 of us may help clarify the issue. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Picture of Obama with Singh

I recently made an edit[1] to the foreign relations section of India wherein I added a picture of Mahmohan Singh walking alongside Barack Obama and justified this on the grounds of the intimate relationship India and the US as being the "two largest democracies in the world"[2] and their sharing "an extensive cultural, strategic, military and economic relationship."India-U.S. Economic and Trade RelationsThe Evolving India-U.S. Strategic Relationship. The edit was removed by another user because I didn't discuss the edit on the talkpage, so haven't taken that user's advice to heart, what do the users here think about my inclusion of the picture of Obama with Singh onto the foreign relations section of India?Fellytone (talk) 02:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I am the editor who removed the image. Most of the images in this article are rotated periodically. I think a single picture for foreign relations section is enough and it is a good idea to alternate between the Medvedev/Singh and Obama/Singh images.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I had removed this image once too. One image is sufficient, currently the Indo-Russian relationship is "significantly" discussed in the article, so it's reasonable to have an image relating to that aspect in the section. —SpacemanSpiff 04:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Although India has a history of good bilateral relationship with the erstwhile USSR and its successor state, Russia, but the Indo-US relationship and the scope of engagement has been moving northwards in the last 10 years. Keeping this in view, I believe that the rotation of images, as suggested by Sodabottle would be the best idea. Shovon (talk) 08:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Personal Opinions on the depth of relationships aside, I guess it would be good if the images are rotated. TheMike •^{Wassup doc?} 14:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm against adding image of Obama and Singh. Ten years back, India and the United States were on the opposing sides of most foreign policy issues and this trend started to change only during the Bush era. Compare that to the four decades old strategic alliance between India and Russia. In comparison, India's strategic partnership with the United States is relatively new and to be frank, unstable (Indian foreign policy experts were up in arms one year back when Obama encouraged China to play an active role in South Asia). Secondly, India does not enjoy "intimate" relationship with the United States and there are several outstanding issues which undermine the strategic partnership — be it States' continued financial and military support to India's arch-rival Pakistan, or Obama administration's protectionist and anti-outsourcing policies, or disagreement over global protocol for fighting climate change, or Doha round trade negotiations, or military end-user monitoring agreement. Ten years from now, maybe one could term Indo-American relationship as "intimate", but as of now, India and the United States are just partners on some key strategic issues while Indo-Russian relations go beyond intimacy. --King Zebu (talk) 17:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I end up agreeing with King Zebu. TheMike •^{Wassup doc?} 17:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

India 3rd most powerful country.

You told me my request was granted regarding the "india is third most powerful country in the world" to put it in the "india" article. But where did you put it?.

Previous request and your acceptance: request: I have already put a request to put the follwing data in "INDIA" web page in the beginning. But you can put it in the politics, you can create global power one more headline and put this news under that heading. I am giving more news regarding this. This is an important news and must be in the india website. I hope there will not be any other reports such as this. This Report is the standard and final deceisions report as of my knowledge. "According to "Global Governance 2025" jointly issued by the National Intelligence Council (NIC) of the US and the European Union's Institute for Security Studies (EUISS): They recognized india as the thrid most powerful country after the USA and China. There will not be any change in the order of powerful countries upto 2025. China and india will become even more powerful".

http://news.in.msn.com/national/article.aspx?cp-documentid=4404832 http://news.rediff.com/report/2010/sep/22/slide-show-1-india-is-the-third-most-powerful-nation-in-the-world.htm

Acceptance: Done: I agree that this definitely belongs in the article. This is a high profile document put out jointly by 2 key analysts of international politics and relations. I have added this information to the "Foreign relations" section and directly cite the Global Governance 2025 report. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe the matter is under discussion. Let us await consensus. TheMike •^{Wassup doc?} 05:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you can see the discussion up a few sections. While I accepted it and added it to the article, other editors disagreed. This is definitely an issue that falls under "editorial discretion", as the key is that we have to decide whether this particular report (i.e., this particular opinion) is important enough to appear in the article. One of Wikipedia's policies is WP:DUE, which says that we should only include opinions if they are relevant and important. For example, if the Indian government published a report calling themselves the third most powerful country in the world, we would ignore it, as it would clearly be biased. Similarly, if a single college professor published the same thing, we'd probably also ignore it. The question is whether or not this particular report is important and reliable enough. The discussion is ongoing, and may take awhile. I fully accept that others may legitimately think this analysis should not be in the article; the goal now is for us to keep talking about it until we can achieve consensus on the subject. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Famines

Back in September 2010, there was consensus to add factual information about famines in India. I'm back here after substantially expanding the Famine in India article (currently nominated for a GA status). I've added one line, footnote and a template (doesn't increase the size of the article) per WP:BRD. Feel free to modify or discuss here. Zuggernaut (talk) 06:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

As i see it, there was no clear consensus - [3]. You could have restarted the discussion and waited for its results before readding the content. (i am not reverting it, i will wait to see what others think). The main article - Famine in India is still not settled (have no dog in that fight). --Sodabottle (talk) 06:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

There was no consensus, please do not misrepresent it. The current version edited by King Zebu and RegentsPark is neutral and sufficient. —SpacemanSpiff 07:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Majority of editors were OK with the addition back then. However, that content was very different from the recent addition [4] which is merely a template of numbers of deaths and a footnote/quote from Amartya Sen. Let's try to build consensus this time around since I this is a significant part of Indian history which deserves mention in the article. Zuggernaut (talk) 07:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The edit reverted was very one sided and had very POV language. It also gave a great amount of undue weight to the additions. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Instead of going to ridiculous lengths in attempts to still blame the British for everything that doesn't work, full 60 years after independence, how about covering this. --dab (𒁳) 10:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's stay focused on the famine edit of mine and try to identify the specific portion that is POV. We can then rectify the POV portion and include it in this article. Farmer suicides were covered by me in great detail but were unfortunately undone by another editor under WP:UNDUE who pointed out that they had no connection to famines. Let me know if you have an interest in improving Farmer Suicides in India article and I can provide you with a plethora of high quality sources. Perhaps I am missing something but I cannot grasp how this edit blames the British for the Indians' problems in present day. Feedback is welcome on whether and how we can include this content from a sad but important chapter in British India. Zuggernaut (talk) 13:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Human development Index

In this artice you state the HDI of India is 0.519 whereas in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_states_by_Human_Development_Index it is mentioned as 0.612. I want you to verify both these artices —Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.160.2 (talk) 10:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

0.612 is for 2005 and 0.519 is for 2010. Statewise data is not available after 2005 (i think) so that article uses the 2005 source, whereas coutrywide data is available till 2010, and this article uses it.--Sodabottle (talk) 10:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

It is against common intuition that HDI decreased drastically within 5 year.India didn't experience any serious economic issues during the last 5 years.So I request you to tell me which is appropriate . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.160.2 (talk) 10:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC) I think one of the reports must be false and biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.160.2 (talk) 10:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, 5 years, there's been a global financial crisis, rice price scares, etc. HDI is more than economy anyway. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is the Indian govt's estimate report for 2006 - [5]. This shows a 0.605 number for 2006. Of the negative things i can think off is the CPI of ~20% we have been experiencing for the past five years. With such high inflation, no wonder HDI nosedived--Sodabottle (talk) 12:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems unusual for the economic crisis to affect so greatly considering India wasn't affected so bad by it like America and Russia and their allies: [6]. Looking at their docs I see the following:

• HDI, Life Expectancy, Literacy Rate, School Enrolment, GDP per capita
• 2005 data: 0.619 63.7 61.0 63.8 e 3,452 Table1:231 (3 of 126)
• 2007 data: 0.612 63.4 66.0 j 61.0 d 2,753 p173 (184 of 229)
• HDI, Life Expectancy, Years Schooling (Mean, expected), GNI per capita
• 2010 data:0.519 64.4 4.4 10.3 3,337 p141 (154 of 236)

So it seems they've taken different data for the latest year. The income's randomly fallen in 2005 but picked back up again; the lfie expectancy's about the same for all three and is highest for the most recent. The literacy rate increased over the period it was used to calculate the HDI. But now they use years schooling to calculate HDI rather than the old education criteria, India's HDI changed dramatically and not for the better. They've somehow managed to get their data a whole lot earlier as well it seems. Really, I'm not sure why HDI is included in the template. Munci (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

error in "geography" section

The following phrase in the article appears to be obviously incorrect:

... "lies between latitudes 6° and longitudes 36° N, and 68° and 98° E."

Using the same numeric values, and moving "longitudes" the following would be more logical:

... "lies between latitudes 6° N and 36° N, and longitudes 68° and 98° E."

Correction will be appreciated. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.40.4 (talk) 02:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

question: What's the convention on documenting start and end points -- East to West, North to South? —SpacemanSpiff 07:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Corruption index

It would be a good idea to have the corruption index listed in the infobox. However the template does not have a parameter that allows us to do that. I've asked for the template:infobox country to have this parameter included. Please help form consensus there regarding this change. Zuggernaut (talk) 17:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Important to note Bengal famine of 1943 was the last major one

My edit emphasizing that the Bengal famine of 1943 was the last was undone twice. It is important to note that this famine was the last major famine in India and that such famines ended with the departure of the British. This is because the Indian economy under the British was setup as a "colonial economy", i.e., it's main purpose was to serve and provide capital for Britain. Indeed more than 30% of capital for Britain's industrialization came from India. Famines are more about economy than about a shortage of food as Amartya Sen has pointed out. The terse reason provide by SpacemanSpiff in his edit summary seems to indicate that my edit was undone because modern Repulic of India is different from British India because it included Bangladesh. By the time the reader gets to the famine edit, it is clear to the reader that we are talking about British India, hence there's no real need to explicitly go in to details of geography and partition here. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

How is it important to note that? Sentences like that don't flow with the rest of the section anyway. The history section is a small glimpse of events that occurred, just going over what happened. There is no call for saying it was the last of anything. That's my style issue. Secondly, I'm quite sure the reasons for famine and British policy have no doubt caused much debate. Amartya Sen is not the be all and end all, and the tone of including that sentence is very unencyclopaedic. Anyway, if you're reverted twice, establish consensus before making the change again, don't make the change and then add the explanation on the talk page. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

My edit does not have any WP:MOS issues as far as I can tell. Perhaps Chipmunkdavis' problem with style has to do with the fact that this article uses {{Indian English}} whereas Chipmunkdaivs is comfortable with British and Australian English. The Bengal famine of 1943 is the paradigmatic example of Sen's thesis that the proximate cause of famines has more to do with economy than with a shortage of food. Sen's views on the famines in India are part of the mainstream discourse and he's worked with several collaborators over the years.

Nonethelesss, the dispute is not about Sen but about adding the word "last". Adding the single word "last" actually improves the article significantly by providing the reader with factual information and it sets the stage for the inquisitive reader to click the Interwiki link to read on about famines. In fact leaving out such factual information would actually be unencyclopaedic or perhaps it has the intention to deny certain facts or suppress information.

Also, more than 70 million Indians died of starvation from various famines under British rule between the Bengal famine of 1770 and the Bengal famine of 1943. The latter is a major landmark in the history of famines and is one of the most analyzed and studied famines. It marks a transition from a time when Indian Famine Codes were not used and thus worsened the death toll to an era when invoking the Famine Code became the first and default response to impending famines. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Not MOS issues, just flow of text. And no, I'm absolutely fine with Indian English. The word last does not improve the section, it makes it read like an academic thesis rather than an encyclopaedia article. Just as the section doesn't specify the last war India was in, the last political assassination it had, there is no reason to mention the last famine. It's also weird to refer to it as the last as no others are mentioned in the section. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The famine was in the Bengal region, changing it to India, an anachronistic term is not helpful and misguiding. As far as last, that's a blatantly incorrect term because Bangladesh famine of 1974 is evidence that the Bengal province has had another famine. —SpacemanSpiff 08:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposal_of_addition_of_India_to_WP_Central_Asia

Hello, there is currently a debate underway to see whether India should be included in WikiProject Central Asia, due to the Central Asian influence in question in far North India (i.e. Ladakh/Kashmir). Unfortunately, not many people have contributed so far. I would like to ask all editors with a background knowledge of this region to participate in the debate here. Many Thanks. --92.12.69.168 (talk) 19:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)