Talk:India

Guidelines for editing the India page

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

Indian States? Federal Republic?

India isn't just a republic or a sovereign country, the constitution defines it as a federal republic comprising a number of states. The states enact the majority of laws, and although the trend since independence has been toward greater centralization of power, this system is not unlike the US, Canada, or Brazil. I believe this is a defining feature of India and deserves to be mentioned in the first few paragraphs. The current opening paragraphs seem to reinforce the (especially Western) notion that India is a monolithic country governed by the center, which is false. The second line states that India is a "sovereign" country but not that it is also a 'federation', which is a more relevant political description.

Follow up of Edit in "History" section

This is a follow up of the topic Edit in "History" section which has now been archived (Talk:India/Archive 23). The mention of revolutionary organisations in the Indian independence movement in "History" section was the point of discussion. Citing respectable mainstream historians was demanded. So far, no such citation could be provided. So, as an interim measure, the mention of revolutionary organisations is being hidden (blanked out), with a citation needed tag (that would appear only in the edit mode). Since I do not have any mainstream or equally significant books/historical reviews, it will take some more time for searching proper reference. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Last Paragraph in the Lead

Hi guys Well, while reading the last paragraph, I noticed it mentions " India has made rapid progress in the last decade, especially in information technology". Now, this may have been a fair reflection 3-4 years back, when companies like Infosys & Wipro represented the new face of Indian economy. They still do. But the past couple of years of so, have exhibited in abundance the growth in almost every sector, be it Automotive or steel. The recent global take-overs, be it the 12 Billion USD take over of Corus (formerly British Steel), or the take over of Daewoo's truck divisions, are a couple of examples. And this trend continues. Given this fact, I personally feel, we should rephrase that line to be true to the present state, where IT isnt the only shining gem anymore.AJ-India 13:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Have removed the "especially in information technology" bit. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Better Pictures

If you feel better pictures can represent this page, please add them here

• 
  Geography -This is a featured picture
• 
  Military
• 
  Dal Lake

Sure! Great pics why don't you add them? --59.182.23.178 12:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC) Kalhans

confirming european standard [ce]

as an visual interpretor i would like to know more about urbanization and its effects in india. because this country has its own growth with lot of factors so do we really need to change our cities like any other european/ ameriacn cities if it is then why and what are the possibilities make it its own way where middle class can be acommodate very well. because that is one huge area which cant deny . == —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 122.163.214.21 (talk) 02:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

Image in demographics

new image

Have placed a new image in Demographics. Quality is somewhat inferior. However, license is acceptable. Please see. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

a thumbnail of thumbnails is utterly pointless: should be replaced with a link "click here for a gallery". dab (𒁳) 12:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

population growth, from 443 million in 1960 to 1,004 million in 2000

Thanks but we should really try putting an actual visual of demographic information like most other country's articles do, rather than arbitrarily chosen pictures of people that aren't exactly relevant to demographics. The Behnam 14:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Like the growth pattern?--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, or a pie, or a map, stuff of that sort. That is actual demographic information, and a number of users agreed to its appropriateness in principle. You should probably look at the previous discussions in the archives for more background. The problem was that we couldn't agree on a sufficiently information-rich form, and people weren't receptive to adding a new map. However it is undoubtedly the most appropriate type of visual for the demographics section so it remains a concern to be addressed. The Behnam 14:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Collages are unencyclopedic. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Since the collage seems not be justified in the "Demographics" section, I have re-inserted the Apatani tribal woman image. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Sansad bhavan pic not good

The parliament pic needs a more close-up. --59.163.2.161 07:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

More Detail Required on Some Subjects

I think that more detail is required on some subjects in this wonderful article, especially the "flora and fauna" and about the freedom in the current Indian government. This page is one of the best pages in Wikipedia; lets make it the best !!

More References Required

I know that there are abundant accurate references in this article, but perhaps, in order to make it even better and even more trustworthy, there need to be some more accurate ones.Johnsmithcba 14:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

John, can you point out any specific instance that you think can/should be improved ? Thanks. Abecedare 15:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your contradictions, but there are a few instances where this article would perhaps need cleaning up. In fact, I can find several points where references are required. For example, there is a reference where it states that Mumbai is the largest city in India, but not when it states that New Delhi is the capital, which is right above the Mumbai statement. Also, the dates given about India's independence should be referenced. Also, if this article was an academic paper, references would be mandatory for the several figures of population, GDP, etc. Not to mention the several pictures there are that are in need of references. Johnsmithcba 18:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Note that as per WP:ATT, "Any user should be able to verify that material added to Wikipedia is attributable a reliable published source. Precise attribution is required for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged." Undisputed facts such as India is in Asia, or New Delhi is its capital are easily verified by, for example, the "General References" listed in the External Links section and thus IMO do not need a separate inline citations. (Incidentally, Mumbai's status as India's largest city has been challenged in the past and therefore it does need to be referenced). Also note that this article is written in Summary Style which has different citation guidelines than an article on the sub-topics (see this). That said, I think references in this article can and should be improved. For example I just went through the Demography section of the article and uphauled many of the references and corrected some of the data, which was simply incorrect! If you have suggestions about specific statements of the article that you feel need to be referenced, please do list them here. Thanks.Abecedare 19:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do think certain statements in this article need to be referenced, such as the following, not to mention the several pictures, each of which should have a reference:

"GDP (nominal) 2006 estimate

-  	Total 	$796.1 billion (12th)
-  	Per capita 	$820 (132th)"

"Population

-  	2007 estimate 	1,126,000,000 (2nd)
-  	2001 census 	1,027,015,248 
-  	Density 	329 /km² (31st)

852 /sq mi"

Statements such as these and several more, especially related to numeral figures, certainly need to be referenced in order for this article to attain a more trustworthy status. Johnsmithcba 14:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Did you even bother to click on any of the wiki-linked rank statistics in the infobox? Those list/rank articles have full reference for each of these facts. --Ragib 17:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, most of them don't. Even if they do, the original article (in this case: India) should also have references. Even if the statistics don't need references, what about the pictures. I don't find any place that gives credit to the pictures. Johnsmithcba 19:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I must be looking at a different version of Wikipedia, because mine DOES provide references for those list articles!!! Also, I don't understand your comments about pictures, what do you mean by reference for pictures? Every picture's description page clearly provides the source and the licensing information. Thank you. --Ragib 19:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

More Culture Needed

More culture information about India, such as way of life, popular foods, popular past times, etc is badly, repeat badly, needed. Some culture expert, please add information on the topic (with references cited, of course). Johnsmithcba 18:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Have you seen the main article on the topic, Culture of India (which certainly needs improvement) ? Note again that the India article is written in Summary Style and is intended to give only a brief overview of this vast subject. Abecedare 19:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I recognize that it is written in summary style, but certainly it could be possible to make it more detailed, enough for it to keep up the standard of an encyclopedia article. Johnsmithcba 14:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

No, that is unnecessary. We are an online encyclopedia, not print, and having main articles in dedicated pages makes optimial use of content by tightly focussing on core content here and dedicated content in daughter articles. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I recognize your point, but what if the main articles of certain subjects are not of that good quality. Therefore, picture that would be painted by these lesser-quality articles would be disappealing. Since India is a featured article, it should paint more of appealing pictures, or, in other words, give slightly more detail on each subject. After all, Wikipedia articles are not intended just to be a list of sources to other articles, but to give detail to subjects. Johnsmithcba 17:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Then why don't you enhance those "bad quality main articles"? See Summary style. --Ragib 17:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

That is what wikipedia is all about. See the logo on the top left. It shows an incomplete jigsaw puzzle. When trying to build an encyclopedia, we are building from top outwards. So if India is featured, we've got core articles such as Geography of India, Mumbai, Economy of India featured. We are building a core India-related encyclopedia. See Wikiproject India for details. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, why not start a whole new gigantic project to do so (no offense)? Johnsmithcba 17:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

We already have one. See WP:INDIA =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

<edit conflict>

... because there already is one. Incidentally there are more than 20,000 India related articles on wikipedia, so there is and always will be more to be said on the topic than can be contained in a 40-50Kbyte article, and that is perfectly fine. The wonder of wikipedia in particular and the web in general is the way it organizes and interlinks the information, rather than dump it in one place in a linear fashion. I request that you click on the links included in this post along with the ones provided by Nichalp and Ragib, since they address most of the points you have raised on the page. Abecedare 18:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Coordinates in infobox

The coordinates in infobx are displayed as shown below:

²) 28°34′N, 77°12′E

I didn't understand why ²) was being displayed? Can someone clarify this?--(Sumanth|Talk) 03:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

the superscripts were causing a problem. I have removed it and cleaned the infobox. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Science and Technology section needed

As science, technology and communication media are making a huge impact on our economy, there should be a section highlighting the scientists and engineers from past and the number we are producing now. Highlighting our achievements in satellite technology can also be a good idea. Achievements in communication media is also an important aspect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.34.20.19 (talk) 07:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

I would definitely agree with that. In addition to that, perhaps more emphasis can also be given to other positive achievements of India. Johnsmithcba 14:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

No, this is governed by the countries wikiproject. Secondly, the article should be neutrally written, not written to just highlight achievements. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

That is agreeable, but perhaps adding a science and technology and space section would be important, not to highlight positive achievements of India, but because this is a rising part of India's economy. Johnsmithcba 17:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

External Links Need to Be Organized

I think that the external links of the article need to be presented in a more orderly fashion and should be divided into an "official" and "unofficial" section. Johnsmithcba 14:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Protection for the Article

I think that this article should be given a higher degree of protection in order to shield it from recent vandalism. Johnsmithcba 14:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

More Pictures Required

Although there are adequate pictures in this article, I think that there need to be a few more, especially a nature map in the "flora and fauna" section, in order to make this article visual-friendly. Johnsmithcba 14:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

See the previous archives for a discussion on images. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, if not several more pictures, then why not just one nature map of India in the flora and fauna section? That would make it more visual-friendly and easy to understand the section. Johnsmithcba 17:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Additional maps have been turned down. Please see the recent archives. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly in which archive is this discussion? Johnsmithcba 17:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

More Sections Needed

I think that a separate "sports" section should be added to this article, since sports are given a major emphasis in India. Also, more emphasis should be put on the climate of India in the "geography" section, perhaps even change the name of the section to "geography and climate." Johnsmithcba 15:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Not needed. We have quality subarticles on both. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I have started this discussion on Village pump. Sarvagnya 16:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

There may be quality subarticles on both, but they are important subjects; so, there should be separate sections for them, or at least for the sports section. Saying that there are already quality subarticles for sports would be the same as saying that there does not need to be a separate section on, for example, history, just because there is already a quality subarticle on it. Johnsmithcba 17:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

See Summary style. --Ragib 17:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

But that doesn't mean that important topics should be excluded from being in a section of their own. After all, sports are one of the most important things in India. Johnsmithcba 17:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

According to? --Ragib 17:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

http://www.hcilondon.net/india-overview/art-culture/sports.html Johnsmithcba 17:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Even that page, in the main index [1] doesn't list sports as a separate topic, rather just like this article, clusters Sports, culture, arts together. If you have a problem with the structure, please raise the issue at Wikiproject on countries. Thanks. --Ragib 18:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Link

I would like to add a link to one of our webcasts/web reports of Chindia. It contains a lot of general demographic, financial and economic information, and I think will be of interest to Wikipedia users. It is freely accessible, without fees or registration. Here is the link: Chindia and Its Global Impact, http://www.usfunds.com/article.asp?id=1207

Please let me know if you deem it worthy to be added to the page. Thanks! -Jtkachuk

The URL does not have any encyclopedic value other than being a webcast. Thanks for asking btw. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I looked through the linked presentation on "Chindia" and while it is interesting to specialists in the field, it is not suitable for the main India article and perhaps not even appropriate for sub-articles on the Indian economy since it represents one expert's view of the topic in an non-peer-reviewed medium (see guideleines on exsternal links and reliable sources). That said, perhaps cited information included in the presentation can be used to add content to Economy of India article or another article in the cetegory. Abecedare 18:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Please Reply

Someone, please reply to the comments "External Links Need to be Organized" and "Protection for the Article." Thank You, Johnsmithcba 19:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

John, my guess is that no one replied to those two points because your comments are hard to make sense of. For example the External Links are already organized and it is not clear what change you are proposing and (more importantly) why. Also the article is already semi-protected and any residual vandalism is (usually) quickly reverted. Please familiarize yoursself with wikipedia policies, guidelines and manual of style (you'll find links in the welcome template on your user talk page) as well as talk page guidelines, so that your wikipedia edits are not (mis)interpreted as trolling. Thanks. Abecedare 20:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

User Johnsmithcba, please elaborate on what you propose, and we can work on it. Remember, by definition, Wikipedia is a open source, so you are entitled to edit just as much as anyone of us out here. But to ensure your edit survives over time, would help if you discuss it out here, thus satisfying other editors as well. AJ-India 04:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Currently, I am not allowed to edit the article. Johnsmithcba 11:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

External links needs to be reorganised it what form? We do not split EL into subsections. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User Johnsmithcba

Dear Johnsmithcba (talk · contribs), You seem to have a lot of ideas about various India-related topics—improve this, protect that, add references to this, create another section for that—yet you haven't made a single edit on any Wikipedia page, other than some talk pages. Your enthusiasm is of course very welcome, but you might consider cutting your editorial teeth on some article to both improve the article and your own credibility. Why don't you edit the Culture of India article and effect there the kinds of improvements you are so eloquently advocating on this page? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The reason which I have mentioned before is that this article is protected, and I am not allowed to edit any of this article, perhaps because I am a new user. So, I am suggesting changes to other, and when I will be given permission to edit the article, I shall do so, but not things that, for example, are disagreed upon by others, because perhaps they would ruin the article. Johnsmithcba 17:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The Culture of India article is not only not protected, but also in much need of a clean-up. Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and improve that? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Grammar Mistakes

I have found a couple of grammar mistakes in this article, including the following :

1. According to http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/grammar/g_comma.html , commas should be used "to separate three or more words." Most of the times in this article, commas have been used to separate the first from the second, the second from the third, etc. but not the last from the second last. Examples include the following (places where commas should be put are in bold print): "Four major world religions, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism originated here, while Islam, Christianity, Judaism and Zoroastrianism arrived..."(second paragraph of introduction) "led by the Indo-Greeks, Indo-Scythians, Indo-Parthians and Kushans..."(second paragraph of history section) "such as the Chalukyas, Cholas, Pallavas and Pandyas..." (second paragraph of history section) "including Portugal, Netherlands, France and the United Kingdom..." (third paragraph of history section) "including INC, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), Communist Party of India (CPI) and various regional parties." (first paragraph of politics section) "including bharatanatyam, kathakali, kathak, kuchipudi, manipuri, odissi and yakshagana" (second paragraphs of culture section) "as ingredients, spices and cooking methods"(third paragraphs of culture section) "coastal states of West Bengal, Goa and Kerala..."(fifth paragraph of culture section) "...to the ancient martial arts, kalarippayattu and Varma Kalai"(fifth paragraph of culture section) "

2. Various other grammar mistakes include the following (bold areas indicate where changes should be made): "...although Cricket is the..."(capitalization mistake: fifth paragraph of culture section) "India is home to two major linguistic families: Indo-Aryan..." (second paragraph of demographics section: perhaps it should be changed to "India is home to the following two major linguistic families:") "India has three archipelagos — Lakshadweep, which lies off the southwestern coast; the volcanic Andaman and Nicobar Islands island chain to the southeast, and the Sunderbans in the Ganges Delta of West Bengal."(why is there a semicolon between the first and second clauses but only a comma between the second and third clauses?); Whenever statistics relating to money are given in USD, the symbol put before the number is US$, which, according to me, should be changed to either USD or plain $, not a combination of both. Johnsmithcba 17:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, You don't know the first thing about grammar. The Serial comma, which you seem to be advocating, is standard for American English, but not for British English (or Indian English). The other stuff is minor and mostly incorrect. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It may be used in American English and not usually in British English, but according to most professors of the English language, even in India, the serial comma indicates formal writing, no matter what type of English it is. Is not Wikipedia a former encyclopedia? Johnsmithcba 18:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)