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.
• Images should be added only after prior discussion. See also: WP:IIR
• India-related matters should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Notice board for India-related topics.
• See the FAQ section before posting a topic on the page.

locator map

I object to the current locator map on grounds that it takes a position wrt disputed international borders. here is a locator map that indicates territorial disputes. In the interst of npov, we should use that one until this is being addressed in the orthographic projection one as well. We can't let prettiness take precedence over factuality or npov. dab (𒁳) 19:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

sounds reasonable. Docku: What up? 19:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Rather than jumping the gun so soon, let's petition the author to change the map instead. commons:User talk:Ssolbergj#Maps - India =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

sure, we can put the map back, after it has been changed. I am just saying, remove the current version, this isn't a judgement on any possible future versions. dab (𒁳) 20:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The version of Indian map used on this article is incorrect. It shows some parts (Kashmir in particular) is not being part of India, while it is a disputed area. Both Pakistan and India claim ownership of the region. Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral information source, and hence a different version of the map (LocationIndia.png) which clearly marks the disputed area suits this article better.

• The Govt of India official portal shows the Indian version of the country's map as: india.gov.in/maps/indiaindex.php. Wikipedia, being an independent politically neutral third-party, must not display a map which is completely biased towards one party.

Nawabbawre (talk) 07:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

why are you repeating the point I made right above? I simple "I agree" would suffice. --dab (𒁳) 15:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Draft for including classical languages

Based on the concensus we arrived at two weeks back (now archived), here is a draft for inclusion of "classical languages" in the Culture section.

Draft

(Addition)"Four languages of high antiquity with a body of ancient literature which is considered a valuable heritage have been accorded classical language status by the Government of India. These are: Sanskrit, Tamil, Kannada and Telugu.

(Existing)"The earliest works of Indian literature were transmitted orally and only later written down.[124]"

(Existing - modified) "These included works of Sanskrit literature – such as the early Vedas, the epics Mahābhārata and Ramayana, the drama Abhijñānaśākuntalam (The Recognition of Śakuntalā), and poetry such as the Mahākāvya[125] – and the Tamil Sangam literature[126], the Kannada Kavirajamarga(Sastri 1955, p. 355) and the Telugu Mahabharata(Sastri 1955, p. 367) Thanks, Dineshkannambadi (talk) 20:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Nichalp is taking a short break. So we can wait for him to get back and finalise the draft. So dont bother to post your views yet. thanks, Dineshkannambadi (talk) 20:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

this is a minor political gimmick. I don't see how it has any place in this article. Should be discussed on languages of India, not here. dab (𒁳) 20:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It may be minor to you, it may be a political gimmick to you, not to the expert committe that made the decision. Please convey your opinions to the Govt of India that made this decision.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 22:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

this is the India article at Wikipedia. It isn't going to cover every "expert committee" that ever sat down in the country, it is going to follow Wikipedia guidelines, in this case WP:DUE and WP:IINFO. dab (𒁳) 16:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) My suggestion is to make it simpler. The Government of India has accorded classical language status to four Indian languages: Sanskrit, Tamil, Kannada and Telugu.—Preceding unsigned comment added by RegentsPark (talk • contribs) 22:52, 16 November 2008

I'm ok with this draft. "Classical language status" should be pipe-linked with Languages of India#Official classical languages Thanks AreJay (talk) 23:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I guess Arejay meant the simpler version suggested by RegentsPark.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, RegentsPark's draft looks good to me. I think we can give this 2-3 days and get everyone else's feedback and then go ahead and add this to the article. AreJay (talk) 01:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why we are discussing the phrasing here. Per earlier discussion here, we have had the relevant sentence in the Languages in India page for two weeks now. The same sentence goes here. It is:

“ Starting in 2004, Government of India has declared some languages to be classical; these are: Tamil (in 2004), Sanskrit (in 2005), and Kannada and Telugu (in 2008). ”

The tense structure is a little off; I would change it to:

“ Since 2004, the Government of India has declared four languages to be classical; these have been: Tamil (in 2004), Sanskrit (in 2005), and Kannada and Telugu (in 2008). ”

We need to make sure that it is understood that this official status is recent, and that this particular use of "classical" may not be the more common one. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

PS There was never any consensus for the rest of the proposed addition (Kavirajamarga etc.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I dont see any reason why the dates (year when accorded) should be included. It is not consistant with the rest of the article, where other classical arts, recognised by the government of India, have been included. A reader can get that info with one click.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there is no need to include dates. If the GOI recognizes four languages as classical, then it does so at this time and that's all that matters. Also, since the statement clearly says that the GOI has accorded classical status to the languages, it is probably not necessary to belabor the point that their definition may not be the same as the generally accepted one. (For one thing, we'll need to find a WP:RS that says that their definition is not the same as the standard one!) Best to keep it simple. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 14:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I dont see any reason to burden the reader with what is classical and what is not. Every nation has a right to decide what it means by "classical" from its point of view. As such, the citation (in quotes) in the Languages of India article to which this line will link to, specifies what that the GOI defines as classical. Any attempt to lead the reader to what is "classical classical" and what it means here is WP:SYN, an attempt to create an opinion.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid we do have the responsibility to not mislead a reader who doesn't click on the link. The current phrasing gives no clue as what this means. Is this a time-honored "status" like that conferred by the Academie Francais or even India's Sangeet Natak Akademi (National Academy of Music, Dance and Drama) which, since 1950, has declared certain dance forms to be classical? Or is this a latter-day "tag" that India's Sahitya Akademi (National Academy of Letters) explicitly voted against having, and then had its recommendations ignored by the Government of the day? There is no reason why we should inadvertently let the casual intelligent reader (who wouldn't think to click on "classical language" because the meaning is so obvious) go away with the former impression.

I'm afraid every nation does not decide the usage of "classical." The word "classical" has clearly documented usage, one that is defined in dictionaries and used in reliable secondary sources and encyclopedias. To date no one has been able to find a single reference on Google Scholar that refers to Kannada or Telugu as "classical languages." However, on a whim, I can easily turn up dozens of references not only on Google Scholar, but also in standard encyclopedias like Britannica and Encarta, which not only refer to both Sanskrit and Tamil as classical languages, but also refer to Kannada and Telugu as vernacular (regional) languages. Why do you think this is the case? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

PS I've just created a subpage of my user page User:Fowler&fowler/Classical languages of India, which has some standard references on the classical languages of India. These are Encyclopaedia Britannica (excerpts from signed article on "Dravidian Literature" by A.K. Ramanujan), Encyclopedia Encarta (article on Indian Literature), the book Dravidian Languages by Bhadriraju Krishnamurti, and the book Dravidian Languages by Sanford Seaver. You will get an idea of what the mainstream thinks. As you will see from the time stamp, it took me about 30 minutes for this entire exercise. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Fowler, your arguements are based on your personal belief that Kannada and Telugu are not classical, something which is obvious from your arguements so far, and something you have been trying to pound down everyones chest. The Government of India took into confidence the opinions of nine scholars about what they think is "classical" with a good reason: They are "Experts". What matters here is what the "GOI" thinks is classical and this can be included easily in a footnote or a link. Can you prove that the decisions of the Sangeet Natak Akademi are more reliable than those of Sahitya Akademi?Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I said the Sahitya Akademi recommended that no language be officially declared classical. (I have clarified it more now.) In other words, they said, let the secondary sources provide that evidence. And those, for a hundred years, have only described two languages of India to be classical languages, Sanskrit and Tamil. Please don't try to pin this on my personal belief. If you think it is personal why don't you find some sources on Google Scholar (of the quality that I have provided in my sub-page link User:Fowler&fowler/Classical languages of India) that say Kannada and Telugu are classical languages? Anything perhaps written by that mysterious "expert committee" on Google Scholar that confirms this? I've been waiting for two weeks now. Why is it that I can find the contrary evidence in 15 minutes? Anyway, I provided the link to my subpage because I wanted the ordinary reader of this talk page to see how ridiculous this "tag" is. There is no reason for the India page to sway to breeze of every linguistic sub-nationalism in India. The secondary sources, the contemporary internationally recognized ones, are enough. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I didnt know A.K. Ramanujan, Sanford B. Seaver, Kamil Zvelebil, Bhadriraju Krishnamurti and the editors in Encarta are all incarnations of Fowler&fowler. On a different note, I would be curious to know the names of "scholars" appointed by GoI. Well, may be the solution to the problem is to write what all these incarnations do think and what GoI had to decide (decided). Docku: What up? 00:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia, may I remind you.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree with fowler&fowler about the definition of classical languages etc. etc. However, if we are going to include a statement about which languages have been declared classical by the GOI, I favor a simple statement approach, without explanation. No sense, IMHO, in belaboring something. Of course, whatever the consensus is is fine by me.--Regents Park (bail out your boat) 00:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I dont see the need for including the list of classical languages in this summarized section. I feel like this is just another effort to make South India superior to the North in this article and doesn't keep NPOV. Just an fyi, not everything the Government of India says must land on this article. Nikkul (talk) 05:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

After reading some more of the secondary literature on classical languages of India, which I will continue to append to my subpage User:Fowler&fowler/Classical languages of India, I am now convinced more than ever that we will be putting out incorrect information if we add any statement in any section of the India page (however qualified or bare) which includes Kannada and Telugu in that list. I am therefore changing my earlier vote to an oppose in all cases and adding to user:Nikkul's oppose above. Regardless of what the Government of India does in its official capacity, we are beholden only to the reliable secondary sources. These, in my view, are unanimously agreed that there are only two classical languages in India, Sanskrit and Tamil, and, moreover, that both Kannada and Telugu are medieval vernacular languages, albeit a little older than other modern Indian languages. I will, of course, respect whatever consensus is arrived at here. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is not about oppose or support. It is about the draft. That vote happened a few weeks back when you supported. If you dont like its addition, I suggest you then go for a Rfc after it is added.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and added the draft approved by myself, Arejay and RegentsPark. It can be tweaked after Nichalp comes back.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Including the opinion of the "mysterious experts" appointed by GoI and not including the mainstream opinion provided by F&F will be breach of WP:NPOV. Docku: What up? 02:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Experts dont become "mysterious" just because you dont know their names. Do you know the names of experts who elected the six dances of India as "classical". Do you know the names of the experts on the Nobel committee who voted for Tagore's work for Nobel-prize?. Do you even care?. There is no rule that the names of experts need to be published, while it would be nice to have that info. What is official is official. As far as Fowler's list and his arguements go, anyone who reads his comments from the very beginning (few weeks back), his constant verbal opposition, his later support vote, his opposition to the draft and his final oppose would wonder about his real intentions(no offence meant ofcourse).Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Did u even care to read the page created by F&F before attacking him ad hominem? I dont think u did, ur reply was instantaneous u didnt even probably open the page. Docku: What up? 02:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

That was not an attack, just an honest observation.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPOV says

“ Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources ”

The sentence Dinesh added reflects only one significant view by those "mysterious scholars". Including also the mainstream scholars view would be belaboring the issue like RegentsPark mentioned. Therefore, not including the information is the best solution. Simple as it is, either include all viewpoints or none. Do we care about wp policies in this page anymore or is it just a propaganda page? Docku: What up? 03:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the Wikipedia rules, and it is possible that I am in violation of the letter of the law on voting (however, not of the spirit). I will let Nichalp decide how the chips have fallen, but I want to state forcefully again that we can't put out misinformation. That is exactly what we are risking.

The effort to advertise greater and greater antiquity for Kannada doesn't just affect the India page. For example, the lead of the Indian literature page, promotes extinct Kannada works, works of which not a single line has survived in anyone's memory, but which are nevertheless advertised with five footnotes, no less. How does this grotesque promotion of antiquity help anyone? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Dravidian POV is so clear to see here. Scholars have approved the Indian classical status to 3 Dravidian languages. Indo-European just 1. That's the real version everybody's whining here. Nobody's whining about for instance "classical japanese language", though it's age isn't any way to compare with Greek or Latin. Antiquity and classical language are obviously two different terms. --Kalarimaster (talk) 04:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Which scholars? names? Docku: What up? 05:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You could have get your information by now, if you would follow the recommendation of Dineshkannambadi to contact the ministry of culture. Therefore I assume, that you don't really care about it. How about stopping your kindergarten style? Stop the Anti-Dravidian POV. Stop the whining. Accept the decision of India. --Kalarimaster (talk) 06:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The burden of proof lies with you, the person who wants to add information. Docku: What up? 06:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing to proof. Ministry of Culture official statement is enough. You are accusing the ministry of culture of lying about the expert committee. --Kalarimaster (talk) 07:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You may say so. Docku: What up? 13:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Alternate phrasing

“ Inspite of the absence of support for classical status for Kannada and Telugu among mainstream noted dravidian laguages scholars, the Government of India has accorded classical language status to four Indian languages: Sanskrit, Tamil, Kannada and Telugu as recommended by an expert commitee. ”

I know it sounds not nice though factually correct and guess can be tweaked to sound more neutral. In fact, this is one of the reasons I suggest we leave the whole material out.

I used references from F&F. Thanks. Docku: What up? 06:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Nope, can't get behind that. First, the sentence seems to suggest that Sanskrit and Tamil haven't been accorded "classical language" status by "mainstream scholars", and second, who is a "mainstream scholar" exactly? One of the main issues raised in the discussion was that it needs to be explicitly noted that it was the government that accorded classical status to Kannada and Telugu. The draft (with or without an inclusion of the years in which the status was conferred) that most people seem to be ok with addresses that issue. I support sticking what that drafted sentence. Any discussion of the specifics of the "expert committee" that accepted Kannada and Telugu as classical languages, or the "mainstream scholars" that don't accept either as classical languages would be WP:UNDUE, contrary to WP:SS guidelines, and should therefore be duly relegated to Classical languages of India#Official classical languages. Thanks AreJay (talk) 07:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Pls read this page, User:Fowler&fowler/Classical languages of India, you might find those "scholars" here. Docku: What up? 14:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The point that I'm trying to make is this: who's to say who is or isn't a mainstream scholar? Why get into that at all in an article that's supposed to be written in summary style? The previous draft seems reasonable to me. I don't suggest that significant views on the issue need not be discussed...I think they should. However, I think that discussion needs to be relegated to the Classical languages of India article. Thanks AreJay (talk) 15:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant figures, since the inclusion of Telugu & Kannada was introduced by Indian scholars, who investigated this subject til 2008. --Kalarimaster (talk) 07:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not taking any side (as I am totally against inclusion of any statement, a stance I had declared in the previous discussion). However, "mainstream scholars" is POV. --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 07:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Accept the fact first. Wikipedia don't need Ignorant peoples like Docku,Fowler&fowler and other Anti-dravidian peoples screaming around here, i advice them to take a short wikibreak and comeback with a clear conscience, i also advice them to respect GOI decisions. Indian Government decision is final decision, remember you can't change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.191.75 (talk) 08:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

59.92, I don't know where you might have heard it but the GOI does definitely not have the final decision on Wikipedia. Our fundamental policies are WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:RS and WP:V (not WP:TRUTH). Governments in most instances are not reliable sources, but are heavily influenced from political and lobbyist pressures when it comes to their declarations on things like this. Also, what would we do if another government, say Sri Lanka, say that Sinhala but not Tamil is a classical language? These "facts" somehow conflict each other. That is why independent scholarship is far more reliable and I advise you to respect their decisions. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 09:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Its not just a bunch of politicians who have given this status. It comes from approved by Sahitya Akademi of letters. The Govt can only officiate it. If a sovereign democratic government's decision can be suspect, what about our National anthem, National bird, National fruit, National etc etc. What about the decision to give classical status to India's six dances, or the status of folk-theatre in various languages (exponents in all of which receive awards every year); all of which appears on this article?. Why worry about Sri Lanka here. Is the Indian government going to revoke classical status to Tamil, if Sri Lanka does not include it in its list of classical languages?. Why should we worry about hypothetical issues here.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 12:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

National anthem, national bird, national fruit are all national issues which should be decided by Indian government and is expected to be so. Classical language status, on the other hand, has to be decided on an international basis by scholars who are experts on the subject. That is the difference. Docku: What up? 13:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you prove that the committee of linguistic experts are "not experts" in their field? So according to you, a group of foreign scholars decide which language is classical and which is not, and the GOI doles out Rs. 100 crores per year ($20 million) based on their opinions, and Indian scholars have no say in it?. Seems like you are making rules here. Our job is to report what is "official" and notable. Not judge it. Were the scholars who gave classical status to the six types of dances of India all international scholars? I really dont think you have an arguement Docku.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

What we'll do, if Sinhala declares so? We will put it in the article. That's it. Our views are not relevant. Also the criticism of the so-called "independent" scholars. Dravidian vs. Sanskrit scholar war can be traced back more than a century beginning with some german Sanskritists, AIT, etc. The government of India decision is an overall agreement and doesn't need any approval of wikipedians. --Kalarimaster (talk) 11:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Dinesh, You are the one who is insisting on adding this information and you have to participate in a discussion which seeks to understand the quality of the information we add. That includes providing us the information on the names of the "experts" appointed by GoI. Besides, do you have any comment on alternate opinions in this page, User:Fowler&fowler/Classical languages of India. You want us to ignore this totally. How is that possible? Why is no one commenting on these opinions? How GoI appointed "experts", whose names we dont even know, have acquired such importance and not these people mentioned in the page.Docku: What up? 14:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I respect every opinion in fowlers page. But nobody had convinced me, that Kannada and Telugu could not be associated as classical languages within Indian requirements for the status. Generally speaking, these opinions were built on euro-centric "Latin, Greek" standards. These standards must not apply to Indian standards. The Indian standards want historic evidences such as epigraphical scripts, then a bold body of classical literature with unique heritage and so on.. this is a completely different model than the european ones. We are Indians, not Europeans who themselves may claim to be the center of the world. --Kalarimaster (talk) 15:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I think you guys are making a big deal out of something that is not a big deal. If the government of India has accorded classical language status to four languages and if we say exactly that, no less and no more, then I don't see the problem. Dk's statement links to the section of the languages page that explains this status and any discussion on the validity of the claim that these languages are or are not classical should be included in that section (rather than in this summary overview article). I do feel however that the sentence added by Dk should go under the demographics section rather than the culture section (it seems out of place over there). For example, The constitution also recognises in particular 21 other languages that are either abundantly spoken or have classical status (the Government of India has accorded classical language status to four Indian languages: Sanskrit, Tamil, Kannada and Telugu). Or, The constitution also recognises in particular 21 other languages that are either abundantly spoken or have classical status. Four of these languages; Sanskrit, Tamil, Kannada and Telugu; have been accorded classical language status by the government of India.

I see what u mean which is to keep it as simple as possible here while elaborating in the other page. Dont u think it is WP:NPOV violation? may be u think it is not because it is not or because it would be elaborated in another page? Docku: What up? 15:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

No sense in assuming that the reader is in idiot and can't interpret "the government of india has accorded" in an intelligent way. Clicking on the link will take you to the discussion. That's what a summary article should contain. I don't agree with f&f's new text. First, the footnotes are way too long for a summary article. Second 'India has two classical languages' is bordering on WP:POINT though I'm sure f&f doesn't mean it that way. Ideally, what is needed is an academic source that specifically refutes the GOI decision. Otherwise, the discussion should go in the sub-article, not in the summary article. If we've decided that this designation be included in the article (which, apparently, we have), then, once again, I suggest we stick to simple statements of fact in this summary article - note the repeated use of the word summary :-) --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 17:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, this should be in the Language section, not the culture section. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 17:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

So, it doesnt matter even if the information F&F added is correct and neutral and reflect both scholarly view and GoI view? By the way, if we are going for only one view, why shouldnt we then go for just the scholarly view instead of GoI view? Docku: What up? 17:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

To RegentsPark: I am not sure that we have agreed that this information be included in this article (in any section). I am suggesting that the information should be accurate or not be there at all. Obviously, the number of footnotes can be reduced, once there is agreement. See my PS below. WP:POINT talks about disrupting Wikipedia to make a point; this, however, is not just a point. It is the heart of the issue. Why, after all, are we mentioning "classical languages" at all anywhere? It is because we think they are important (culturally or linguistically). Why then should be settle for an inaccurate use of the term. If we are not describing what the unanimity of published opinion (one of the pillars of Wikipedia) thinks is "classical," why are we bothering with what the Government of India thinks. (This, I think, in a nutshell, was your original opinion.) I guess I have come around to adopting it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Not only does Foweler's edit fail WP:Point, it also violates WP:SYN, an attempt to forward a viewpoint, contrary to the official one. No RFc is going to accept his content.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 17:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec)::::Ideally, we shouldn't go for any view since all this frightfully subjective. But, I'm still reading f&f's footnote so give me a few moments to digest it! --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 17:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

We have two points of view on the subject of classical language: 1, noted scholars on the subject calling Sanskrit and Tamil classical language 2, GoI and appointed experts calling Sanskrit, Tamil, Kannada and Telugu. Including one viewpoint and leaving out the other is WP:NPOV violation. Dinesh, pls dont confuse between WP:NPOV and WP:SYN. I have read about WP:SYN and i dont see any violation of it. Thanks. Docku: What up? 17:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I read f&f's note and digested it somewhat. This is what it says: (1) Two encyclopedia references that say that India has two classical languages: Tamil and Sanskrit. (2) Several references that say that Tamil is a classical language without commenting on whether Kannada or Telegu are classical. (3) Two references that say that Tamil is one of two classical languages (BTW, I couldn't find the quote in the Steever reference because the page number is incorrect and I'm looking at a physical copy so can't do a text search!). Of the two, Steever goes on to say that Kannada has a long literary tradition and exhibits diglossia (see the Ferguson reference in fowler's list), though not as much as Tamil. The case is not clear from the note and, IMHO, all it does is clearly illustrate my point that excessive elaboration is confusing. The problem with trying to qualify the goi statement is that it muddies the water rather than clarifies. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 18:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Very well observed, RegentsPark. None of these references state anything on the GoI decision. They were just focused on Tamil and Sanskrit. fowler did not provide anything near to what's necessary. --Kalarimaster (talk) 18:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

So, we then wait for someone to provide us reference for Kannada and Telugu as classical language, and till then, I believe the current formulation seems accurate. For RegentPark, classical language should have longer and independent literary tradition. I am not sure if diglossia is a characteristic of classical. See, longer and independent are key words. Docku: What up? 18:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec again!) My point is not that Kannada and Telegu are classical - I haven't the faintest idea about whether they are or not. Rather that the case the f*f is trying to make is not clear cut because one person's shorter and dependent is another person's longer and independent and the degree of diglossia as a mechanism for identifying classical-ness is also subjective. I know what fowler is trying to say with his references that no independent scholar has identified Kannada or Telegu as being classical, and of course it is hard to prove a negative. Which is why trying to make the case that Kannada and Telegu are not classical languages is a losing proposition because the more references you throw at it, the more the reader will believe the contrary (because none of the references deny the contrary). Better to clearly identify the source of the designation and let the reader make his or her own judgement. IMO, of course. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 18:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Fowler has failed to prove anything. His "epic" about India having "only" two classical languages needs to come off.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

(multiple ec)The issue with the term classical is that it is subjective. It will not be hard to find respected scholars who claim that the only classical languages are Latin and Greek, other scholars who add Sanskrit to the list, and others yet who add many other languages. Our own classical language page pretty much includes everything while simultaneously excluding almost everything. Now, along comes a government body that is willing to go out on a limb and declare four languages as officially classical. Clearly, this is a problem for wikipedia, and the root of our problems on this page, because, on one side there is the classically muddy waters of the academic world (who do I quote? which scholar do I respect?) and on the other side an official proclamation (easy to quote, easy to cite, comes with the full faith and credit of a sovereign nation). So, the question is how do we adequately deal with the issue of alerting the reader to the much deeper thought that has gone into the scholarly side, while doing it in a simple and straightforward manner, preferably in a single sentence. It's tough and one alternative is (and, this, or alternative statements should go in the Demographics section rather than the culture section):

• While Tamil and Sanskrit have been studied as classical languages for many years (cite scholar), the Government of India, using its own criteria, has also accorded classical status to Kannada and Telegu (cite goi). This makes it clear that Kannada and Telegu are somehow different.

Beyond this, I'm at a loss what to do (other than reopen the question of whether we should include any statement about classical languages). --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 18:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Which is exactly what Fowler is hoping to achieve. Throw so much mud that the whole issue begins to stink. But an official decision is official decision. I have known Fowler for more than a year. His strategies are well known to me.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I support this draft of RegentsPark. This is the most accurate, Non-POV explanation. --Kalarimaster (talk) 18:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Criteria for classicality is subjective and we (wikipedians) are not going to decide which subjectiveness is correct. If one were to tighten the classicality criteria, Tamil will fall off the classical wagon, followed by Sanskrit and so forth. We just report what subjectiveness was used to formulate the classicality as reported in secondary sources.

Therefore, I also support RegentsPark's formulation which I agree is the most neutral. If F&F also supports it, we would request him to introduce the relevant change as he seems very handy with these references. Docku: What up? 19:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I repeat here that I too support RegentPark's italisised solution above. No POV, No UNDUE importance to any scholar, international or Indian. I just states the fact. A real breakthough.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Very well expressed, RegentsPark. I too support your version. It has the added benefit, in contrast to mine, that it flows! And that's important in an FA. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm on board as well. Very well crafted. Tha nks AreJay (talk) 19:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

While Tamil and Sanskrit have been studied as classical languages for many years (cite scholar), the Government of India, using its own criteria, has also accorded classical status to Kannada and Telegu (cite goi).by RP. I just have a problem with the word "studied", I am not sure if it is the correct word. What about "considered" or "deemed" or something else. Docku: What up? 19:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit wary about deemed because it sounds official, and academic study is obviously not official. I popped in 'studied' because it implies an academic area of study but if you can come up with a better word that's fine. It shouldn't sound negative ('accepted as classical languages' is an example of negative) or imply recognition (because then we'll get into a debate on what is classical and what is not).--Regents Park (bail out your boat) 19:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

We could change it to be a little closer to AreJay's version: "While two Indian languages, Tamil and Sanskrit, have been considered to be classical languages for many years (cite), the Government ..." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

PS I think I see RegentsPark's point. Docku, I think "studied" is fine. Most classical languages have really have only been studied, sort of like how Einstein studied Relativity. :) It shouldn't be considered a negative. Anyway, I'll let Docku and RP settle this. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

fine with the blend. Docku: What up? 19:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok guys. I get it. Let us go with unchanged RP version. Docku: What up? 19:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The word considered is perhaps incorrect, because it raises the question "by who?". By some Scholars in the internatinal community ofcourse. How? By way of their "studies". So, RegentsPark's "studied" was well though over in the frst place.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 20:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Expert committee suggestion

(unindent) - RP's draft is close but needs modification. "..using its own criteria" is POV and factually incorrect, albeit unintended. The govt., didnt come up with the criteria. The expert committee of the Sahitya Akademi did. And they did it by "abstracting the features of classical languages..." (the Telegraph cite). If we are going to bend over backwards and say "..using its own criteria".. we also would have to add "...following the recommendation of a Linguists committee". We can't simply push the POV that the according of the tag to K and Te had only to do with politics -- especially when that was decidedly not the case! what with Telugu and Kannada being the languages that had to go through an expert linguists' committee unlike Sanskrit and Tamil! Sarvagnya 15:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Sarvagnya, you need to explain why Telugu Andhra Mahabharatamu, retelling (translation) of Sanskrit Mahabharata and Kannada Kavirajamarga, imitation (copy) of Kavyadarsa on a large part is classical. Copying, imitating, emulating and translating literature from other language is not classical. I am not saying this. I can show you secondary sources which prove this. I would encourage you and any one who is going to participate in this discussion read on this subject a little bit before jumping in here. I guess the current formulation explains the situaton very well unless we are hell bent on promoting Kannada POV here. good luck. Docku: What up? 16:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Sarvagnya, we can easily link "criterea" to citation#8 in Languages of India and add the phrase "expert committee".Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Done, added the phrase "based on the recommendation of a committee of linguistic experts" just as the citation says.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I am fine with adding "expert commitee" but I would then insist on adding that we dont know the identity of the members of the so-called expert commitee (unless someone here has reference for that), something like "unknown expert commitee". If not adding "expert commitee" is POV, not adding the fact that we dont know their identity is also POV. Come on guys, it is getting silly, let us just stick to "Government". Docku: What up? 16:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Docku, you are just making the whole issue a personal issue. The committee is mentioned in the citation explicitly and that's why it is added now. I really think yo need to sit back and take a deep breath and understand what you are trying to achieve here. You are knit picking beyond reason. Do we know the committee members for classical dances?Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not taking it personal. I am just getting a feeling that I am in the middle of strong Kannada POV to promote Kannada to a status which it does not deserve based on available secondary sources and trying my best to let the readers know the truth. I have never participated in a discussion on classical dances and i dont want to comment on that now. Why do you have to revert the fact that it is "undisclosed" on a reason it is negative. If it is negative, that is what it is. that is the fact, you dont revert because u dont like it. Come on. pls. Docku: What up? 16:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I have self reverted back to original version. We can have one more discussion on this issue I guess. Docku now you are pushing your opinion when you say "does not deserve".Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

yes, that is "my opinion" based on my understanding of secondary sources on this subject. Pls read the subpage created by F&F, that is also the opinion of many scholars in that page. Docku: What up? 16:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

(unident) "Expert committee" is bogus. If they were such experts, where are their publications that make the case for Kannada and Telugu being classical languages. That's all Wikipedia cares for. There's no consensus for this edit. I think we've had enough and its time to stop nickel and diming this. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, the expert committee stuff seems dubious. The lack of reports from these committees, the setting up of the committee to declare Tamil a classical language in the first place (cf., this) all point to the political nature of the exercise. I'm willing to go along with a statement that the goi has decided on a set of classical languages (because the goi is a non-trivial entity and that decision is an undeniable fact) but, linguistic experts, is pushing it quite a bit. If we're going to go out there, my preference would be to reopen the debate on whether or not this classification should be included in this article. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 17:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I would encourage RP also to read this subpage. Docku: What up? 18:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with RegentsPark. We agreed on the RegentsPark's text yesterday and the debate was closed. Any changes to the text, even the one RegentsPark mentions in his post above, will open the debate again, and will have to include the question of whether to include this topic at all' in the India page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok. We can settle for RP's text for now, as we decided yesterday. I really appreciate his efforts to bring concensus to this issue. But, I will go ahead and make a request to person I know, someone who was highly placed with GOI in India, and has the right contacts. He will attempt to bring credible info/text about the nine scholars who were part of the committee, if such an information can even be made public. Then, we can add the full info "quoting the committee of experts". How does that sound?Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Any changes that are proposed in the future will need consensus first, whether it is the name of the "experts" or anything else, especially on this page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I go with both DK and F&F. I am impressed Dinesh has well placed contacts. good. Docku: What up? 19:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Ofcourse, there will be a discussion.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I read the frontline link pulled up by RP and don't see anything unusual in it. For eons, cultural development and political unity have gone hand in hand. Culture development enriches a language, but it takes political solidarity and pride to showcase it and act as a further catalyst. I have spent lots of time in the last 2 years reading on Kannada literature, writing a few FA's, and hence gained familiarity (to a very minor extent) regarding "general literary development", Kannada and otherwise. Polity has often acted as a wand that enhances a language and takes it in new directions – in this case, it brings official recognition and funding for the further research and development. But the bottom line is, for a language to get that official recognition in the first place, it has to have what it takes – antiquity , richness etc etc.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 21:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

My point was not that Kannada is not classical. Rather, the frontline article demonstrates a political reason behind the naming of languages as classical. That article is about officially designating Tamil as classical and points to a political push (the DMK) that made it happen. The same process or committee later added Sanskrit and then Kannada and Telugu to the list of official classical languages and that is what I meant by the government's move is essentially political. That it is political, doesn't mean that Kannada is not classical, neither does it mean that we should necessarily ignore what the goi says. But it does mean that we don't forget the political perspective when we add the information to our articles, especially when academic sources are hard to come by. Perhaps the classical designation will mean that Kannada and Telugu receive more attention and become academically studied classical language. If that happens, we'll update our articles accordingly. (Me, I'm a Sanskrit scholar - in the sense that I've always wanted to learn Sanskrit but never quite got around to it!) --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 21:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

RP, I never misunderstood you.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 21:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of fuelling a new non-ending conversation, classicality doesnt mean anything particularly adorable in any contemporary sense. No one I have met ever greeted me with, "do u speak a classical language?". English is not classical. But, is there anyone who will question the global superiority English wields with people all across the world fascinated to learn it? We would be better off focusing our energy and effort building a better future for the next generations and not resorting to superfluosly basking in past glory (if such one exists).

In the meantime, our job in wikipedia is to report what is reported in secondary sources. If there are more than one significant viewpoint about a subject, we will report all of them while making sure that we dont report fringe viewpoints by pseudo scholars published in pseudo-peer viewed journals. Docku: What up? 22:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Transition purposal

I think, we should rewrite the sentence in a simple way til Dinesh is able to obtain the requested information about the expert committee, so, that the heat calms down a bit. The languages are listed in alphabetical order. So nobody has to complain. If the discussion regarding Dinesh source' doesn't result in a new consensus, RegentsPark initial consensus purposal should be back on top.

Here is the transition purposal, which is just stating facts:
The Indian government created a category of classical languages of India. Kannada, Sanskrit, Tamil and Telugu were accorded this status.

--Kalarimaster (talk) 22:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I just thought it was over. Oppose categorically. No change in anything till Dinesh or any other brings up evidence which will change our perception of the subject in a significant way. period. Docku: What up? 22:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I see here again two viewpoints in this discussion: One group respects the GoI statements also in academical terms. The other group is just sceptical about it. This purposal should provide full neutrality. I hope you understand that. --Kalarimaster (talk) 22:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I dont understand you. may be because you are confusing what viewpoints mean. When you say group, do you mean wikipedia editors? It is not wikipedians' viewpoints we are talking about. boy, I am getting tired with this. Docku: What up? 22:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course i mean consensus in the wikipedia community. There seem to be no Krishnamurty, Mahadevan, etc. available to talk with about this issue. --Kalarimaster (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, if we were to include our view points, wikipedia would call it original research. Pls click and read what is inside the blue link, it is important. Docku: What up? 22:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

You want me to explain about WP:OR? thanks for the laugh. Tell me, who is here "sceptical" about everything and try to push this scepticism into the article, although there is a sourced info, that a linguistic expert committee investigated this matter? Yes, it's you, Docku, not me. --Kalarimaster (talk) 22:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

You know what, I find it hard when people are very sure about everything. If there is skepticism about the subject, let it be so. Did u forget that our skepticism is, indeed stemming out of studies and reports from other scholars who are not members of the "expert commitee". yes, two view points and both are included in the article in the most neutral non-negative way possible. I remember u supported the text proposed by RP yesterday. I would recommend you read the above section of the discussion which happened today before you logged in. Thanks. Docku: What up? 23:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I read all this. And yes, i supported RP's consensus purposal. I'm still OK with it. But we have to wait Dinesh' report to solve the GoI/expert committee word problem. Until this is solved, we should go with a transition phrase, which is 100% neutral. This is my opinion. I want to remind you, that you should be, besides all skepticism (i said once to you, that i encourage you to be so), keep neutral. --Kalarimaster (talk) 23:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Kalarimaster, u r just confusing me. You are OK with RP's text and yet, you would also want some other phrase which you think is 100% neutral. Why dont we just wait on the text agreed by everyone instead of muddying it all up again all over. it is ur call. Docku: What up? 23:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Second Alternative Phrasing

Since user:Dineshkannambadi has not respected the views of the other editors on this page, I have now chosen to replace his edit with the sentence given below. I feel that putting anything after a sentence (in the culture section) which mentions Ramayana, Mahabharata, Abhijnanashakuntalam, and Sangam poetry, all of which are works of classical literature, suggests, at the very least, that these languages are classical in the same sense. Our job, as Wikipedia editors, is to report the consensus of published scholarly opinion, and if there is no consensus, to report the controversy. In this situation, however, there is no controversy among scholarly publications. The published scholarly opinion is unanimously agreed that India has only two classical languages and they are Sanskrit and Tamil, and this consensus is not new, but goes back a hundred years. To date, no one has been able to produce any publication on Google Scholar of the quality I have produced below that even remotely suggests that Kannada and Telugu are classical languages.

user:Dineshkannambadi is incorrect in suggesting that India's Sahitya Akademi (National Academy of Letters) has created this mysterious "expert committee." The Sahitya Akademi explcitly recommended that no language be given this official tag; and, indeed, I have added two references from the Sahitya Akademi that make clear what they think is classical. I am happy to challenge user:Dineshkannambadi (and anyone else who wants to join him) to a mediation, an arbitration, or any other Wikipedia dispute resolution method. The quality of the references below, will, I hope, create the first dawnings in my interlocutors of the work they have cut out for them. Please, no wikilawyering; simply get your sources, and join me in a mediation. Please also don't flatter yourself by assuming that this is a threat. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

PS We can obviously reduce the number of footnotes, once there is agreement on the phrasing. Their number here (and temporarily in the main text) serves to make the point that this is indeed the unanimous published opinion. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

PPS Many of the references below in their more complete forms not only make the point that Sanskrit and Tamil are classical languages, but also that Kannada and Telugu are not. I haven't always included that information in the footnotes, because it hasn't been strictly relevant to the statement they support. However, please read the extended biblio in User:Fowler&fowler/Classical_languages_of_India. Note, however, that A. K. Ramanujan and Sanford B. Seaver were/are scholars of Kannada; they say unambiguously in the footnotes that there are only two classical languages, Sanskrit and Tamil. Note too that their books were published in 1985 and 1998 respectively, long before the Government of India got in the act. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is the sentence:

India has two classical languages, Sanskrit and Tamil;¹ however, since 2004, the Government of India has declared four languages to be official classical languages: Tamil (2004), Sanskrit (2005), Kannada and Telugu (2008).²

1. A. "South Asian arts" (2008). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Quote: "Of the four literary Dravidian languages, Tamil has been recorded earliest, followed by Kannada, Telugu, and Malayalam. Tamil literature has a classical tradition of its own, while the literatures of the other languages have been influenced by Sanskrit models." B. "Indian Literature,", Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia 2008. Quote: "Classical Literature: In southern India, beginning in the 1st century AD, a magnificent body of nonreligious poetry was written in the Tamil language. The early Tamil poems became the foundation of literary traditions in other languages of south India." C. Template:Harvard reference. Quote: "Tamil ... It is therefore one of India's two classical languages, alongside the more widely known Indo-Aryan language Sanskrit. D. From Dravidian Languages, Cambridge University Press, 2003. (See page 22): Quote: As in the case of Pre-Modern Greek and Arabic, Tamil has "diglossia" (Ferguson 1964), which means that the standard written and spoken variety of Tamil, called centamiz "beautiful Tamil", is based on the classical language of an earlier era. E. Template:Harvard reference Ramanujan 1985, p. ix-x Quote: Tamil, one of the two classical languages of India, is a Dravidian language spoken today by 50 million Indians, ..." F. Template:Harvard reference. Quote: "... those 26,350 lines of poetry promote Tamil to the rank of one of the great classical languages of the world ... G. Template:Harvard reference. Quote: "Tamil: Another Classical Language: The other language operating in the country as a powerful vehicle of literary expression, of course, was Tamil. Like Greek, Tamil has an uninterrupted history; the relation between the modern and ancient Tamil is more or less similar to that of the Attic Greek and modern Greek." H. Template:Harvard reference. Quote: "Among them Tamil has a very special place. It has the longest literary tradition, extending to over two thousand years, next only to Sanskrit. While Sanskrit is a classical language of the past, Tamil is both classical and modern, with a continuous, unbroken literary history. 2. "Declaration of Telugu and Kannada as classical languages". Press Information Bureau. Ministry of Tourism and Culture, Government of India. Retrieved 2008-11-19.</ref>

Fowler, it is you who has not respected the discussions here. This is meant to be a two line explanation, no a 5K explanation of a simple issue. I dont think anyone who truly cares about this article is going to accepet this 5K of data to explain a simple point.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

A. K. Ramanujan and Sanford B. are entitled to their pesonal views, not the official view of GOI.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) F&f I'm okwith your draft for the most part. A couple of points though:

• I think it should say something like "Two Indian languages, Sanskrit and Tamil, are considered...", as opposed to "India has..." since I think the contention is that Tamil and Sanskrit would be considered classical languages anywhere and the current structure of the sentence would imply otherwise.
• I think the footnotes can/should be drastically reduced, if all or most of them are making the same point wrt Tamil and Sanskrit being considered CLs.
• I'm guessing parts of the footnotes in the article won't be bolded like they are above :)
• I'd like the dates not to be added for official classical languages. Saying "..since 2004, the Government..." would suffice. AreJay (talk) 18:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I Support RegentParks suggestion which seems the most neutral and NPOV.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi AreJay, All good points. I guess RegentsPark's version incorporates your objections. So, if you don't mind, we'll go with that. And no, I'll have just one unbolded reference. :) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Bias

Why is there so much emphasis on poverty. India has become a superpower. Mentions of poverty and malnutrition do not befit a superpower. I returned to India last year and travelled across India. Guess what? I saw no poverty! If we do mention poverty, then poverty should be mentioned on every country's page. I suspect Western bias in people who have never been in powerful and glorious country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ommalik (talk • contribs) 20:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you only met up with the rich elite and didn't go outside the upper-class districts in the big metros, let alone Bihar. Look up the life expectancy stats etc, Most education officials and businesspeople etc I know nowadays are always going to China and Vietnam for investments, and they like to come back and tell everyone how amazing everything is, obviously only thinking of the pampering given to them to score a business partner. Then they usually harp on like champagne socialists and moan about how bad inequality is in real socialist countries like Australia and Western Europe. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 03:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

(Question to User:Ommalik) Which part of India did you visit? I am seriously curious. --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 07:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Apparently no place near where Matty Hayden was ;) AreJay (talk) 07:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

There is half a sentence in the lead and to sentences in economy that talk about poverty. That really isn't a lot, especially when we are supposed write from a neutral perspective. Most of the information in the article indirectly praises the country. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 07:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

per Poverty in India, According to the new World Bank's estimates on poverty based on 2005 data, India has 456 million people, 41.6% of its population, living below the new international poverty line of $1.25 (PPP) per day. The World Bank further estimates that 33% of the global poor now reside in India. Moreover, India also has 828 million people, or 75.6% of the population living below $2 a day, compared to 72.2% for Sub-Saharan Africa. It is true that poverty has fallen significantly, from 54.9% in 1973 to 41.6% today, but poverty certainly remains a major obstacle to India's economic progress.[1][2] India certainly isn't the world's poorest country by a long shot, but it is probably the poorest newly industrialized country. If you like, you can spin it in the way that praises India for how it manages to be an emerging superpower even in spite of this gigantic socio-economic burden. --dab (𒁳) 10:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Origin of Bharat

I think we could add something on the origin of the word "bharat", which is sanskrit, meaning "the enlightened", indians were called "bharati" meaning "the enlightened". Also, the first time bharat was cited is in this shlokam- "Uttaram yad samudrasya, himadreeyasya dakshinam, varsham tat bhaaratm namah, bhaarati yatra santati". I do not clearly remember the shlokam, if there is anyone here who could incorporate my suggestions. I felt it can be added since the origin of india, hindustan etc are mentioned.. 41.209.23.34 (talk) 09:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Pallu

Names_of_India#Bharat is not not referenced as well. Can someone help sourcing it? --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 12:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Added a reference. Indirectly from the Vayu Purana.--Regents Park (bail out your boat) 23:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Official Languages

All the talk about the classical languages reminded me, we need the infobox to read, Official languages of the Union and Official languages of the states instead of just official languages and scheduled languages. Especially since the term scheduled languages will only make sense to people with a technical knowledge of the Constitution. I changed that accordingly.I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 04:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You are right. The constitution states "Official languages of the Union" and "Official languages of the states" and "Schedule 8 languages". The state official languages have nothing to do with schedule 8 languages, since any language of the state - non schedule 8 languages too - can be adopted as state language.

My purposal:

Official languages of the Union: no change

Official languages of the States: see article

Languages of the 8th schedule: no change

--Kalarimaster (talk) 09:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 20:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

No please don't go for anything. There is not only no consensus for this edit, but the last time consensus was achieved on this issue, India=Union. Here are 15 reliable sources that have interpreted the "Union" as expressed in the Constitution to mean exactly India. If you have any doubt over this, I invite you or any one else on the India page to go for a Wikipedia mediation on this issue. We can't keep reinventing the wheel every year, because a few newly arrived editors apparently think the wheel is new. Here are the references (it is just a link) from this talk page (July 2007). If you don't restore the edit as is, I will get admin help. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Here they are (this is just a link, click "show"):

Thanks for your opinion. But I think, we will go by the constitution as you advocated all time on this talkpage. If we include the scheduled languages in the box, then there should be also a link to the official languages of the states. Period. --Kalarimaster (talk) 13:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear Kalarimaster, Making unilateral edits, without seeking consensus, on a much visited FA like India, comes close to vandalism, especially since these issues have been discussed to death before. Please read the discussions of July 2007 in the archives above. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I have read the discussion. I was not able to see an single argument, why state language were excluded in the end. The constitution defines the state languages also, but gives the right to choose to the regional governments. So why shouldn't we include this here? What's your problem? --Kalarimaster (talk) 17:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, that's fine. You still need to (i) state your argument why "Official languages of States" need to be in the "India" page, and not just on the States individual pages and (ii) gain consensus here for the edit. Unless you attend to (i) we can't even begin to discuss (ii). Your argument thus far has been, "All the talk about the classical languages reminded me, we need the infobox to read, Official languages of the Union and Official languages of the states instead of just official languages and scheduled languages. Especially since the term scheduled languages will only make sense to people with a technical knowledge of the Constitution."

(a) Are you saying that "Languages of the 8th schedule" are identical to "Official languages of States?" Or, (b) Are you saying that "Official languages of the States are specified listed in the Constitution of India, independent of the 8th schedule?" Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The States form the Indian union. Official State languages are specified in the Indian constitution as well as the Union languages themselves and the languages of the 8th schedule. This has nothing to do with the States articles. It's about the constitution of India, "the source of the infobox" -fowler&fowler. Official State languages and 8th schedule are different in all ways. You must know that. Please answer my questions, too, if you have any interest in consensus. --Kalarimaster (talk) 18:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I misspoke in my post above. I meant "listed" instead of "specified" (which is a vague term). (i) Are you saying Official State languages are listed in the Constitution of India in the same way that, Schedule 8 languages as well as Hindi and English are listed? (ii) Are you also saying that in order to change an Official State language a constitutional amendment is required (as it is for any change in the list of Schedule 8 languages)? If your answer to either question is yes, could you point to a page in the Constitution? If your answer to both questions is no, then could you clarify how the Official State languages are "specified?" Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

PS What questions have you asked? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, whether every State language is listed in the constitution. The constitution specifies, that state languages shall be chosen by the State government. Any amendment of this article 347 is up to the union government. 345. Subject to the provisions of articles 346 and 347, the Legislature of a State may by law adopt any one or more of the languages in use in the State or Hindi as the language or languages to be used for all or any of the official purposes of that State: Provided that, until the Legislature of the State otherwise provides by law, the English language shall continue to be used for those official purposes within the State for which it was being used immediately before the commencement of this Constitution. 346. The language for the time being authorised for use in the Union for official purposes shall be the official language for communication between one State and another State and between a State and the Union: Provided that if two or more States agree that the Hindi language should be the official language for communication between such States, that language may be used for such communication. 347. On a demand being made in that behalf the President may, if he is satisfied that a substantial proportion of the population of a State desire the use of any language spoken by them to be recognised by that State, direct that such language shall also be officially recognised throughout that State or any part thereof for such purpose as he may specify.

Since you were unwilling to answer my simple question, I'm assuming you are not interested in a consensus and thus will stop to seek a consensus with you. --Kalarimaster (talk) 19:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I see what Kalarimaster means. In Official Language part in Constitution under chapter I comes Languages of the union, and under Chapter II comes Regional languages and chapter IV says

“ It shall be the endeavour of every State and of every local authority within the State to provide adequate facilities for instruction in the mother-tongue at the primary stage of education to children belonging to linguistic minority groups; and the President may issue such directions to any State as he considers necessary or proper for securing the provision of such facilities. ”

similar to but not same as the constitutional requirement for Hindi development. I think Kalarimaster's argument is since both languages of the union and regional languages come under the Official languages in Constitution, it should be mentioned here also same. But according to F&F, all secondary sources except US state department say Hindi and English are the only official languages. Docku: What up? 20:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I had to be away, and I didn't see these. OK, so KalariMaster has answered "No" to both my questions and described how the State languages are "prescribed" in the Constitution. This was exactly my goal. He refers to Articles 345 to 347. Fine. But just because the Constitution has described how the States should choose their official language doesn't make that choice worthy of mention on the India page. After all, part VI of the Constitution (The States), articles 152 to 237, are devoted to the states; that is a whopping 85 articles! They include articles on how to choose a Governor, how to constitute the state legislature, how to manage finances etc. etc., but we don't list (on the India page) the results of all the choices. Under "Government" in the India infobox, we don't list the Governor, Chief Minister and Chief Justice of the High Court of each state; under GDP, etc. we don't list the GDP of each state (although the constitution gives specific direction on state finances) Why should we do it for languages? The Official State language belongs to the page of the State. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

PS To Docku, The US State Department, however, says Hindi is the national language; that would be even harder to stomach for people who don't even consider it the Official language. I think since US doesn't have any official language, only a de facto "national" language, they probably mean that these 22 languages (schedule 8) are officially recognized (which is true) and among them, Hindi represents the nation. I can't be certain what they mean, but I doubt if Kalarimaster is about to agree to Hindi being listed as the "national language" and the remaining 22 listed as official languages. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Alone the fact, that the State Languages are prescribed in the Indian constitution, is enough. --Kalarimaster (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Fine. But just because the Constitution has described how the States should choose their official language doesn't make that choice worthy of mention on the India page.

Fantastic. This is the answer I was waiting for. Fowler proved, that he doesn't care about constitution as long as it tells us something FOR Hindi. As it is the case, Fowler proved, he is pushing clearly a POV into an article. Neutrality is not longer assured. Thus, I'm reverting the article according WP:NPOV. --Kalarimaster (talk) 08:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Section Break1

For the last time, Kalarimaster, the Constitution of India has 85 articles (Article 152 to 237), about one-third of its length, devoted to the States of India. The articles include everything from how to choose a State Governor, his term of office, how to hold State elections, the salaries of legislators, the finances of states. However, we don't list the results of those choices on the India page, but rather on the States pages such as Karnataka or Assam. In the "infobox" on the India page, we don't list all the State Governors or Chief Ministers; we list only the President of India, the Prime Minister , and so forth. However, in the Karnataka page, we do list the Governor or Chief Ministers. There is no reason why we should make an exception of Official State Languages; they are listed in the States' infoboxes, such as Karnataka. Schedule 8 languages are listed in the India infobox, not because some of them might be official languages of some states (as you yourself have admitted), but because they have official recognition in India. Furthermore, Schedule 8 languages are listed in the Constitution and a Constitutional amendment is required to change that list. As you have also readily admitted, not all Schedule 8 languages are official state languages; examples are Sindhi or Sanskrit.

Kalarimaster, I would urge you to voluntarily revert your edit. We have shown great patience with you on this page. If you persist in such unilateral action, I will be forced to get admin help. You have already been blocked for 10 days in early November. Edit warring so soon after emerging from a long block does not bode well for a productive career on Wikipedia. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Dear FF, There are several reasons, why the version can't be reverted:

1. The Indian Nation specifies no "National language", just "Official languages" in its constitution. You were not able to proof the opposite. I was able to search for the meaning of "Official language" in the constitution by following the Hindi version of the Indian constitution, where it is defined as "Rajbasha". This is not the same as "Rashtrabasha". Rajbasha is the Official language. Rashtrabasha is a National language. Thus English and Hindi are both "Rajbasha". No "Rashtrabasha".
2. In regard to point 1 the president of the Union is regarded a "National leader" as well the prime minister and the justice officer. They are the highest officers of the country. This is an argument to cut the "Official languages of the States", which have really nothing to do with it. Notable :-)
3. The languages of the Union and the States are officially recognized by the Indian constitution under the same article: "Official Languages". In contrary to that, the "Schedule 8" part of the constitution doesn't list them in this specific article: "Official languages", but somehow they were implemented in the infobox. However, the languages of the "Schedule 8" are also recognized by the constitution. Thus, they should be mentioned in the article as well as all the official languages, which were provided in the "Official languages" section of the constitution. Your argument, that the "Official languages of the State" are not listed in the constitution is obviously highly dubious. It doesn't change anything of the original content, which says, that there have to be Official State languages provided by the States. The "Official State languages", whichever they are, are thus an integral part of the "Official languages" part of the Indian constitution. Your argument would have something substantial, if you could prove, that there is no mention of "Official State languages" in the Indian constituion. Since you could not to that in your lifetime, it's getting very tight here for your "National languages" agenda.

I respect, that you respect the 3RR violation rules. So do I. Let's come together in a dispute resolution process, if you can't resist the heat of your blood, instead of forcing WP:harassment into the discussion. As a sign of assuming good faith against me, you could leave the article as it is until the dispute resolution came to a result. Further, you should start the dispute resolution process. Thanks, and best regards, --Kalarimaster (talk) 16:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that there are a couple of good reasons why state languages should not be included in the India article.

1. First, the article is a summary article and we should be looking for ways that enhance the brevity of the article rather than adding more information to it.
2. The state languages, if I understand the arguments above correctly, are not actually listed in the constitution. (For example, does the constitution state that the state language of, say, Assam, is Assamese?) Which means that the choice of the language is a state issue rather than a constitutional or federal matter and, purely in theory of course though this is not impossible, Assam could adopt Bengali as its official language without reference to the central government.

Regardless of argument number 2, I do think we should be seeking brevity in the summary article on India and trying to minimize the size and scale of information in the article. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 20:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

As a separate issue, summary style and brevity were raised also during the classical languages discussion. Though, i understand and agree with the spirit of it, I find the first pointer flawed in that accuracy can not be superseded for the sake of brevity. Docku: What up? 20:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that accuracy cannot be superseded for the sake of brevity but, and this is my point, we should be aiming for brevity. Not including state languages in the India article is not inaccurate and adds little, if anything, to the article. My more abstract concern is that the India (collective set of articles) are increasingly top heavy with poor quality articles at the detail level. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 20:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you really want accuracy, then throw out the Schedule 8 languages as well from the Infobox, and even English. A preponderance of reliable sources say that the Official language of India is Hindi. Period. If you look in the references here, you will see that the main articles on India in both Encyclopaedia Britannica and Encarta Encyclopedia say simply "Hindi." (references 1 and 2); in addition, the British Foreign Office, UNESCO, and the US Library of Congress mention only Hindi. I think that people don't seem to understand: the India page of the two major encyclopedias lists only Hindi as India's Official language. This page is about India; the Official Language in the infobox refers to the Official Language of India, not of Karnataka, or of the City of Bangaluru. If Kalarimaster can produce a preponderance of evidence (by way of secondary sources only) that say the Official language(s) of India are Hindi, English, and all the Official language of the States, we'll put that information in. We went through this in July 2007. My list is from then. Even then, no one who wanted all the other languages could find any evidence in the secondary sources. If Kalarimaster wants to interpret the Constitution, he should write papers for law journals. The India page, until July 2007, had only Hindi. English and the scheduled languages were added to placate certain editors on this page, but there was much less evidence in the secondary sources for them. The bottom line for me is: if there is no evidence (and I mean a preponderance of evidence) in the secondary sources for an edit, we can't make it. Period. Summary style is an issue if the edit is accurate (ie. has the weight of secondary sources behind it); this one isn't, not even remotely. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

PS I have now also added a section on Government of India statements about "Official language of India" on my subpage (section 16). I mean it is getting to be ridiculous, even the 15 million students in India who follow the NCERT curriculum, when they get to grade 12, learn in their textbook, in Chapter 12: India after independence, A constitution is written page 164(5), "A compromise was finally arrived at: namely, that while Hindi would be the “official language” of India, English would be used in the courts, the services, and communications between one state and another." And we have a user, Kalarimaster, who to date has not been able to produce a single secondary sources, but yet is trying to interpret the Constitution of India, from first principles! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Constitutionally, English is not an official language of India since its status as one expired in 1965 and no constitutional amendment was ever passed correcting that. The Official languages act of 1963 calls English an 'associate official language' (I guess this means it is without tenure!). Anyway, English is an official language, de-facto, in the sense that all Central government business is conducted in Hindi as well as English. I don't like the idea of expanding the scope of this article by adding lists of state official languages. It would be much better if people worked on the sub articles and brought their quality up rather than make this article a repository of all information about India. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 22:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

ATTENTION: Map of India

I wrote a similar message to Ssolbergj (in Wikimedia Common) who created these retarded maps. I hope you guys here can back me. It's a clear bias and I don't think that being bias is a policy of Wikipedia. It is high time things are straightened out.

(Reference: [3] vs [4])

Dear Ssolbergj, your map of China colors Arunachal Pradesh in light green which implies it is somehow rather a part of China although under Indian administration and claimed as an integral part of India. I agree this is a disputed region by both countries. In that case why doesn't the India map have Aksai Chin (a Chinese administered region claimed by India) be colored light green on the India map? Why double standards apply for Aksai and Arunachal although they are both disputed?

Same goes with Pakistan occupied kashmir. Shouldn't those areas be indicated in light green too? Please maintain neutrality as prescribed under Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I look forward to you recoloring those maps with a NPOV in mind and not China slanted views. Thank you.

If they don't want to change it, I suggest we change the map of India to its old form (2d one) as it is more accurate.

I look forward to all your replies / opinions / assistance as I am not an established user on Wikipedia. Thank you.

I suggest we remove this map, and tag it with {{POV-map}} =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The India map is fine now. The PRC map is missing a patch of bright green at Aksai Chin. This needs to be addressed at Talk:People's Republic of China, not here. --dab (𒁳) 10:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Islam did not arrive in the first century CE!

The article's intro claims that Islam arrived in the first century CE. Mohamed was not born until the 7th century CE!! Someone should fix that! 160.39.225.111 (talk) 18:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear IP, it is millenium, not century. read it again. Docku: What up? 19:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I hope you guys understand the sensitivity of linguistic issues

This is a bit aside from just editorial matters. I dont know what the origins of the people involved in the official language discussions are, but I hope all parties understand that language and linguistic identities are an extremely sensitive issue in India. This is quite understanble since the 'Indian' political identity is very new (about 60 years) whereas the linguistic identities date back centuries. The emphasis given to Hindi has undeniably caused tensions, and many of the amendments, laws and political developments in Republican India have been a result of these. I think if its made explicitly clear that the states specify their own official language, even if its just two lines, it is worth the price in brevity. I know that one might say that might mean, by extension, this article must then talk about governors, chief ministers etc of the states. But the political results of linguistic states are not as important to various Indians (emotionally at least) as just the fact that there is a Tamil state, Punjabi state ... and so on i.e a sort of a legally recognized homeland based on language. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 21:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course, we are aware. But there are higher principles on Wikipedia, independent of everyone's personal sensitivities. One of them is: making edits only if a preponderance of reliable, i.e. WP:RS secondary sources are behind them. Wikipedia is not a self-help group. Why is it that I can produce with very little effort two dozen reliable sources for these edits, (and I don't have any interest in the topic of the Official languages of India), and all the linguistic-nationalists with their precious sensitivities have produced nothing in two years? The same conversation repeats every six months when yet another editor—with a chip on their shoulder—turns up and decides to upgrade this page with the banalities of their family folk-lore. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Based on the constitution and language acts regarding English there are 6 legal versions for the infobox. Please choose one.

Modification of this list results in the validity loss of this poll.

2) Hindi as the only Official language of the Union. (nothing else)

--Indiastarforce (talk) 08:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

4) Include point 1) and English (Kalarimaster proposal)

--Kalarimaster (talk) 23:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Please deny recognition

Please deny recognition. Let user:Nichalp deal with it when he returns. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

There's simply too much info for me to read through. Could someone please summarize the crux of the issue? =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The infobox in the India page, since July 2007, has listed Hindi, English and 22 Schedule 8 languages, in this stable version, with Hindi, English mentioned by name, and Schedule 8 languages in a collapsed box. As you may recall, for many years, the infobox said only, "Hindi, English, and 21 other official languages." In July 2007, some editors argued here that no special favors should be granted to Hindi and English, and that all official languages should be listed in strict alphabetical order in the infobox. At that time, when you were away, there was a long RfC, and after a lot of back and forth, the stable version referred to above was agreed to. Now, some editors want to add the official languages of the states to the infobox as well, in this version. There is no support in the secondary sources for adding the official languages of the states to the meaning of the term "Official language(s) of India," as you will see from the sources I had collated in July 2007. Moreover, unlike the Schedule 8 languages, the official states' languages are not listed in the constitution; the states choose them. To be sure, guidelines for choosing Official States languages are provided in the constitution, but so are the guidelines for fixing the salary of a state legislator. Finally, most official state languages are listed in the Schedule 8 infobox anyway. The question is: do we stay with the current stable version, or should we expand the list again? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

PS In my view, the only change we need to make to the in this stable version is to change "Scheduled languages" (which is a little mysterious) to "Officially recognized" (the "languages" will be understood in the context). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I spent quite some time yesterday reading archives 27, 28 and 29 and past discussion in Talk:Official languages of India and was interesting to see where everyone stands on the issue. This is my take. Apparently, there is strong pro- and anti-Hindi POV here. Anti-Hindi POV wants to equate India=>Union=>Union Government and add the official languages of the states to subtly diminish the significance of Hindi and English. Pro-Hindi POV opposes it for apparently opposing reasons but the explanation given is that there is no room for official languages of states in India Page. I find it contradictory to ask for consitutional listing of state official languages whereas official languages of India is strictly based on secondary sources.

I believe both POV is wrong. For one, Language of India (not just Union Government) is English and Hindi, cut and clear. Language of states are not the same as the language of India and have no federal status.

In my opinion, adding the language of the states (though it has no federal status) to the infobox is purely a matter of preference and choice. The question should just be whether it is informative and relevant and is entirely subjective. If the question is if adding these languages of the states to the infobox diminish the significance of Hindi and English as official languages of India (though both are not the same), it probably does and may be that also explains some of the resistance in adding it. Honestly, I find Schedule 8 languages non informative for an average reader. Docku: What up? 15:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

We actually used to have a section on language conflicts in India. I would be grateful if people came to realized that their time is better spent working on an account of the problem in article space than filling talk archive after talk archive with circular debates. There is a problem. Let's document it, at the proper place. Living in denial doesn't make the problems go away. Trying to make Wikipedia fit your picture of reality is also bound to fail. You came here -- now you'll need to come to grips that there may be various views of the same reality. --dab (𒁳) 16:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

@Based on Fowlers reply (no one else has any contradictory statements so far) this is what I think: The scope of the article is India as a single unit, not what the states do or award recognition to. What the states decide to do should be mentioned in the corresponding article on the state. There should be no duplication of information. For example, if the government of Goa implements the UCC, then there is no need to mention that here. We mention it on the Goa page. We need to omit state-specific information as far as possible from this article. It's not in the scope. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello Nichalp, this would mislead the reader, though your arguments are reasonable and not negligible, that the article should be tightened to the Union level. I would support this view, if it was not blatantly wrong to keep the 8th schedule languages, since there is no reason for it to include them. Also it should be mentioned, that if somebody goes to India, and thinks Hindi is the only official language (and it will be often misinterpreted as national language), he would be very wondered, when he arrives in Kerala, where no signs of these languages will be seen except of central government related institutions. In other places they will see languages, which are not listed in the 8th schedule and so on. I urge everybody to follow the constitutional provisions of official languages. They are several important reasons to include the State languages in the infobox, but 8th schedule is nonsense. The best way to mention every language, which are used, is to implement all languages specified in the constitution. --Kalarimaster (talk) 19:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a very subjective viewpoint, thinking for a tourist, don't you think? =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

This is my viewpoint. And I don't care how subjective it is. The constitution gives me right in any case. It's your viewpoint, which is not compatible with anything, which makes sense. --Kalarimaster (talk) 19:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The constitution gives me right in any case.' That's a fallacy known as begging the question. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. --Kalarimaster (talk) 19:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I think so, please read the article. What's wrong with the 8th schedule languages? =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

If a tourist is coming to Kerala, he jolly well read our article on Kerala, an FA. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Where are the people with the WP:NOFORUM signal. Suddenly, they disappeared. --Kalarimaster (talk) 20:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Nichalp, cant the same logic be applied to virtually any aspect of this article ? If you say this article is only to talk about India, then why even list the subdivisions ? Why even mention the various cultures which are after all not Indian in the strict sense ? The only real thing that is truly Indian is the Constitution and it says that every state has the right to specify its official language. And the India infobox can certainly contain the consequence of this right. Listing Hindi as the sole official language could also imply that it is the official language of every state in India, which is clearly not the case. I think you guys are being a bit harsh on user:Kalarimaster. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 20:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You're right, FMT. As i said before, the opposite has no serious argument, while we have something like the Indian constitution, not as unimportant as some people here try to suggest. --Kalarimaster (talk) 20:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Languages

There are more languages in Nagaland than in Western Europe. It is a ridiculous demand to include languages besides Hindi. Where does one draw the line as to what qualifies as an important language and what doesn't? TheBlueKnight (talk) 09:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

the number of speakers? the eighth schedule? Obviously we cannot list 1,652 "mother tongues". But if we restrict ourselves to those spoken by >1% of the population, we're down to a dozen. Or, more than a million speakers: 26. --dab (𒁳) 10:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

And how is that fair to speakers of less than a million people? Are they any less Indian? TheBlueKnight (talk) 11:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the stable version of a week ago, listing Hindi as the official language, English as the subsidiary official languages, and the twenty one other Schedule 8 languages as officially recognized languages, in the infobox, is fine. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:DUE? We never said this article should contain a biography of every Indian who ever lived. --dab (𒁳) 16:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

PS There might have been a case for listing Hindi alone had history gone differently ... It is true that planned development of Hindi as the lingua franca of India began almost a century ago with Gandhi's major support. However, the Hindustani (Hindi-Urdu) version of Hindi—the bazaar form—that Gandhi supported and could speak himself, was soon forgotten, after his death, by the Hindi-chauvinists, such as Purushottam Das Tandon, who were influencing the framing of the constitution. Consequently, the Hindi that the Government of India started pushing after independence, for example, over the radio, was so Sanskritized, that in the 1950s many people in the Punjab, and not just the newly arrived partition refugees, began to tune in, for their news, to Radio Pakistan. That is, until the latter stopped making any distinction between Urdu and Persian. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

PPS (to Dab) I think you need to write another essay, this time on "Infobox fixation." :) The fixations on Wikipedia are apparently more focused now, and I am afraid WP:Lead fixation might not be comprehensive enough. The recent effort to add the official states languages in the infobox has not even bothered with demographic section of the India page (itself written in WP:SS) whose summary the infox is supposed to provide! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. We have literally tens of thousands of articles on topics of top importance, and they languish away in disrepair for years. But slap an infobox on some article, and a dozen people will spend a couple of hundred man-hours carving out an extremely delicate compromise of how exactly a complex issue should be reduced to an uninformative back-of-an-envelope summary. That's just humanity, I guess. --dab (𒁳) 16:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not a party here but the first sentence of this thread by BlueKnight and your comment above made my head spin. I completely agree to your sentiments. BTW, I would remember the Nagaland statement for a long long time....Amazing! Ok, sorry for the interruption - let the serious debate continue. --GPPande talk! 19:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, its just the fact that people (rightly or wrongly) often care more about how things are perceived by others than about the truth (whatever that may be) itself. If a reader reads the infobox and sees only Hindi as the official language then he or she will have a perception that Hindi is more important than other Indian languages (which is clearly not the truth), and many people feel that this should not be the case. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 20:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)