Talk:India

Guidelines for editing the India page

• Text to be written in Indian English (spellings are modelled on British English)
• Units in metric should be spelled out with the converted English units abbreviated in parentheses per Manual of Style.
• Only external links pertaining to India as a whole, or official government of India links are solicited on this page. Please add other links in their respective articles.
• 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.
• You may also discuss India related matters at: Wikipedia:Notice board for India-related topics.

---

Two events mentioned in this article are an August 15 selected anniversary and January 26 selected anniversary. This article is also Featured on the Swedish wikipedia.

• India is the 29th most referenced article on the English Wikipedia. It was registered with 23,177 incoming links in January 2006.
• India is English Wikipedia's 79th most popular page, and the 6th most popular country after USA, Germany, France, UK and Japan.

Archives
Archive 1	Archive 2
Archive 3	Archive 4
Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8
Archive 9	Archive 10

Indian Nationalist's

Someone's deleted a sentance ive put in a few times. Would you like to discuss it? It is extremely misleading to say india has the 4th largest economy in ppp terms - yes that is true, but you are using economical statistics to mislead people (5/6th of Wikipedia community who are not Indian). India ranks 152nd when it comes to GDP/capita ppp figures. Any Economist who who can understand basic World Economy can tell you that. Anyways there is a section on India's Economy allready I think it is unneccessary over here.Its good to be proud of ur country, but not if it blinds you from the truth. The Mystic

It is well known that India has a very large population of over a billion and therefore I doubt most people would infer India is a rich country from that. Moreover, India's GDP per capita is also stated right away. So what is misleading here? Gtmshine

Yes India's GDP per capita is also stated straight away - I put it there. Together they are fine but one buy itself leads to bias.

Inline citations

Has anyone considered switching to inline citations? Guidelines have changed since this article was featured. It would be useful if people looked into it and made sure this article still adheres to new guidelines instead of waiting for FARC. (Blacksun 05:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC))

Inline citations are present. We've used invisible notes {{inote}} which are perfectly acceptable and makes the page look neat. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Some might argue that it makes it very unaccessible for anyone who might want to check the source, especially the casual readers. Also, their has been repeated complaints in regards to this. But I will respect the editors choice (for now). --Blacksun 05:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the {{inote}} may be changed to easily clickable citation format, may be Harvard, or other. inote format is not much user-friendly, though the allow a speedy read.--Dwaipayanc 06:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Akshardham Temple

The image lists it as being in Delhi, but isn't Akshardham Temple in Gandhinagar? --Soumyasch 16:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

They finished a new one in Delhi last year. (Blacksun 16:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC))

Foreign Relations of India

Is it possible that the To-Do list is outdated? Because my edits on foreign relations were rapidly reverted. If so then it would be nice if we did get an updated to-do list so that potential editors could get more work done. Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for my rather harsh message in the edit. However, you need to make sure you dont bring statements that break NPOV. I am not sure if todo list is outdated or not. And a lot of the things you are adding is mostly a rehash of stuff written in history like indo-pakistan wars, dispute with China, etc. Their is no need to repeat that.(Blacksun 07:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC))

That's alright, I understand if you want to make sure the article maitains its strong standards. I'll have another look at the section sometime tomorrow and edit a bit more carefully in order to incorporate relations with Pakistan (peace co-operation) and a bit with Africa the Commonwealth and the E.U. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I did not revert your edits this time. However, the person who did it I think is a long time editor of this page. You might want to pm him. Three things you have to be careful of are: 1) NPOV 2) it should not be just a list of bla bla 3) it has to be very short and concise. In fact, I dont think foreign relations really belong in this article. At best a very general statement that gives an overall picture of india's foreign relations. However, that is almost impossible to do in a nice manner. Hence, we simply link "Foreign relations of India" page. --Blacksun 05:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm the one who reverted the edits and put up the to do list a short while back. The recent foreign relations had only to do with the United States. We need to describe relationships duing the Cold War scenario, USA, USSR, EU, China, South Asia, Asia and the Commonwealth nations. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

My edits contained relations with Pakistan, China, the Commonwealth and a bit about the E.U. and Middle East as well as some stuff I'd read about Indian bilateral talks with African and Latin American nations. This version can be seen here. It was reverted by Blacksun as POV, which is understandable since it may have needed a bit of cleaning up to do. I agree with Nichalp as well seeing as it seems a bit less effective when only relations with the U.S. are discussed. Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

speaking of foreign relations how the heck was india a founding member of the U.N when it achieved independence in 1947 after the U.N was made? if it was a founder during the british period then i dont think it should be mentioned as at that time pakistan was a part of it and its foriegn relations were obviously being handled by the british. if such a comment is to be made, it should be within the context of british india, which should actually be a separate article. so ive removed this erroneous line.sorry i dont know how to make a new topic. Falcon7385 16:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Good point raised. Independent India took over the role of British India, in the same manner Russia took over the seat of USSR in the UN. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

But with one major difference - Russia was not a colony of USSR but India was a colony of Britain - Hence this should be attributed to Britain and not the Indian people who were only involved in world war 2 because of britain.if it is to be stated that India was among the founders then i think Pakistan should also be considered as such because it was a part of India at the time.As you can see this is going to lead to some misunderstandings.In truth the foriegn affairs of india were not being determined by either the pakistani's( or the muslim freedom fighters as they were back then) or the indians.Thats why it is erroneous to consider the India of today as a continuation of the India at that time since it's government back then had its prioirities being determined by foriegners.Equating the past and present India is a more likely pitfall for newcomers ,than in the case of russia simply because russia had a different name back then. that's why i think a separate article be made to deal with this era of the subcontinents history (note that i havent used the term indian history deliberalty as this implys the modern india). Falcon7385 18:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Falcon, most people will agree that India is the sucessor country. It is like Yogoslavia. Serbia is the sucessor country. Even if the India was under the British, it was still a different "nation". Thus, it is fair to consider India occupied by the British, not "apart" of it.

Cinema industries

I am wondering what the relative sizes of various regional film industries in India are? I would have thought that the Bangla film industry is one of the bigger ones, but obviously that's not true, looking at the list of regional industries mentioned.--ppm 01:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Caste system

There is nothiin this article, or in any other articles about India that I can find, that explains India's caste system. Shouldn't this go under the "culture" section of this entry and be explained in greater detail in the main Culture of India article?

The caste system does have an article, but I don't believe it should be mentioned here. It is not a contemporary system in urbaized areas of India. Nobleeagle (Talk) 22:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

It is mentioned in demographics with a wikilink to main article. I am not sure if the wikilink was always there or if its a new addition. Anyways, their are various other India-related articles that touch the topic. You must not have looked too closely? --Blacksun 22:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The article is on India, not on specifics. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the Caste system deserves a mention. Much of life in India [70% or so] lives outside :the so-called Urbanized areas. [Dalit]]'s are the tragedy of this nation, and I dont understand why someone would want to paint a Indian shining picture here, unless you run for the election! --பராசக்தி 00:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Differentiating between Politics and Foreign Relations

The two topics are similar but different. Perhaps it would be better to seperate them and expand a little on both. It just doesn't do justice to have Indian politics and foreign relations summed up in that tiny paragraph. It also doesn't fit in the page to have a heading called Politics and Foreign Relations. Opinions? Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Foreign relations is an important topic and deserves to have a separate section. I would also like to take this opportunity to divert the attention of fellow Indian wikipedians towards Foreign relations of India article. I've done some work to improve the article and any comments are always welcome. --Spartian 06:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

They are both interrelated. Politics has to do with political parties, and political parties set the agenda for foreign relations. Splitting and expanding would result in a much larger page article. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Nichalp. Their is no reason to split them here. --Blacksun 14:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Indians and Race

Aren't Indians anthropologically caucasoid? If so, why are they classified as Asian, unlike all other caucasoids are classified as White.

Rcaial makeup of Indians is pretty diverse and no single racial orgin can be ascribed to Indians. Yes though majority (both Indo-Aryan and Dravidian) speakers are "Cauasoid" but they do have significant Asiatic and sometimes Australoid ancestry.

File:England flag large.png अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey 13:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

How do you define Asian? =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

There are two ways in which Asian is defined. To tell you the truth, in most Western nations, Asian people or Asian languages or Asian food describe East Asian and South East Asian things. But geographically, India is an Asian country. However, India can in no way be classified in the same way as European nations simply beacuse of the people's racial origins. Nobleeagle (Talk) 02:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually that's mainly used in America and Canada, but in Europe Asian is applied to south asians while oriental people are put in the category of chinese or other. (I think)

The "Indo-Aryans" of India may have Caucasoid ancestry but how can the Dravidians (mostly modern South Indians) have originated from Europe? More importantly, which part of the India article are you referring to when you say Indians are classified as Asians? This better not be a general discussion on racial classifications on Indians, otherwise it should go the Reference Desk! Gizza^{Chat ©} 02:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

DaGizza, dravidians are said to be descendents of Pre-Vedic Anatolian migrants to India. Atleast thats what i read... moreover DaGizza we dont originate from Europe, our race originates from Central Asia thats where Caucasus is... File:England flag large.png अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey 14:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Underconstruction tags, detailed history, language etc.

I don't see any edits since placement of "underconstruction" tag, so I assume the editor who placed it is not doing anything at least today. Hence, I'm removing it to allow cleanup of the article. Next, I've reverted the history sections huge dump of colonial history. India has a history spanning at least 2500 years, and the colonial part isn't ALL of it, it gets its due share in the History of India page. The history section in THIS page is supposed to be a summary, which it does just fine.

I also reverted the language comment, Sangskrit is not the ONLY major language root in India, the southern areas developed their own language independently.

Thanks. --Ragib 05:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

PS, partly due to the "underconstruction" tag and the mess in the history section, India ended up in featured article removal candidates!!! I hope removing this tag and the disorganization from the history section at least works positively for the article. --Ragib 05:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Certainly looks that way. Good job with the clean up - that was some massive dump. --Blacksun 05:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't bother too much about the nomination. Bob would have to point out specific areas where the prose is bad, and his case is rather weak. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Our strategy should be to quickly fix any grammar issues in FARC and not contest them. Subjective criteria not listed in WP:WIAFA can be opposed. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

One thing I would recommend is to convert the references to the new citation tool style (using refs). The older inotes worked fine when this article went to FA, but now that the citation tool has been added to mediawiki recently, converting the inotes to refs would be a great improvement. Thanks. --Ragib 07:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

See my note below. Regards,

Headings

I have reverted the recent restructuring of headings. The heading levels of the article is strictly based on recommendations of Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries#Sections. Also, having a single subheading is considered bad style. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Nichalp, from what I can see from Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries#Sections, you can put "States and union territories" in a separate section. But there's no saying that the section "Government" can be any different from that for "Politics". It'll be wise to combine the two sections into one by making one of them a sub-section of the other.

Also, it did not say that "Holidays" can be a section of itself, but that it could be made into a separate article with a list of celebrated holidays of that country.--Ryz05 07:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

In any case, a single subheading really doesn't help the article. If you want to merge the sections then the subheadings should not be used. Also remember that this article is currently a candidate for Featured Article Removal, so we don't want to take too many potentially consequential risks.

Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm well aware that this article is a Featured Article Removal candidate and I'm sure by catgeorizing "Holiday" and "Politics" (or Government) into the "Culture" and "Government" (or Politics) sections respectively will not hurt the article in any way. In fact, I think it'll help the article by conforming it better to Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries#Sections. Also, it doesn't matter if it's a single subheading or not; as long as it conforms, it's good.--Ryz05 08:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I actually dont really care either way and can definitely see holidays as part of culture section. In any case, FARC is for weak and potentially lousy reasons and I am not worried about it.--Blacksun 13:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I just want to remind Ryz05 (talk · contribs) that he's seriously bordering violation of 3RR. Looking at the History of this article, I notice 3 reverts in the last 4 hours. Thanks. --Ragib 08:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the potential violation as I was caught up in improving this article. Thanks for checking.--Ryz05 08:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Ryz05, I appreciate your efforts to improve this article but the use of such subheadings are structurally wrong. To justify the use of descendents, you must have at least two subheadings. Secondly, if you need to make use of subheadings, the lead matter before subsections must be an overview of the content that follows. ie

==Section==
[overview of the sections to follow]
===Subsection===
===Subsection===

I agree that the politics and government sections are similar, but merging content together will create a very large section. Conversely, having =politics= as a subsection of the =Government= is structurally wrong, as shown above. [Note: I do this stuff in my non-wiki life]. The compromise would be to have separate top level headings. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Deciphering Inotes

What does inote|tongues mean? I dont understand how to make sense of some of the inotes in the article. I went to the inote discussion page but that was not very helpful either. I think someone who knows about inotes needs to go through them to make sure they are correctly formatted. I am also debating whether we should have a debate over switching the system after the FARC is dealt with. --Blacksun 13:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The syntax is like this:

{{inote|see Jordan page 25|Jordan-25}}

The first argument is the text of a note and the second, optional, argument is a suggested label for the note. The advantage of inote is that it makes the page more reader friendly, one very bad example of overreferencing is W. Mark Felt. However, having cite.php for a few figures in the article can't hurt. It comes to a balance between easy referencing and readability. I'll go through the inotes tomorrow and improve on them. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes I definitely see the advantage of inotes. But some sort of balance would be very useful as you said. Also, "tongues" does not really tell me much unlike "See Jordan page 25".--Blacksun 17:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I'm not completely averse to footnotes, I have used footnotes in the Nepal and Bhutan articles. Will be converting a few tomorrow. Regards =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Inline referencing has been spruced up. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Bombay Stock Exchange image

The image of BSE is very relevant to the economy section. Stock market is primary source of Foreign investment in India. The caption on that image makes it very relevant to the article. It has been readded. --Blacksun 23:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Hindu Temple picture

• If you are so inclined to include a picture on the Hindu temple, then the best idea would be to also add a religion topic under the Culture section. This way, the picture would fit better and the Holidays section could be included under Culture to make it two topics under one section.--Ryz05 21:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Demography of this country is more than 80% Hindu. So, Temple picture can be posted in demographics section. I don't see any problem here.

I also agree with your suggestion. Yes, i am very inclined to include a picture of Hindu temple because i believe an article on India is incomplete without Hindu Temple. - Holy Ganga 21:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

A picture of Hindu temple can be included in a section called Religion. It's more fitting to have a picture of people in the demographics section as opposed to that of a building. If you feel the article is incomplete without a Hindu temple, then perhaps you can provide a summary of religion in India and include the picture in that section. --Ryz05 23:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

A separate section on religion is pretty pointless in a country article. Their are already good articles for Hinduism, Islam, etc. It is not that big of a deal to add temple picture in demographics as religion is mentioned there. Technically, this picture can be added instead of the picture of south indian food palette. However, its not like the article is filled with images and temple image is not irrelevant in demographics. Furthermore, it would be impossible to find a picture that represents people of India. But ya, if someone can find a good picture for people than we can remove the food picture and add the temple one there. --Blacksun 23:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Education comment

It is insane to suggest that "efforts to eradicate illiteracy has met with little success." At the time of independence, the literacy rate was in the 20s. And given the gignormous size of the population, when 1% composes 10 million people, it is commendable progress. By 2011, it should be above 70%. Rama's Arrow 13:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

It has definitely improved As Indicated Here. And in states such as Goa, Kerala and Punjab the literacy goes into the 90s of percentages. Nobleeagle (Talk) 23:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Umm...Kerala had a high literacy rate even before independence. [1] So the statement was probably correct. -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu_Joseph |TALK} 11:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Caste system

The caste system belongs to India as a major sociological factor of its culture. If this is not explained, this article should immediately be removed from the list of featured articles, because it does not show one of India's most important aspects.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.167.139.226 (talk • contribs)

The point mentioned has already been discussed above in "Caste system". See for yourself and if you are not convinced, discuss it centrally and don't repeat the discussions. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 11:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

If you wish to include the caste system, please do so in Culture of India instead. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The racism belongs to United States as a major sociological factor of its culture. If this is not explained, this article should immediately be removed from the list of featured articles, because it does not show one of United State's most important aspects. Okie any takers?

File:England flag large.png अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey 21:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The US is not a featured article. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The caste system influences the way of living in India, and you want me to tell that it should only go into the Culture of India? Shouldn't a country's culture go into the main article as well? Yet it is not even explained in a few sentences.

Major World Religions

According to major world religions, Sikhism constitutes 0.36% of the world's population, which I'm not sure constitutes as a majowr world religion and Jainism is not even listed as a world religion. Jainism's population is listed as 4.2 million (which is less than 0.07% of the total approximate population of the world) --Jibran1 22:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It is generally accepted that their following is large enough to be considered a major world religion. To me they are major, as when someone says they are Jain or Sikh, you know a bit about the religions already. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Sikhism and Jainism are both in the worlds major religions. Read up on the religions..I think it's their somewhere. I also remember learning in school (yes unreliable at times i know...) the 6 major religions, in which they were both in

Too many iamges in culture

Holy Ganga, I removed the latest image uploaded by you in teh culture section because their is no way that section can support 4 images. Also, the caption in that image required a reference. If you really want to keep that image than replace it with the food or holi image.--Blacksun 03:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, i agree 4 images were looking too much for that space. I am removing food image because i don't think thats a great pic for the main page. Indian classical dance is ancient and very important face of Indian culture even today. I think, we should add this image. It's licensing and summary is provided.- Holy Ganga 08:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I still have issues with the captioning. It is too long and it has a date in it which usually requires citation. Please try to make it one sentence caption. --Blacksun 20:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is the University of New Mexico holi photo in the India main page? The section is Culture of India, not Indian culture. Naus 01:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

New holiday section

Its pretty bad in quality and that image is quite crude. What was a pretty short yet straight forward section before has been butchered under the pretense of expansion. Please do a better job with it or revert it. --Blacksun 03:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

India Map problem

Discussion moved to the more appropriate Image talk:IndiaMap2.PNG page. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

SVG Map

File:India-svg-test-2.svg

Important: please Comment. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Tamil Letters in the beginning of the article

I don't understand the need to put the name of Republic of India in Tamil letters in the beginning of the article as Tamil is one of the languages which belong to India and there are many languages other than Tamil in India.

Any comments? Subramanya 05:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know who added it, but I've removed it now. All recognised Indian languages are official languages of India. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 06:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Total Population

On one occasion under demographics it says 1.19 bilion people and up on the right it says 1.09 bilion population. Confused

Holidays

As far as I know there are only three national holidays in India and not four. I have changed the number accordingly. I tried searching the official websites of India but could not come up with a number. However, the linked article in this section also mentions only three national holidays and not four ramit 11:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's a reference: http://india.gov.in/myindia/national_days.php. Can somebody pls make the appropriate changes as I am not very good at editing ramit 11:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

There are three. A recent bout of vandalism has given one extra one. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Jinnah's Photo

Do we really need to have Jinnah's photo in an article on India? Subramanya 08:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting question. The addition seems to stem from a similar discussion in Talk:Pakistan about having a picture of Gandhi and Jinnah there. Personally, I don't see any problem in having the historic picture in both articles. --Ragib 08:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm.... I don't think so. It may find a place in the History of India, but not here. Sumanthk 08:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Even I don't think so. But the page was locked after a heavy bout of vandalism, so it will be removed after the lock is lifted. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Well the rational behind is that to show that these two countries shared their history.. its the same thing done in the Pakistan article.. The people there also criticised.. (me included) that the picture of Gandhi was unsuitable for that page.. but in order to show neutrality and lack of prejudice i think its a good idea.. because either choose to put both pictures of gandhi and jinnah in respective webpages of histories of pakistan and india, or show the photos on both webpages.. to not support any specific side.Iquadri

With all due respect for your intentions, Wikipedia should not endeavor to make political statements - what is the need to prove neutrality and lack of prejudice of Indian and Pakistani Wikipedians on Wikipedia? NPOV does that. The respective prejudice of India and Pakistan is a business for their own government pages. Why should Wikipedia attempt to resolve their POV issues?

If the editors on the Pakistan page wish to pull out the picture of Gandhi/Jinnah, it will make absolutely no difference to the facts and legitimate history of the era, much less the souls of the departed men. There are plenty of pictures to pick from in Jinnah's bio article. The decision of some edits of the Pakistan page to put up a Gandhi-Jinnah pic doesn't convey any obligation of reciprocation to the editors of the India page, and neither should it be so under any circumstance, as it would be the insertion of politics into Wikipedia.

Strictly as a picture, there is nothing wrong with Jinnah-Gandhi. But when there are better pics available, and when the subject is of India's founding leaders, Jinnah does not come into the picture. Rama's Arrow 20:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

With a desire to clarify my statement above, I state that such a desire to address the issues between two nations is as much POV and politics as making an explicit case to remove all mention of Gandhi and India in history of Pakistan, and vice-versa. Any desire to improve the attitudes of Indians and Pakistanis on Wikipedia should not take place on an article page. Rama's Arrow 20:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Jinnah did not have a significant role to play in post-independence India (ofcourse) whereas in the context of pre-independence, i am sure there were leaders of greater significance. The effort to "improve the attitudes of Indians and Pakistanis on Wikipedia" is a noble one, but this is an online encylcopedia, not a political forum.. please pull down the jinnah-gandhi snap and put one of nehru-gandhi or patel-gandhi instead.--Keynes.john.maynard 10:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting.. the same debate was being taken in pakistan article webpage some time ago.. i would advice you to go there and read the discussions.. the same question was raised that Gandhi had nothing to do with post pakistan.. but pre pakistan there was a history between Gandhi and Jinnah.. you cannot turn your back on history. If we can accept the picture as a tribute to history , why should it not be recognized as same here.. Infact , it shows that the two leaders while having difference of opinions, were trying to work hard to attain peace between the two nations living in Indian Subcontinent at that time, while working to drive the British out of that region. Its not a political image, but a tribute to both countries histories. Both indian and pakistani writers have agreed that these pictures show history, its not anything politic, but its heritage. iquadri 18:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I really dont care if their is an image of jinnah in the article. Furthermore, I dont give a hoot about what happened on Pakistan page. I can't remember the exact wikipedia policy but their is definitely one about not comparing what happened on another article to justify edits. Finally, an image of Nehru, the first prime minister of India, with Gandhi would be far more significant to this article than Jinnah. But, hey Jinnah-Gandhi image is better than just an image of Gandhi alone. So if someone has a good image of Gandhi-Nehru or Gandhi-Patel then use that otherwise this is fine. Afterall, Jinnah was an Indian ^_^ --Blacksun 21:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, if the only rationale to put that picture here is that it is on the Pakistan page, then it can be removed since the two articles cannot be linked. Remove it. Anand Arvind 20:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree Qaid-e-Azam has no relevance to independent India. He was born in present-day Pakistan, so he can't even be considered Indian-born. Prasi90 17:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Tamil & National Language Conflict

Does someone not want to mention an ideological conflict of the Aryan and Dravidian cultural clashes, and the general-expectation of rest-of-India to expect Tamils to know Hindi, and the associated Racist behaviour? --பராசக்தி 00:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

What for? kevin 13:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)kevin_b

I wouldn't use such strong words, but yes, the cultural differences and accompanying issues need be mentioned, but not here. See Wikipedia:Summary style. A mention could be made in Culture of India and Languages of India if and only if we have reliable citations. Original research is not allowed here. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 07:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no such significant clash, only a minor thing much hyped about.Cygnus_hansa 09:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Gandhi and Jinnah image

Well, I have nothing against the image as such but why Jinnah? I think an image on Gandhi and Nehru is more appropriate. Thanks --Incman|वार्ता 06:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

While it's true that Nehru had a much bigger impact on the history of Republic of India, an image of Gandhi and Jinnah sort of completes a semantic picture in history. I'm not opposed to the new image though. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 06:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

No good Nehru-Gandhi image are present in commons. --Blacksun 21:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Some changes

I have expanded the section on government of India to show a clearer picture. The existing piece was not enough to give a clear picture of the govt. Further, I have readded a section on races in demography (please dont be a racophobic: as an academic discussion, each country's article has racial demographies). Also, I removed the lnaguages to a section on its own. The article on Hindustan was biased and factually incorrect. I have added to it and corrected the mistakes. Much of the material is from Webster's New World dictionary.Cygnus_hansa 09:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Text

The article has deteriorated in quality since I last saw it. It seems that new edits are not scrutinised closely. Even the refs have been tampered with!! =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The page seems to be on a downawrd spiral, with a lot of uncited claims being inserted every day. --Ragib 06:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I've added a {{citationneeded}} for the section on races. I don't know that it portrays accurately the racial breakup of India. I think appropriate citation is required to justify the inclusion of that statement. AreJay 13:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Caste System and Religion

Though India is Democratic and Republic Country caste system is prevailing for last 3000 years. The main two political parties Congress and Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP) both supports the caste system and religion openly on many occassions. Indian Parliament have enacted many Acts and Laws which support the caste system and religion and there is no uniform code for Citizens. All The Prime Ministers and Presidents of India have openly supported Caste system and Religion officially and unofficially and greets the Citizens on Many Religious Days.vkvora 03:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

So? =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Constitution of India say for scientific thinking and head of Constitution the President of India (present Prisident being from Science strem) also violet and instead of supporting science support religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vkvora2001 (talk • contribs)

Hi Vkvora, please do not create new sections such as the one you have just done. The caste system is linked in the lower sections. Thanks and regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I added some mention mention of the caste system with a more anthropological bent and did so without adding a great deal of text as the article is better off without the added weight of more text as one can say just as much by adding a link and a few references, which is what I try to do with featured articles that are overly long such as this one. Tombseye 06:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Ayyavazhi

Is this relegion important enough to be added here ? Tintin (talk) 06:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Definitely not, IMO. The entire group of articles related to Ayyavazhi was created by a single user or a cluster of IPs that I think belong to the same person who has also created the articles in Tamil Wikipedia. I've expressed reservations at Talk:Thoothukudi#Ayyavazhi, Talk:Vaigai River, and other places. I respect everyone's right to religious freedom, but to list a "religion" in a summary article like India requires that it's part of census classification at least. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 06:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Sundar. The religion is far too small. I'm from Kanyakumari and I hadn't even heard of this religion (it's supposed to be "popular" there) till I found it on Wikipedia. Kingsleyj 06:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Why this is objected. On my view the religion should be studied on the basis of cutural, idoelogical, philosophical, and religious background. As far as i've learned Ayyavazhi is quiet commonly objected right from the begining only for the reasons of the lack of official recognition and backing the number of followers. This sort of study is fit for "listing world major religions" or the "number of adherents" etc. But when ever a religion have a strong cultural, idoelogical, philosophical, and religious background it is noted. And in that sense Ayyavazhi is placed in this article but not on the basis of adherents.

On an article, the main notables related to that is usually placed in introduction area. And I've done that.

And above it was noted that Ayyavazhi was hosted in Wikipedia by only a few number of users. I accept. But that is a pity for Ayyavazhi but that doesn't mean that Ayyavazhi is not fit to be placed. And Kingsleyj said that he is from Kanyakumari and not even heared about Ayyavazhi. The day of incarnation of Ayya Vaikundar was a holiday for the district. Even after that if you don't know about it, friend that's your mistake and some times to an extant mistake of the preachers of Ayyavazhi.

And if any one doubts Ayyavazhi to be a culturaly, idoelogicaly, philosophicaly rich, I personally strongly object and it would be understood on studying the scripture of Ayyavazhi. But some how it was unknown to the world. Sociologically saying, Vaikundar done more than any reformers in South India. But still unknown in history. see this link. I don't know the reason. But on my vision it souldn't be like that any more. If there is any thing better than a best in the world it sould be lifted up. On my own view Akilam do. But on my world wide view it may atleast be better one.

The situation of Ayyavazhi is similar to that of early Hinduism. I think till the 18th century philosophical and ideological background of Hinduism is unknown to the world and it was not even considered as one. But now things changed. Similarly, Right now Akilam seems to be the worlds longest Ballad. Putting back all others, being longest it receives a world wide view. Such views may come in series.

And in the matter of adherets, it was addressed and estimated as a million I was not here to highlight that. Because on my view it rests on official recognition and the govt approved list. So on the world stage Ayyavazhi's demerit is only the official recognition. That's all. And as far as I've learned the leaders are trying to it. But on my vision a acceptance of a religion doesn't need official recognition and a large number of followers. Beacause sociologically, a religion took birth when the thought and belifs of it deviates far away from the mainstream. And all these, the official recognition and followers will be the secondary.

On summarising I say, official recognition and the number of followers sould not make a thing notable. Just look beyond that and find if there is any thing else and then make it notable. - Vaikunda Raja 09:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

See WP:NOR. We can mention it *when* it becomes a major religion. Until then, we don't need to "look beyond" that, and conduct our own original research here. Thanks. --Ragib 09:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Please don't get it wrong. None of us are telling anything against the richness of the religion. But, if you read the policy document cited by Ragib above and Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Notability, you'd understand why we're a tertiary source and not a primary source of information. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 09:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to say I agree. I've seen this "religion" (is it a religion in its own right, or a sect of Hinduism?) creep in to all sorts of pages and I was completely unaware of the movement before I saw it on Wikipedia. I'd actually go as far saying that it's virtually unknown online [2] outside of wikis. I'm not saying it doesn't deserve a place on Wikipedia - but I am saying I think its prominence is too great for the size of the movement. Then again, I may be completely unaware of the movement in South India, so any corrections in my view are appreciated. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 10:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I had a look at some of the articles at random, while the author has gone into much trouble in editing these, I couldn't see a single reference or citation on any of the pages. How does one trust that this is Verifiable and not original research? There are a number of such sects and cults out there. IMO the only difference between them and Ayyavazhi is that someone had taken the enormous effort to create pages on wikipedia for them. - cheers Parthi 01:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Prem Rawat is another whose followers have gone to an enormous length to create articles whose length and number are very disproportionate to his notability. I had never heard of this person before seeing him here. Tintin (talk) 01:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I have been googling "Ayyavazhi" for past half hour and literally all sites in the results were either directly from en.wikipedia.org, www.answers.com or one of the syndicated online encyclopaedia sites. The user who has created these pages has also created stubs in a number of lang editions of Wikipedia. Without passing judgement on the notability of Ayyavazhi, it is very concerning to realise that it is practically easy to disseminate any information via WP if one is determined enough to do so. The power of WP is truly frightning. - Parthi 03:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we all can see a bad case of original research and propaganda here. Of course, I don't mean any offence to the followers of the religion, and the religion itself, as I respect all religions of the world. However, the point everyone is trying to make is that, wikipedia is not the place to do original research, and we don't want wikipedia to be the primary source of information on any topic. Until the religion becomes notable by itself and with a large following, we do not want to have wikipedia used as a propaganda and proselytizing medium. Thanks. --Ragib 06:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Is there anything we can do as acommunity to address this particular set of articles? - Parthi 06:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, the first step would be to rid the pages of propaganda, uncited claims and proselytizing material. People familiar with the region can comment in that. Seems like some of the editors from the same region commented of their ignorance of the movement ... perhaps they can edit out the fictitious or amplified claims and boasts. Thanks. --Ragib 06:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Articles which are wholely about the relegion is not too harmful. But intrusion of it into articles like Swathi Thirunal Rama Varma should be dealt with more seriously. Tintin (talk) 06:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Add : Or this - Is Thiruvasakam an Ayyavazhi based work ? That is the impression that this article gives to the readers. Tintin (talk) 06:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

:o That was extremely misleading. I've moved the article to Thiruvasakam (Ayyavazhi) and blanked Thiruvasakam pending some stub there. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 08:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the discussion is moving far away from the main thing (matter of keeping Ayyavazhi in the introduction area.) we discuss earlier and towards the Ayyavazhi-related stubs and citing them. Any way I had the responsibility to answer.

In the introduction area the sense in which the religions are mentioned is the richness of the religion. It (the sentence) was " Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, and Sikhism–all have their origins in India." In this sentence here it doesn't note any thing about major religions or eny thing else. Here the citation needed is to verify whether Ayyavazhi is a religion or not. But not to verify it a major religion or a recoginised. For that see the second external link of Ayyavazhi article. It will show the presence of a religion Ayyavazhi. And I accept all other things in this matter.

Comment: The intro mentions the Major religions to start in India. Apparently, even people from the region of origin of Ayyavazhi do not know about the religion. This, perhaps, highlights the limited number of followers of the religion. As I said before *When* this religion becomes a major one, we can include it in description in the top level country page. Otherwise, we'd be forced to mention all other derivative religions starting out from India, with or without a lot of followers. --Ragib 07:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

And Parthi highlights the presence of Ayyavazhi only inside Wikipedia. I too agree. But there are pages outside but not upto the level. But this website [3] shows the presence of Ayyavazhi and Akilatthirattu Ammanai. The stubs related to Ayyavazhi was created on the basis of the scriptures Akilaththirattu Ammanai and Arul Nool. In tamil wikisource I was creating Akilathirattu Ammanai and Arul Nool as sources and nearly 7% of the works are completed in the last few days. And I will try to complete as asoon as possible.

The reason that Ayyavazhi is unknown in web is mainly because of the poor nature of the followers of Ayyavazhi. Most of them were from the sub-altern section of the society right from the beginning till know.

Comment: Well, show sources outside wikipedia. Having not enough mention outside wikipedia often proves the existence of an effort to promote something as what it is not. I'd suggest you provide contemporary news paper (not any blogs or websites devoted to the religion) references on the topic in the related articles. --Ragib 08:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

And in the matter of Swathi thirunal Akilam mention him as Kalineesan.

Thiruvasakam is not an Ayyavazhi based work. I mean the Thiruvasakam by Manikavasakar. But this Ayyavazhi related Thiruvasakam article is a part of Akilam. There are four Thiruvasakams in Akilam in the sence the message send by God to Human at different times. We can create a disambiguation. Thank You - Vaikunda Raja 07:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I looked into the Ayyavazhi page itself, and it doesn't seem to contain *ANY* references to established sources at all. Where are the sources? Uncited material is very much likely to be original research, and hence need to be converted to cited/referenced text, or removed altogether. Thanks. --Ragib 08:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and I share this concern with Sundar who has brought it up in other articles as well. I doubt if this talk page is the right place to discuss it though. Perhaps the Ayyavazhi talk page is a better place.

Vaikunta Raja, there are thousands of religions or deities that originate in India, but we cannot reference them all. For example, we cannot mention each hero stone (நடுகல்) in India, though undoubtedly, most of them are worshiped, often by the same "sub-altern" demographic you mention. I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I feel the introduction of Ayyavazhi into a number of contexts where it is not notable violates Wikipedia guidelines. Also, create sources in Wikisources or Wikibooks for their own value - not to validate encyclopaedic entries. Kingsley2.com 09:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I've added {{unsourced}} tags to some pages, most of which have quite outstanding claims without a shred of references. I also suggest we do any further discussion in the related pages. The amount of original research is outstanding!! I hope editors from the south or those who are familiar with the area could comment on this topic, and look into the articles mentioned in List of Ayyavazhi-related articles. Thanks. --Ragib 08:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I accept that many entries are without citation and I'll try to give some. But I don,t agree with the view of User:Kingsley2.com pulling Ayyavazhi in to the category of herostone (நடுகல்) worship . Because in all the sub-altern worships only the historiography or the genesis of the temple or herostone and a set of rituals varyies from one another but not the central beliefs or thoughts of the main stream Hinduism. For example 108 Divya Desams of Hinduism have different Sthala purana of their own. But they do not tell any thing different from Hinduism in thought, belifs, philosophy, ideology etc. But here in Ayyavazhi there is a seperate scripture which tells the old had lost their substances. Which means the previous texts should not be followed further. The central belief of Hinduism, the Dharma;It varries. The circular conception of time in Hinduism is changed to linear in Ayyavazhi. Personification of Evil, as Kroni ect... So undoubt fully Ayyavazhi should not be understood as an offshoot of Hinduism.

My this argument doesn't mean that from the view of Ayyavazhi Hinduism is False. But from the Kaliyuga all the hindu scriptures had lost their substances as per Akilam. My sugesstion is in this scripture of Ayyavazhi it is noted that all the privious had lost their sustances. Then how Ayyavazhi could be added into the religion which is based on that scripture which was told by as gone awry?

And in the matter of citation I will try to do my best. Thank You. - Vaikunda Raja.

I have no claims to be any kind of expert on comparative theology, but armed with nothing more than a preliminary reading of the articles and a good understanding of Hinduism, here's my 0.02

1. Is Ayyavazhi a religion - Firstly, it does seem that the underlying philosophy has a strong underlying theme of good vs evil, which seems quite distinct from the pantheistic foundations of Hinduism (where everything has a place within an attributeless whole). Secondly, it is important to remember that Tamil culture is documented to be very ancient and there is evidence that Hinduism in Tamil Nadu state exhibits a different chart of progress, when compared with the rest of India. Indigenous faith symbols like Ayyanar, Mariamman etc. are speculated to predate the advent of Vedic Hinduism. It would be incorrect to dismiss these symbols as "hero stones" or aberrant one-off streams of Hinduism, as the rituals and folklore underlying these symbols are intricately woven, rich as concepts, and widely known. These deities are thought to have become syncretized initially with Vedic Hinduism, and later with Shaivism and Vaishnavism. In fact the worship of the deities Muruga and Meenakshi, are also unique to Tamil Nadu. Though, they are today identified with Subramanya and Parvati (deities from a common Hindu stream) the mythology surrounding the two seem localized to Tamil culture (with frequent references to places and customs in Tamil Nadu). Ayyavazhi seems to have evolved from a similar development of ideas. In fact, Sikhism and Jainism are recognized as syncretizations of Hinduism (the ideas of Vishnu and Hari are prevalent in both these faiths), but are recognized as distinct religions. So, it would seem logical to accept Ayyavazhi as a religion in its own right.
2. Is it a "major religion" - Quite simply no. The only way to classify a system as a major religion would be to base it on the numbers. With no documentary evidence or a credible popualr estimate, one cannot do that.
3. Citations - This is a frequent problem in India-related articles. There is a wealth of information to be documented with very few citations, simply because there is very little acceptable source as yet available. There is a very low penetration of the internet into rural India, and academically rigorous research materials into localized cultural beliefs are in short supply. No doubt, it is important that Wikipedia strive to be rigorous, but not at the cost of ruthlessly putting down every bit of information, for lack of supporting evidence.

I strongly feel it is better to be "inclusionistic" when dealing with such articles. Deletion of content painstakingly provided by a few users who have the knowledge will only discourage them from participation and only help to maintain the persistent "Ameri/Euro-centrism" in Wikipedia. Chancemill 12:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Indian repository of images

I am making an Asian repository of images. Please complete the India part as you see fit, preferably similar to those of France, Britain et al:

I will be working on Iran's section. Thanx. Nemeste.--Zereshk 01:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

India a Refernce Annual

India a Reference Annual published by Government, Ministry of Information is not available on net. This reference Annual give more accuarate Government Data. vkvora 17:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to the website please? Prasi90 17:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Here you go: http://www.biblioasia.com/govt-publications.asp. This site offers the hard copy at a cost. Lost 18:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

http://rrtd.nic.in/refannual.htm Research Reference And Training Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Research and Reference Section. This link is not working. vkvora 18:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

http://mib.nic.in/informationb/media/Research.htm

Research, Reference and Training Division (RR&TD) serves as an information bank and reference centre to provides information feeder service to the media units in their porgramming and publicity campaigning work. The Division also provides research back up on important policies, issues, events and developments in the field of mass media.

The Division carries out its activities through :

• Issue of backgrounders and reference papers on matters of public importance
• Release of biographical sketches of eminent persons
• Supply of reference material in connection with important anniversaries etc.
• Publication of two reference annuals "India - A Reference Annual" and " Mass Media in India"
• Planning and structuring of Indian Information Service (IIS) officers training.
• Maintaining a reference library.

vkvora 19:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

India A reference Annual

Compiled and Edited by Research, Reference and Training Division.

Publication Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India.

Contains information on diverse aspects of the country, its geographic and demographic features, polity, economy, society and culture. The information is gathered from Central Government, Ministries, States, Union Territories and other organizations and hence authentic. A work of reference, the Annual is useful to scholars, authors, students, officials, journalists, academicians and to those appearing for competitive examinations and contain the following subjects.

Land and the People, National Symbols, The Polity, Defence, Education, Cultural Activities, Scientific and Technological Developments, Environment, Health and Family Welfare, Welfare, Mass communication, Basic Economic Data, Finance, Planning, Agriculture, Water Resources, Rural Development, Food and Civil supplies, Energy, Industries, Commerce, Transport, Communications, Labour, Housing, Justice and Law, Youth Affairs and Sports, India and the World, State and Union Territories, Diary of National Events, General Information. vkvora 16:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Caste system once again

There have been a lot of criticism about the absence of describing India's caste system, a part of information that has a long history. Its importance on aspects of sociological life in India is overwhelming, yet it is only linked and not even summarized in the main article about India. I hope the missing information can be added at some point. Because it has been left out so far, readers could get the impression that the article has been written with a certain type of ignorance attached to it.

Political Parties get their votes on caste system. Those who got education neglected for uneducated lots as commuters get the admission in Mumbai Local Trains and disallow to enter any more. This caste system have direct relation to Mahabharat and Ramayan. Proffessors from Harward University openly say these Kathas are main cause of Indian Poverty. vkvora 19:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia. No Original Research Please. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussion. Debate or debating is a formal method of interactive and position representational argument. Rules governing debate allow groups and individuals to discuss and decide issues and differences. Debate is an aspect of argument which is distinct from logical argument, in that it encompasses aspects of human persuasion which appeal to emotional responses —often based on exaggerated or misrepresented statements or claims. vkvora 19:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Like Ambuj said, Wikipedia is not a discussion forum or a place to express opinions on current affairs. See here -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu_Joseph |TALK} 03:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi VK, The article is about India, not the caste system. Going into the merits, demerits and history of caste deviates from the core India topic. If you feel that wikipedia lacks comprehensive information on caste, please update the the caste system and Reservation in India articles. Also this is not a forum for original research, so please cite your sources while adding them to prevent them from being reverted. Thanks! =Nichalp «Talk»= 03:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a seperate article about the Caste system in India, That would perhaps be a more appropraite place for you to add information about caste-issues. Also, could someone please clarify to me how we are supposed to refer to OBCs in an NPOV manner? "Backward Castes" seems to be casteist in nature. Or should we just put the word "backward" in quotes? Prasi90 05:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I think OBC is a neutral term. The reason being its ratification by the Indian government and no objection from the section of society for which this was used. Using it as an official term should be enough. But please remember only to use it in Indian context. People outside India might take offence if you refere them that way. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Once again I am trying to make myself clear (see the first post under this topic): It is such an important aspect of India as a country, that it should not only be described in a separate article. Same goes for the article about Germany and its darkest part of history: the Holocaust. This is of such great importance to Germany's history, that there is not just a link to the holocaust article but a few sentences that describe what happened. That said, of course there is no linkage between this cruel subject and the Indian caste system meant, it is just an example of how one subject is dominantly linked to a country (and if you say, one's identity to differentiate it from the rest of the world besides its distinct geography). Furthermore what Harvard professors have revealed or commented about the Indian caste system does not matter at all, what matters is that most of Indian statesmen are part of a caste but yet no mentioning is done in the article, in my eyes this is a strong weakness of the article and I consequently propose a removal as feature candidate. I hope my comment is understood now, thanks.

You would have to justify on what grounds the article does not meet the featured status. If you fail to provide how it does not meet the featured article criteria, your nomination will be booted out. The article is written in summary form, and we try and exclude material which delves into a specific subject rather than the article. The Holocaust was a part of Germany's history, lengthy lugubious reports on the caste system does belong here. Please cite your sources about Harvard reports. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

ARYAN818

No mention of India being the original homeland of the Aryans

Amazing that in 2006, their are still people who dont want to mention India being the homeland of the Aryans....And why I try to put this in, our great friend here erases it & copies and pastes his B.S. version of India....Good job 08:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

ARYAN818 (talk · contribs), please discuss before making controversial and uncited edits. Thanks. --Ragib 08:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, you might want to check out No personal attack policy. Thanks. --Ragib 08:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Report of Education Commission and Labour Commission

Some details of Education Commission by Dolat singh Kothari and Labour Commission by P B Gajendragadakar should be kept on Wikipedia encyclopedia. vkvora 19:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks interesting...can you give a gist of what they contain and what's so special about them? -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Education Commission 1966-68 for 10+2+3 and many more whereas Labour Commission to improve the condition of Labours and Bonded Labours. vkvora 19:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The Education Commission under the Chairmanship of Dr.D.S. Kothari, the then Chairman, University Grants Commission, began its task on October 2,1964. It consisted of sixteen members, eleven being Indians and five foreign experts. In addition, the Commission had the benefit of discussion with a number of internationally known consultants in the educational as well as scientific field. vkvora 19:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

NATIONAL COMMISSION ON LABOUR  : The first National Commission on Labour was set up in 1966 under the chairmanship of Justic P.B. Gajendragadkar and submitted its report in 1969. The important recommendations of the Commission have been implemented through amendments of various labour laws. Certain new laws have also been enacted like Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act ,1986. In the areas of wage policy and minimum wages, employment services, vocational training, labour statistics and research and workers` education also, the recommendations made by the Commission have been largely taken into account in modifying policies, procedures and programs of the Government. In order to ensure both consistency of Labour Laws with the general changes taking place in the economic policy and also to provide for greater welfare of the working class, the Government is considering to set up a second National Labour Commission. vkvora 19:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for removal as feature candidate

The article does not meet criteria 2b (quote: "comprehensive" means that an article covers the topic in its entirety, and does not neglect any major facts or details;), because it misses to address one of India's most important sociologic aspects, that is the caste system. For a more detailled description, why the caste system should at least be explained in a few sentences can be read above (topic: "caste system once again"). Furthermore you can find more comments on this discussion page if you investigate further on to the top. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.156.235.45 (talk • contribs)

While your intentions to improve the article is definitely noble, a Featured Article has to be selective. Seeing the article you will find that almost all the sections have a main article which covers the subject much more comprehensively. As a Featured Article has to follow summary style, everything can't be included. The subject coverage of caste system in this article has been debated a lot of times in the past and the current version reflects the consensus of the editors. However, if you feel it can be improved in any way without compromising the summary style and the actual quality of the article (in terms of neutrality), please discuss here what you plan to add. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 11:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

We should add Welfare section on the main article which will cover the caste, scheduled caste, etc. vkvora 16:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe those who want to add details about caste system don't have any experience of writing Featured Articles. Let me explain it in short (its much more tougher than you think). The article on India currently has 9 detailed sections (notes/external links don't count as detailed sections). They are History, Government, Politics, States and union territories, Geography, Economy, Demographics, Culture, and Holidays. Is Caste system such a broad topic as they are? The answer is no. So let's find out which section it belongs to. Logically it should belong to demographics. Now demographic section does not have clear-cut sub-sections, but its paragraphs are devoted to certain topics. Let us see what they are. They are Population distribution and literacy, Religions, Race and Society, and liguistics. Again, caste system comes under a sub-topic of Race and Society. Here, you find discussions about Race perceptions of the society, evolutionary discussions blending with invasions and leading to caste system and their scientific discussion. Now think about it in larger context. 50% of the paragraph already discusses caste system (beginning from invasions). Do you think that if every such branch of sub-section starts demanding more weightage, would this article have any chance of remaining featured? Now you are asking inclusion of caste system, tomorrow someone will ask to include the biggest ever stock market crash that took place a few days ago. In order to summarize the article, there has to be a trade-off. And for articles about countries, it has been decided that only the broader issues be discussed and the in-depth issues be made visible. Caste system already has very high visibility. It is discussed in 4 lines and see-also link has also been provided. Look down at the main "see also" section. You will see a long list of topics highly relevant to India but not even been mentioned in the text. If we include details of all these, this article would easily go beyond 200kb. The article does NOT say that it is all what India is. The links have been provided with a reason and separate article exists to cover the topics in sufficient detail. I hope I have been successful in telling you what it means to be an FA and why are we unwilling to add more. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice explanation Lost 17:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Welfare State

Is India in welfare state?

An ideal model in which the state assumes primary responsibility for the welfare of its citizens. This responsibility is comprehensive, because all aspects of welfare are considered; a "safety net" is not enough, nor are minimum standards. It is universal, because it covers every person as a matter of right.

vkvora 03:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Not even close if you compare it to say, the UK. --Grammatical error 16:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)