Talk:India

Image voting

Image rotation for Indian military

Newer inclusions

• 
  Jointly developed by Sukhoi and Hindustan Aeronautics, the Sukhoi-30 MKI "Flanker-H" is the Indian Air Force's prime air superiority fighter.
• 
  The first test launch of the Advanced Air Defence missile in 2007. India is one of the only few countries to have successfully carried out missile interception test.
• 
  The Indian Army operates about 700 T-90 Bhishma main battle tanks and Heavy Vehicles Factory aims to manufacture 1,000 more for the Army by 2020.

Comments

1. It makes sense to have the various branches of the military represented in the section, rather than just the air force. --Nosedown (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Those in favor

1. --Nosedown (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
2. Good EV. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Those not in favor

• Terrible quality images. Not worthy on a Featured Article like India. Poor image quality and subject coverage. Nikkul (talk) 03:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Images should be shot in India

Newer inclusions:

• 
  Regarded as the "queen of Indian flowers", the Lotus is the national flower of India and is considered sacred by Hindus and Buddhists.<ref>{{cite book
• 
  The Indian marsh crocodile is one of the three crocodilia species found in India, the other being the gharial and the saltwater crocodile.<ref>{{cite book
• 
  The Bengal tiger is the national animal of India.<ref>{{cite book
• 
  The common kingfisher is found throughout the plains of India.<ref>{{cite book
• 
  The blackbuck is common in portions of northwestern, central and peninsular India<ref>{{cite book
• Found mainly in the forests of India, the Great Indian Hornbill is the largest member of the hornbill family.<ref>{{cite book
  Found mainly in the forests of India, the Great Indian Hornbill is the largest member of the hornbill family.<ref>{{cite book
• 
  The Olive Ridley is the most common type of sea turtles found in Indian waters. Their habitat mainly includes the shallow coastal waters of India on the eastern seaboard. Of the eight species of sea turtles found worldwide, five occur in Indian coastal waters.<ref>{{cite book

Comments

1. There are several species which are not endemic to India and these include the Bengal tiger, Nelumbo nucifera, etc. I cannot understand how someone can agree to have images of these species shot in some other country included in the India article. For example, the only thing in common between that Bengal tiger in a Florida zoo and India is that some distant relative of the tiger happens to roam in one of India's tiger reserves. Lack of concern by other Wikipedians towards this issue just showcases complete disregard for the credibility of this article. The Flora and fauna section must only include those images which depict Indian living organisms in Indian natural environment. And point is, when we have high quality images of these creatures shot in the natural Indian environment, then why borrow an image which was shot in a Florida or Munich zoo? Beats common-sense. --Nosedown (talk) 11:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
2. I agree, images shot in India are more representative of India. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Those in favor

1. --Nosedown (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
2. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Those not in favor

• I would rather have Featured Images of Indian animals (original rotation) than have bad quality images (above) of animals in India Nikkul (talk) 03:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Many of the images above don't even show the full animal! Nikkul (talk) 03:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Konark image

Comments

1. There has already been a discussion on this - Template talk:Indian image rotation#Shabby additions. --Nosedown (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Those in favor

1. --Nosedown (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Mysore Palace image

Comments

1. What a bad image. Does not give the full view of the structure and there are too many distractions including grass and a notice board. --Nosedown (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Those in favor

1. --Nosedown (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Those not in favor

• Nikkul (talk) 04:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC) Please wait for consensus before removing these images!

Addition of Meenakshi temple image

• One of the fourteen gopurams of the Meenakshi Temple complex in Madurai, Tamil Nadu. Dedicated to Hindu God Shiva and his consort Meenakshi, the temple is considered to be the foremost religious and cultural center of Tamil people<ref>{{cite book
  One of the fourteen gopurams of the Meenakshi Temple complex in Madurai, Tamil Nadu. Dedicated to Hindu God Shiva and his consort Meenakshi, the temple is considered to be the foremost religious and cultural center of Tamil people<ref>{{cite book

Comments

1. The caption says it all -- perhaps one of the most important structures in southern India. And a beautiful image too. --Nosedown (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Those in favor

1. --Nosedown (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
2. -- There should be at least one PERMANENT Hindu temple image in this section. Hindu temples revolve around lives of Indian masses and any article on India is incomplete without Hindu temple Picture. Holy Ganga ^talk 16:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Those not in favor

• Nikkul (talk) 04:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC) There are already 3 temple images!

Addition of Oddisi image

• 
  A dancer performing Odissi, one of the eight principal Indian classical dance styles. Odissi was developed in the state of Orissa in 2nd century BC<ref>{{cite book

Comments

1. Again, the caption says it all and another beautiful image. There is not even a single image in the template on Indian dance. --Nosedown (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Those in favor

1. --Nosedown (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• Nikkul (talk) 03:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Replacement of Lotus temple image

Replacement:

• 
  Designed in the pattern of a lotus flower, the Bahá'í House of Worship in Delhi is noted as one of the "most outstanding structures of the twentieth century" and attracts millions of visitors every year.<ref>{{cite book

Old version:

• 
  The Lotus Temple, the Bahá'í house of worship in Delhi

Comments

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Those in favor

1. --Nosedown (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Those not in favor

• Nikkul (talk) 04:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Replacement of Akshardham image

Replacement:

• 
  The Swaminarayan movement is closely associated with the culture and the linguistic traditions of the Gujarati people.<ref>{{cite book

Old version:

• 
  The Akshardham Temple is a Hindu temple in New Delhi

Comments

1. The proposed image is of the front view and hence better IMO. --Nosedown (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Those in favor

1. --Nosedown (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Those not in favor

• If you're going to rotate images on a regular basis, please do the associated discussing on some dedicated sub-page, not on Talk:India. Imho, rotation of images is an exceptionally bad idea because it ties down lots of man-hours desperately needed elsewhere. --dab (𒁳) 12:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Collapsing the template

I wonder if there would be opposition to including the {{Largest cities of India}} template if it were designed to give readers a choice? The template could be collapsed thusly:

Largest cities of India

• Template:Largest cities of India

The collapsed version could be added at the bottom of the Demographics section. It would be hidden until a reader clicks on the [show] link. When I first saw this template, I thought how well-puttogether it is. It shows a lot of interesting info, city population comparisons, in a very brief table-like structure. Wouldn't it be better if we let the readers choose?
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  21:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

A key consideration in writing an encyclopedic article is making editorial decisions about the most relevant details to be included. As editors we are required to make this choice rather than presenting a reader with an indiscriminate collection of information, under the banner of "reader choice". Thus, the decision on including or excluding the largest cities template should be primarily based upon the dueness of the information, rather than secondary aesthetic concerns of whether the template is collapsed (which reduces accessibility) or not.

The current consensus, based on earlier discussion, is that the list of largest cities is arbitrary and undue information for the main India article. If anyone wishes to argue that that is not the case, we can of course reconsider, but the point of collapsing the template arises only if and when the information itself is decided to be worth including. Abecedare (talk) 22:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Abecedare. Forgive me, as I do not really understand how WP:DUE applies here. When I read that section of WP:NPOV long ago, I got the idea that it applied to cases where there are differing points of view from reputable sources about the subject of an article, and that no undue weight should be given to any particular POV. I just reread it, and it hasn't changed much. So please explain how the inclusion of a strictly informational table of city populations would qualify as UNDUE.

I read what I believe is the most recent conversation in the archive that I found here, and there seemed to be a number of ultimate possibilities that you suggested beyond actual removal of the template. Were the template's involved editors unwilling to bend? The images do seem to be a bit much, especially the one that is often duplicated in another part of the article.

Agree to putting off the accessibility issue of collapsing the template to later. I only suggested it because the purpose of collapsibility is to balance between full accessibility and article/template longevity issues.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  22:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Due weight (and I am not talking about just WP:DUE) does not apply to points-of-views alone. It encompasses all content, and is an essential feature for any encyclopedic writing. Also refer to our earlier discussion, which essentially covered the same ground of encyclopedic articles requiring editorial discrimination, and not being a dumping ground for all information about the subject (which, when the subject is India, would be a many gigabytes of content!)

As for the previous discussion about the city population list: it is not a matter of editors being unwilling to bend. It was about editors presenting cogent arguments for why prose description of urban, rural demographics of India served a greater encyclopedic purpose than a listing of population of the 20 largest cities. The only argument presented for retaining the list was uniformity with some other existing country articles, which is not very convincing at this stage of development of wikipedia where articles are written with widely varying quality control and editorial oversight. Are there any substantive arguments for including the list in the main India article ? Abecedare (talk) 00:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Then if I read you correctly, when you invoke DUE you are not invoking the Wikipedia policy of NPOV? Is there a Wikipedia policy or guideline that does cover your opinion of due weight? Is their a policy that would not allow the inclusion of this information template?

I didn't press the Navbar issue too hard because you made some very good points for exclusion; however, your present opinion of due weight was not one of them, as I recall. Your use of "dumping ground" seems a bit inflammatory, don't you think? Use of this term may be regarded as pejorative, and when used in discussion about another editor's contributions, it can sometimes be regarded as uncivil. Editors who have put a lot of work into an article or template might become unduly volatile about such wording even though it is not your intent for that to happen. I do understand that it must seem a monumental task to be involved with such a large and popular article as India.

Yes, again, I did read the discussion and am aware of the insufficient reasoning those editors gave for keeping the template. The best substantive argument that I can think of is that the information appears to be very useful and is presented in very compact form. If one were to decide to travel to India, or if one were writing a school paper on India, such terse and direct information as is presented in the template would be an important ingredient in their plans and choices. I wonder at this point if you are still willing to consider, say, a no-image, compact version of the template? I would be glad to ask about this on the template's Talk page.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  01:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• The first sentence of WP:DUE says: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." (emphasis added). But frankly what I said in the first paragraph above follows directly from wikipedia's mission of being an encyclopedia, which is even more fundamental than NPOV, RS etc. To wit, one can write an encyclopedia that presents only certain POVs, allows originial research, doesn't demand reliable sources etc, but it is impossible to write an encyclopedia (or, any work really) without having some criterion for discriminating between content to be exluded/included. On wikipedia the chosen criterion is importance as judged by coverage accorded in reliable sources.
• The "dumping ground" phrase was pilfered from WP:ENC. I should have linked to it though, to make the allusion clear.
• Coming to the issue of including the list of cities: Usefulness, by itself, is not a valid criterion on wikipedia for deciding what content should be included in an article. One can argue for almost any content being useful to some subset of readers (list of presidents, prime ministers, state capitals, state populations, Bharat Ratna awardees, Filmfare award winners, ... ? ) but that does not mean we include it in this article. The listing of largest India cities is available on wikipedia, and we have (IIRC) over 50,000 related articles for readers who are in interested in delving into any particular aspect of India.
• To answer your last question: as before, I am open to considering inclusion of the template, but for reasons mentioned above and in the earlier discussion I am yet to be convinced that it is (even close to) the most important 5 kilobyes of information that we can add to this article. However I'll let others weigh in, since I sense that I am repeating myself. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 01:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, I agree that others should weigh in. I do not understand, though, why you seem to think that this template would harm the India article. You pretty much said it all in your first paragraph above. WP:V states that the "main threshold for inclusion is verifiability . . ." (emphasis from policy), and this template comes complete with what appears to meet that criterion, that main threshold: a reliable source. Usefulness, as you say, by itself is not a valid criterion, however the usefulness is not by itself. The useful information in this template is backed by a reliable source. The navbar we discussed previously did not possess that sound backing. This template does. Yet you do seem to think that it some way harms the India article. Maybe we should take a look at WP:PRESERVE, since this template was removed, and the silence in the previous discussion from the template's involved editors, while it seems to connote "consensus" for that removal, I have serious doubts that those editors were satisfied with the outcome. Seems to me that they just gave up without much of a fight because they felt that it was hopeless to try to deal with the situation. I could be wrong, but there they are, continuing to maintain the pretty much orphaned template and to watch for vandalism of it.
• I suppose the answer to your question, "Are there any substantive arguments for including the list in the main India article ?" must be yes. Aside from the informative usefulness, there is the most substantive of all, the one you gave yourself having to do with verifiability. So if this template does not harm the article in any way, then re-inclusion of the template seems to be the logical conclusion.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  06:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that more images have been added to the template. I left a note on the template's Talk page that I will have to withdraw my support for returning the template to the India article unless the images are removed.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  01:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

(od) Without commenting on the inclusion or exclusion of this particular template (I haven't given thought to it), it is useful to note that, while verifiability may be the main threshold, it is a necessary rather than sufficient condition for inclusion. Clearly, if we include all verifiable information in an article, the article will be no longer manageable. Along with verifiability, it is necessary for us to make consensual editorial decisions on what should be included and what should be excluded from any particular article. To that extent, we should be looking at whether sufficient value is added to the article by including this information or whether there is little value in including it. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I am for this Template, BUT we need to list only top 10 or 20 cities and have 2-4 pics. Nikkul (talk) 07:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Definite no, in my opinion. The template is nice, but as Abecedare mentions above, it's undue in this article. All we need is a link to the list of most populous cities and that's present. Every section can see additions of templates like this, but all that does is draws away from the summary style of the article. —SpacemanSpiff 07:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

12th or 11th ?

Isn't india the world's 11th largest economy ? (see IMF update for 2009). Theeconomiics (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, jumped from 12 to 11th. So there is progress.Politicalpandit (talk) 02:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Map

This may be a larger concern than just India itself, but I've noticed lately that Wikipedia articles on countries lack maps of the country. IE, I'm looking for a map of India right now, so I come here to Wikipedia and look up India, but the only two maps I find on the screen show India's place in the world and it's administrative divisions, respectively. This is very confounding to me; Maps of countries are probably the biggest use I get out of my aging World Book Encyclopedia (which lists, among other things, the USSR), and it'd be great to be able to get that here. 66.53.194.117 (talk) 03:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The article also has a topographic map of India in the Geography section. What kind of map(s) were you looking for ? Abecedare (talk) 03:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

A circuitous route, but if you click on the Images and media at Commons link at the bottom, you can find this map category. —SpacemanSpiff 05:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

A map something like this http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:India-CIA_WFB_Map.png is what's in most encyclopedias, although better quality. But this could be very helpful. I was looking for where in India Madras was, and this map has that. 66.53.194.117 (talk) 07:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 122.164.44.49, 26 April 2010

Cities by population

Rank City State Population Rank City State Population view • walk • talk

Mumbai

Delhi

1 Mumbai Maharastra 13,662,885 11 Jaipur Rajastan 2,997,114 2 Delhi Delhi 11,954,217 12 Lucknow Uttar Pradesh 2,621,063 3 Bengalouru Karnataka 5,180,533 13 Nagpur Maharastra 2,359,331 4 Kolkata West Bengal 5,021,458 14 Indore Mathya Pradesh 1,768,303 5 Chennai Tamilnadu 4,562,843 15 Patna Bihar 1,753,543 6 Hyderabad Andhra Pradesh 3,980,938 16 Bhopal Mathya Pradesh 3,792,375 7 Ahmedabad Gujarat 3,867,336 17 Thane Maharastra 1,673,465 8 Pune Maharastra 3,230,322 18 Luthiana Punjab 1,662,325 9 Surat Gujarat 3,124,249 19 Agra Uttar Pradesh 1,590,073 10 Kanpur Uttar Pradesh 3,067,663 20 Vadodara Gujaraj 1,487,956 2008 estimation[1]

122.164.44.49 (talk) 11:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC) Hello Sir, Please add the Indian Cities by Population

122.164.44.49 (talk) 11:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is appropriate. Firstly, you have not given a reliable source, but secondly, that kind of detail is not appropriate to this article. It is, however, well covered in List of most populous metropolitan areas in India.

If you disagree, please see what others here think, and if there is a consensus to change it, it can be altered. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  11:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

 Not done:Considered trivia (WP:Trivia), i.e. see United States for example. Unless you can find another large country article with this information on it.

Spitfire19 (Talk) 11:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Overlinking

I recently removed some links from the lede which I think made it difficult to parse, didn't give the reader guidance to what other articles were most relevant to understanding, India, the subject of this article, and IMO violated WP:OVERLINK (see diff). In particular, see the following recommendations in the MOS as to what should be linked:

• "relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers to understand the current article more fully". This, I think, is not true for Pakistan, China, Islam, Christianity, although Hinduism could be a possible exception.
• "articles explaining technical terms, jargon or slang expressions". Not applicable for any of the country/religion names.
• "articles about geographic places that are likely to be unfamiliar to readers". None of the linked countries are obscure.

Here is (in part) what the guideline says should not be linked: "...avoid linking terms whose meaning can be understood by most readers of the English Wikipedia, including plain English words, the names of major geographic features and locations, religions,..." (emphasis added). All the removed links fall under this category of links to be avoided, except possibly Zoroastrianism. Furthermore, most all these countries and religions are already linked from the body of the article - although arguably, they shouldn't be! (I am not going to remove those links though).
I am starting this section to expand upon the edit-summary accompanying my edit (especially since I misspelled the link to the cited MOS page), and because not linking those terms perhaps goes against the instinct we have developed on wikipedia. Perhaps the whole article should be reviewed for other instances of overlinking. Comments and objections welcome.
Aside: I found this exercise and tips very useful in thinking about and questioning what shouldn't be linked (we almost never make an error in what should be linked.). Abecedare (talk) 02:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Reverted; while there may well be unnecessary links in the article, the links to neighbouring countries are particularly relevant to a geographical article, and it is reasonable to expect that a reader interested in India may also be interested in the surrounding nations. "Overlink" is intended to reduce nuisance links, not reasonable ones. --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

As I explained in some detail above the excessive wikilinking is both distracting in the lede, a disservice to our readers, and against wikipedia's own manual of style. But I am not going to edit-war over it, and let others weigh in if they think the issue is important enough. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 06:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I think these links ought to go, the lede is a sea of blue and very distracting. Linking a laundry list is not really essential; Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Pakistan are linked within the body with more context, China finds mention in the body many times and can be linked there too. —SpacemanSpiff 07:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Abecedare, yes, I saw your explanation, and am well familiar with that particlar MoS text and exactly how it found its way into the Style Guide. (That's certainly no comment on you, by the way; it is a long-standing frustration related to tiresome MoS politics.) However, I do strongly disagree with yor statement that it is "a disservice to our readers". The real disservice lies in presuming what the readers know, and - more importantly - presuming what they might want to know. This is a geographical article and as such it is very realistic to expect that readers may wish to read related articles such as those on neighbouring countries. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Siddharth4, 10 May 2010

Please change the Hindi demonym of Indian from 'Hindustani' to 'Bhartiya' becuase the proper Hindi demonym is Bhartiya and not Hindustani.

Siddharth4 (talk) 16:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. I wasn't sure if Hindustani should be retained in addition to Indian and Bharatiya, so I have removed it for now for conciseness. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 16:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The edit should be reversed - Hindustani is far more common that Bhartiya. Even Hindi cinema uses the term Hindustani e.g. Phir Bhi Dil Hai Hindustani, Raja Hindustani, Saat Hindustani, etc. I personally have never heard the term Bhartiya used to describe the people of India; Indian or Hindustani are the most commonly used terms. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 17:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. My reckoning is that Hindustani is more prevalent than Bharatiya. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:Bhartiya is correct as Indian is a citizen of India, similarly Bhartiya is a citizen of Bharat. However Hindustani of Hindustan cannot be used as Hindustan uses a broader perspective and India is commonly referred to as Bharat, thus Bhartiya is the correct Hindi demonym of Indian.-- WorLD8115 (TalK) 18:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand that Bharat is used as another name for India, as is Hindustan. However, the demonym Bhartiya is never used while the demonym Hindustani, along with Indian is most oft used. With regards, Anupam^Talk 18:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• Bhartiya is the correct demonym per standard Hindi and also the "official" term. However, Hindustani is the more colloquially used term. Bharat is not just another name for India, it's the official name, unlike Hindustan. No opinion on increasing bloat by adding Hindustani in, but Bhartiya ought to stay. —SpacemanSpiff 18:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with SpacemanSpiff that Bhartiya is the official term. Even the National Pledge of India–India is my country, all Indians are....when translated to Hindi is read and recited in Schools as Bharat mera desh hai aur samast bhartiya mere (भारत मेरा देश है और समस्त भारतीय मेरे).....Thus Bhartiya term must be used.-- WorLD8115 (TalK) 18:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

In that case, inserting both is a good compromise since Indian, Bhartiya, and Hindustani are all used. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 20:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

It is trivial to verify that both Bharatiya and Hindustani are demonyms and adjectival forms for India in Hindi.

Now for my OR: Bharatiya seems to be significantly more prevalent as an adjectival form and especially in formal contexts (eg, Bharatiya Janta Party, Bharatiya Vayusena, Bharatiya Praudhogiki Sansthan etc), and has the advantage of corresponding to the official name of the republic. In everyday speech though, and especially when referring to a native of India (particularly, a Hindu hailing from the Hindi heartland), Hindustani is arguably more common, with Bharatiya perhaps being considered too formal. Anyway, my main point is that there is no wrong answer here: we can keep Bharatiya alone giving weight to the official terminology; keep both Bharatiya and Hindustani; or remove both, since this is the English encyclopedia. I am fine with any of the three approaches.

PS: Just found out that the word demonym itself isn't included in any of the major dictionaries (OED, M-W etc). It's a neologism coined in the 90's, which perhaps owes its popularity to wikipedia. Abecedare (talk) 21:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• I think option three is best, remove this altogether. When I opined in favor of retaining Bharatiya, I was under the assumption that it was convention around here to include it, but on looking at a few other articles I see that it isn't a necessity. Leave just the English word in, and be done with it. —SpacemanSpiff 21:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

True. For example, Japan doesn't list Nippon as a demonym (can't think of any other relevant examples off-hand). Abecedare (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

That sounds good. On reflection, the Bharatiya/Hindustani naming is murky anyway with, IMRO, Bharatiya having a slight upper edge because of modern usage. --RegentsPark (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of all three demonyms: Indian, Hindustani, and Bhartiya. With regards, Anupam^Talk 21:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Anupam, I think you're misreading the discussion above. The proposal now is to exclude non-English demonyms altogether, not include all three.--RegentsPark (talk) 22:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear RegentsPark, if that appears to be the consensus then I will respectfully honor it. I hope this helps. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 08:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Is their a conclusion to this discussion? I supported including all three demonyms while there was a proposal to only retain "Indian." Neither one of these suggestions has been implemented. If I do not hear anything, I will restore all three demonyms in the article. With regards, Anupam^Talk 04:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I've edited the article and only the english demonym remains. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Digicomrajkumar, 12 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

please change the chief justis of india to "Sarosh Homi Kapadia"

Digicomrajkumar (talk) 05:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Done.--Sodabottle (talk) 05:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Excessive charts and tables

Over the past few days, quite a few charts and tables have been added, a couple of them simply repeating the prose (religious breakup, economic indicators), another on the rankings. I don't believe these are needed in the article currently, and quite honestly, especially the first two are quite distracting, they've caused images to bleed into the next sections and visually disrupt the flow of text. If no one has any objections, I'd like to remove these. —SpacemanSpiff 16:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the tables have been added are completely unnecessary especially the section International rankings has to be removed completely and the religion chart also should be removed as it is clearly stated in text format in demographics section.-- WorLD8115 (TalK) 16:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree on both. The most prominent statistical measures (population, GDP, per capita GDP, HDI, literacy rate, Gini etc) are already provided in the text of body of the article, and the choice of the other statistical measures in the International rankings seems arbitrary. Abecedare (talk) 18:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Introduction of India

Please,its my humble request to bring some changest in the 3rd para of India's introduction.They are as follows: 1.Please include international organisations of which India is a part of. 2.India's military budget has been excluded,I don't know for what. 3.Many people talk about India,as a global power & as a potential superpower(even wikipedia has it"potential superpowers").Kindly include that if necessary.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH! —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeadRed94 (talk • contribs) 14:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

didnt got wht u want to say? plz elaborate.KuwarOnline (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Introduction

India has the 2nd largest standing army not 3rd.If you combine active & reserve troops,India has 2nd largest army after China.Please correct those silly errors.Wikipedia is an international website & such errors on such a reliable source is seriously untolerable.Also,please include the internationl organisations of which India is a part of.India is also considered a potential superpower.So,please include that too.Also,its the 10th largest military spending country.Please make these changes soon.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeadRed94 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI, A standing army consist of soldiers who stand full-time with the forces. (Not all) Reserve troops are active during peacetime. So they cannot be counted in among "standing army". For eg India's Territorial Army comprises of volunteers who receive military training for sometime and and are pushed into service in an emergency only. (Mohanlal and Kapil Dev are Lieutenant Colonels in TA).Arjun^codename024 18:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

2010 data

Why do people use 2010 data for GDP instead of 2009? We are not even half way through 2010, and every country's using 2009 data, stop this childish and ridiculous behaviour. This information is not about "look better".

Name

I thought 'indo' was a latin word for 'south', like, we say Indochina and whatnot.. and 'indies' .. was there ever an overarching ancient name for the country used by the people in it? Or did they never have that fully developed sense of geography? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.11.36.165 (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

see names of India. --dab (𒁳) 14:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Iamswapniljadhav, 20 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} in the paragraph which descibes that poverty, corruption, healthcare, and malnutrition are issues in india(or india is lagging in these aspects), please add caste system and oppression of SC/ST's in rural areas, as this is the single biggest reason in Indian masses social and economic backwardness.

Iamswapniljadhav (talk) 13:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

According to whom? Requests to edit semi-protected articles must be accompanied by reference(s) to reliable sources.

 Not done — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chzz (talk • contribs)

please sign your posts. Iamswapniljadhav is making a reasonable proposal, but you should ask them to provide an actual suggestion of text to be inserted. "SC/ST" refers to Scheduled caste/Scheduled tribe. The reason they are "scheduled" in the first place is that they are (or were) disadvantaged. This is positive discrimination, and ironically, castes are now clamouring to be considered "backward" because they want to benefit from the positive discrimination.

The main articles for this are Healthcare in India and Poverty in India. Iamswapniljadhav, these are not semiprotected, and you are welcome to work on them. Once you have produced a clean account in these articles, you can ask for inclusion of a summary here. --dab (𒁳) 13:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

About democracy

I found it strange that u reverted my edits, you that and every body knows that India is the largest democracy in the world. So why did u reverted my edit? And 2ndly the most populous term have been used many times in other articles too therefore its better to change and make it as the largest democracy.--Kkm010^as© 13:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Largest has multiple connotations, in this context, most populous is the correct term. —SpacemanSpiff 16:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree. we will be then endlessly arguing what "largest" means.--Sodabottle (talk) 17:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Editing request for the GDP

In the brif introduction section on the top left, the GDP data is for 2010. I request to edit it back to 2009 data, because we are not even half way through 2010, and the 2010 data is not out yet from IMF, and it is only estimate data. Plus all other countries are using 2009 data. talk 18:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)