# Talk:Geography of India

Geography of India is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 7, 2005.
Guidelines for editing the India page

## Untitled

While you're at it, please see Wikipedia:WikiProject national geography for an easy way to deal with the CIA factbook material. Circeus 21:50, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

## Infobox

Added a geography article infobox, and also added this article to the list of geography articles that feature infoboxes. Please edit the latter if the infobox ends up being removed. --Skoosh 22:50, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

## Map

Dear, The map of India shows large parts of Indian territory under China and Pakistan control as not a part of India. As per UNO the map of India is still the same and the illegal occupation of Indian territory is not considered valid. This is very insulting, please update with the correct map of India from Indian Government or UNO sources.

```peole went crazy as14:59, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
```

## Nice work

Good work on the article. As soon as my net connection is restored, I'll try and come back to this article.  =Nichalp (talk · contribs)= 19:28, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

## % water

What is the %water in terms of area? This infobox and the India infobox are differemt.

I calculated the figure in this article using the figures for total area and area covered by water in the CIA World Factbook entry on India[1], on the Windows Me calculator. 314,400 divided by 3,287,590 = 0.095632362916300390255475895716923. Rounding off to the nearest 1/1000 yields 0.096, which I see now, is not the same as 0.096%. I've just fixed that. --Skoosh 21:26, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Its correct as it is. This is a common misunderstanding in mathematics. When you say %xyz = something, the something is always explicitely in % value. I've cleared all disambigs now.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 08:27, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. 96/1000 = 0.096 = 9.6% (or approximately 1/10), not 0.096% (which is approximately 1/1000). It's the percent sign that makes the difference. Either the figure in question needs to be changed to 9.6%, or the percent sign after it should be removed. I'm going with the former. --Skoosh 18:21, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

## Political Geography

I think it is not a wise idea to include this topic in the Geography of India. Political Geography of India is a vast topic and there should be a seperate article on it. Thanks --IncMan 15:59, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

It does come under Geography and a small section would be enough. A larger article is already present though. We would have to include this if we are to make it a Featured Article. See Geography of Ireland which is a FA. Regards,  =Nichalp (Talk)= 16:04, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Nichalp because this article should cover all the geographical aspects of India. Besides, to have a seperate article on the political gegraphy of India would be too small. Also, the political geography is included in the India article.

## Geographical map of India

The present map gives little info on geography of India. What is required is a map on India's topography and geographical details. --IncMan 19:45, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

## Copy vio and reversions

Hi, I have noticed RI making a lot of these reversions, Some of the material (especially ones dealing with spelling corrections in other sections) are not copy-vio's per se, could RI please refrain from reverting the entire article, and if possible mentioning the copy-vio items to the talk page before reverting ?. It makes it very difficult to trace what we were editing if there are revisions dating so long back. --IMpbt 19:44, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I see the problem, and I understand your frustration. I hate undoing the work of other people, especially when they acted in good faith. For what it's worth, I haven't been making "a lot of these reversions", I have made several in the past week and they were all related to one particular user. Unfortunately, there is no rollback for sections only, and rollback to the version before the copyvio happened is the standard remedy. You can copy the content of "clean" sections over to the current version of the article (many sections were indeed affected, though). For the future, I suggest you guys are more vigilant yourself — if someone is inserting chunks of text that read like snippets from newspaper articles, then they probably are. — I tend to provide at least one URL in the edit summary when reverting, but even if I don't (like in this case) it is trivial to find the sources using a search engine (e.g. [2], [3]). — I am sorry for the trouble, but you are really shooting at the messenger. Rl 21:09, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thank you, We will try to, but I think you should be more considerate while reverting - just blank out sections/mark them as copy-vio. This will help us replace the section or remove it without affecting the other sections. The messenger needs to act with tact, other wise he is liable to make people frustrated.--IMpbt 03:34, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
How am I supposed to know exactly which parts of the article are copyedited, derived versions of proprietary material? I'd have to follow them through the whole revision history. You at least have some idea of what you wrote yourself. In addition, if we just remove (rather than rolling back), we won't be able to purge the copyvio from the revision history ever. And talking about frustration: I have spent several hours of my spare time just tracking down the copyvios of this single editor and making several people unhappy in the process, simply because not enough people do patrol on new pages and recent changes. If you have a high tolerance for frustration or wish to spare other people the frustration you just experienced, you are cordially invited to help track down such problems before other editors spend time editing copyvios. Rl 07:16, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In your edit wars, the references have been anhialated including some of my added text.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 14:03, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

There has been no edit war. Rl 14:41, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No edit war, I agree, Only a discussion with RI about reverts to the whole article. I haven't made any reversions or edits contrary to the earlier reversions. Hopefully, we will be able to restore the sections reverted, in which there were no copy-vio's.--IMpbt 19:13, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

## Extreme temperatures

Anyone has any idea as to the extreme temperatures in India. I recall that the min was -45 & max was 50+?  =Nichalp (Talk)= 13:14, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

I think the mins are mostly in ladakh, siachen. The min figure seems to be alright, but the max maybe in rajasthan/punjab I think 51 or 52 might be the right figure. I can't seem to find the earlier references however. --IMpbt 19:17, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It will be listed in the Limca book of records.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 04:36, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

## pictures

Is there some problem with using the NASA earth images ?.--IMpbt 19:18, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No problems, why?  =Nichalp (Talk)= 19:45, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
I remember there being satellite pictures with the geo sections, seem to have disappeared ?.--IMpbt 23:01, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I know, I've listed them above. I'll add them once the text work is done.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 04:36, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

## Still to be completed

1. Water bodies; lakes, wetlands, rivers, evaporation, gulfs etc/
2. Fill in natural resources
3. Fill in enviromental issues
• Images to be added after all copyedits are done

=Nichalp (Talk)= 15:24, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

I have added a bit of material as place holders for some of the sections. Hope to start again tomorrow on these topics. The references for the river section is invisible for now. --IMpbt 23:42, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

## K2 dispute

It is an undeniable fact that whether K2 is in Pakistan or India is subject to dispute. Editors working on this article must acknowledge this dispute and not take sides on whether the state of Jammu and Kashmir is in India or Pakistan. This is required by Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Kelly Martin 16:24, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry, I don't think anyone will revert it.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 19:30, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
Given that someone already did once, I do not share your confidence. Kelly Martin 20:18, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

To get to the K2 you will need a Pakistani Visa!

Azad Kashmir (Free Kahmir) is depicted as a part of India which is wrong but Indian law recuire it to be depicted as Indian terretory. But Wikipedia is not bound by Indian law and should show the world map as how it actually is.

According to UN the whole of Kashmir is disputed terretory!

No respected organisation in the world considers K2 a part of India, neither is India mentioned in the K2 article. Even typing k2 in google brings No mention of Inida. Hence it is being removed.Khokhar (talk) 17:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It is saying: "According India's official opinion, India's highest point is the K2 at 8,611 m (28,251 ft), though the K2 is located on the border[6] between Pakistan administered Northern Areas,[7] and Xinjiang, China, in the disputed Kashmir region."
Nothing POV about that, because India officially considers whole of disputed Kashmir, incl. the K2 as India. Just check maps from India and you see that Kashmir is completely part of India. This is indeed Indian POV and is as such written down in the article. It is relevant for this article, because it's about the Geography of India, so it needs to address how India itself sees its own geography. So stop reverting - you are clearly reacting out of pro-Pakistani POV. --Jeroen (talk) 18:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to put forward India's 'official stance' nor does it care what India's official stance is, hence why there is no mention of India in the K2 article.. so India's official stance is not relevant, and I have not included parts not 'controlled or considered part of Pakistan into Pakistan's territory so I do not see how I am putting forward any Pro Pakistan POV, however you are clearly putting forward a pro India POV, even the maps in this article are not recognised by any official body outside of India, and yes wikipedia has no affiliation to India.. to resolve this matter; I am asking for a Third opinion.Khokhar (talk) 18:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to a professional third opinion. BTW: I'm not pro-India or anti-Pakistan or whatsoever. --Jeroen (talk) 19:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia promotes NPOV. I feel the sentence According India's official opinion, India's highest point is the K2 at 8,611 m (28,251 ft), though the K2 is located on the border[6] between Pakistan administered Northern Areas,[7] and Xinjiang, China, in the disputed Kashmir region in the article rightly gives the Indian as well as Pakistani Position on this issue which is NPOV. Ok, I am a Indian and It might seem to Khokhar that I am biased, but the fact remains that India recognises K2 as its territory while Pakistan regards it as its territory. Since there remains an ambiguity as to whether K2 lies in India or Pakistan, I was of the opinion that both points needed mention in the sentence. Thats why I reverted the edits made by User:K.Khokhar and feel the edits made by User:Jeroen are correct. Gprince007 (talk) 02:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Your both Indian including Nichalp and Jeroen we need non Indian users to help Forzacry65 (talk) 11:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
This sock puppet must be confused. I'm not Indian and he/she can check that very easily. So there is only one that is neutral over here and that's me. --Jeroen (talk) 12:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
This indian sock must be fooling himself your obsessed with Kashmir lol grow up we know your Indian there 23 million NRIS and your one of them Forzacry65 (talk) 12:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Hahaha I'm a sock!!!? First I laughed about the "accusations" of me being an Indian and now I'm really laughing. Since when is a moderator on the Dutch Wikipedia a sock? and since when are the Netherlands an Indian state!? :-) --Jeroen (talk) 12:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
LOL did you know 23 million Indian live abroad? and your one of them look at your contributions lol they give it away your only interest is India and you live in Netherlands big deal I live in England get a grip troll Forzacry65 (talk) 12:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I would like to ask you to lower your tone a bit Forzacry65; I see Jeroen contributing in a sensible and well-documented way here and you just keep on ranting against him without arguments (except for the he's an Indian). This does not support the discussion and will bring no workable solution closer within reach. If you want to defend your opinion you should provide arguments and sources and keep in mind that the authority over the region is a subject of dispute and that the text should reflect this in order to comply with WP:NPOV. JZ85 (talk) 12:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Firstly can we please keep it civil, also user Forzacry is not a sock of my account, in case any one had that impression, secondly jeroen, no offence intended, but I would consider you an 'Indian' simply because of your interests and contributions, I know you live in the neterlands but I also live in the UK and I am only half Pakistani but still consider myself to be 'Pakistani' due to interests, also user Gprince007 made a contribution, I am not sure whether this was as part of the 'third opinion' request I made but said user is also 'Indian' (In the context of my earlier explanation) so I would appreciate a 'neutral' party to give the 'third opinion'. Regards. Khokhar (talk) 12:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

ps. Thanks for the explanation Gprice007, I can understand your thinking but as the territory is neither controlled or generally recognised/considered a part of India; is is not a matter of saying it's in India because India officially believes it should be, as then that would be 'India's opinion' and not a neutral opinion, however all sources say it is either in northern Pakistan or in Pakistan controlled/administered Northern Areas, my point being that the geography of India should be a 'factual' document based on a consensus of neutral international views not just what 'India perceives it's boundaries ought to be'. So in reality the highest point in India's immediate geography is located in Sikkim, this is a fact and I believe the article, being geographical by nature, should stick to facts. Regards. Khokhar (talk) 13:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

@Khokhar: When someone is writing about countries on Wikipedia it does not make him or her a national of that country. If that was the case, I would have a bookcase of passports over here. :-) No I'm not an Indian, I am without doubt very neutral and by far a nationalist (also not a Dutch nationalist, more an anti-nationalist). It is clear to me, you can't separate your heritage from the neutral facts as far as I can see. Hopefully you will improve yourself. Jeroen (talk) 13:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Reply to Khokhar: Well you still feel that we r pushing Indian POV. The fact is that K2 lies in the Kashmir region which is claimed by India as its territory...a claim which is disputed by Pakistan. Thus, the statement in the article mentions both the facts that "According Indian Government's official stance, it's highest point is the K2....located on the border between Pakistan administered Northern Areas and Xinjiang, China, in the disputed Kashmir region." ....Pls note the fact that this sentence mentions Indian Stance as well as Pakistani stance (regarding status of K2 vis-a-vis Kashmir dispute). Since it mentions both sides of argument, i believe it conforms to the guidelines of NPOV....As for the rantings and ramblings by User:Forzacry65, its best that he/she is ignored and/or banned from editing. Gprince007 (talk) 13:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

@Gprince007, That's a fair point, and though I don't purport to be entirely neutral, I can see reason and value compromise, I think it would be fair to restructure the statement so that it takes into account actual/controlled Indian territory first and then goes into any ambiguity/claim as an addition. You may also want to take a look at the grammar used by the last editor.

@Jeroen, I know exactly what I need to improve about myself, having the integrity to admit the reasons for my interest in a given matter is not one of them, thanks for the concern.. also I did try to keep this civil but on your insistence and seeing as you only write about 'One' country; I am compelled to think you do need to improve yourself as you are clearly suffering from an Inferiority Complex which keeps you from admitting your interests. Regards. Khokhar (talk) 14:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

My remarks were not meant to be an insult, but an advise; I see you try to insult me now. Anyhow you forget that the English Wikipedia is not my main Wikipedia, it's the Dutch Wikipedia. So your assumption that I only write about India are false, actually I only made some corrections on the English Wikipedia. For my extensive work you have to visit the Dutch Wikipedia. I will now stop the discussion with you now, because the only thing you can do is accusing me of editing Indian related articles. Ridiculous! --Jeroen (talk) 14:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

A request for a third opinion on this dispute was made at WP:Third opinion; so here are my thoughts on the topic. Obviously, it is perfectly appropriate for an article on Indian geography to discuss the Karakoram mountains, but if you are going to mention a specific geographic feature like K2 that is not in an area currently controled by India you need to explicitly state that the feature is on the border between areas currently controled by Pakistan and China and is not under Indian administration. Otherwise you risk confusing readers from other parts of the world who are not familiar with the history of the region. Also if you mention it by name you should probably link the article K2 (mountain) which discusses this. As to the rest of the discussion, I suggest that you stick to discussing how to improve the article, and avoid comments about other editors (or yourself for that matter), and remebmer that one of the cornerstonse of WP:civility is assuming good faith on the part of other editors. Rusty Cashman (talk) 18:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the Third opinion. I have made the following changes according to our discussion and the neutral third opinion:

Khokhar (talk) 21:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Rusty Cashman (talk) 22:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Well the edit by Khokar above seems to present only half the facts. He states that Kanchenga is the highest point in India which is not the case. Actually Govt of India considers K2 to be highest point in India while Pakistan considers K2 to be part of its territory. Thats why i had replaced it with

The above sentence states both Government's official stance and is more neutral. Also it has been in the article for over an year and was agreed upon by consensus. I suggest we restore the sentence back in the article. Gprince007 (talk) 01:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The above sentence (mine) was agreed by the neutral party, and it mentions, as the neutral party asked, that K2 is 'administred by Pakistan' and in a 'disputed' region, India's official position is irrelevent as The 'facts' have been mentioned, if you want to change the sentence then you'll need to ask for 'dispute resolution' as the previous edit has already been agreed by neutral arbitration and states all the facts because end of the day K2 is not adminisstred by india and this needs to be made clear. Regards.Khokhar (talk) 18:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Another proposal (simplification of Khokhar's proposal):

As K2 is part of the disputed region of Kashmir, there is no need to further complicate the situation by introducing the respective official political geographies and versions of borders of Pakistan and China. If one tries to feature this article again, we will have to commit a whole para to explain all the border disputes. Shiva (Visnu) 01:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Shiva's Version seems more neutral and i feel it is a better worded neutral statement which can be included in the article. Gprince007 (talk) 01:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It still doesn't take account of all the requirement's asked for by the neutral third party, I'll state again that if any one feels the need to change that section after having it mediated by a third party then please consider dipute resolution. Khokhar (talk) 13:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It does actually satisfy the requirements - it explicitly states that K2 is in the Pakistan-controlled area of disputed Kashmir. "Disputed" is adequate because there are 3 different disputes and we don't need to explain all of them. As China does not claim K2, the word "disputed" is an adequate summary. However, I have also asked for a third opinion on this new suggestion. Shiva (Visnu) 14:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the revised solution is better and it does sound less clumsy. I agree there is no real need to mention China, and it covers all the critical points. These are: What is the highest point in what everyone recognizes as India'a territory? What is the highest point in India according to the Indian government? and Why aren't they the same thing? I do think "officially" may give undue weight to India's claim. I would suggest the following:

This avoids any implication that India's opiniion is any more official than Pakistan's, which is the the perception that probably triggered this dispute.Rusty Cashman (talk) 17:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I do, for the most part, agree with the above, however K2 is administred by Pakistan and located partly in pakistan and Partly in Xianjing, If the exact geographic location isn't considered that important then I don't have any issues with the new version either. Khokhar (talk) 18:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Good - then I shall make the necessary change. Shiva (Visnu) 21:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Fine with me..! Gprince007 (talk) 01:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

## Comment

Great work guys. I did some copyediting. Btw, shouldn't we mention the mythical river Saraswathi somewhere here? Or perhaps, it won't fit in the current flow and focus. -- Sundar (talk · contribs) 05:34, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

It was added but I removed it. THe ASI failed to find any evidence of it recently.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 08:50, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Let this be on record then. -- Sundar (talk · contribs) 09:14, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

## Linguistic/ethnic vs. geographic

I added a sentence to the intro that India's political divisions are ethno-linguistic rather than geographic. Some other nations have states that are divided more clearly by geographic/geological features (rivers, mountain ranges, other water bodies, etc), so the contrast seems worth observing. If someone thinks I give it too much prominence in the intro, and wishes to move it to the "political geography" section, I'm fine with that. But I think the concept should be included somewhere. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:18, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

I echo that.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 18:13, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

## Indian English

As with the India article, this article should be written in Indian English. See Talk:India. - OptimusPrime July 8, 2005 10:04 (UTC)

Sounds like you've got some work to do, then. siafu 8 July 2005 14:34 (UTC)

## Useless picture

There is a foolish picture showing two dancers with the caption - Map showing pollution and haze!

## Attention all concerned Indian Wikipedians (It is in FAR)

Attention all concerned Indian Wikipedians While doing a research on Geography of West Bengal, I noticed that the article Geography of India, a FA is in a bad condition, probably it will not meet the WP:GA criteria. The article was featured on June 8, 2005 that is about 2 years back when the Wikipedia was not much organised, so it got FA easily. If any improvement is not done, it will get defeatured within no time. I am pointing out some of the errors in the article:

1. Excess importance is given to the highest point in the lead. Remove it and replace by other suitable statement
2. Location and extent-eastern, western and northern tip missing, IST must be included, neighbours of India may be incorporated
3. Political geography – must be written in a prose form rather than list.
4. Geographical regions-
1. Mountains

K2 is NOT in India. This is inaccurate- Gilgit, the location of K2 is in Pakistan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.185.130.126 (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

1. Image:Indiahills.png and Image:India topo big.jpg must be replaced by svg image,
2. remove list of mountains, no mention of upper and middle himalays,
1. Indo-Gangetic plain-No mention of Bhabar and Khadar, Terai formation
2. Highlands-Highest peak in Deccan plateau missing, Central highlands (Malwa) missing, eastern Meghalaya plateau and Karbi Anglong plateau missing
3. East coast-No mention of Northern Circas
4. West coast- Kachchh and Kathiawar coast in Gujrat, back waters in Kerela and presence of important ports missing
5. Islands-
1. Andaman- seperation by 10 degree channel, barren island missing, largest island, no of inhabited island, longitudianal and latitudial extent,
2. Lakshwadeep- seperation by 11 degree channel, largest island, longitudianal and latitudial extent all are missing
1. Natural disasters-Drought missing
2. Natural resources-More data needed
3. Missing parts-Soil, Natural vegetation and wildlife
4. Overall-Lack of grammar, spellings, WP:MOS and must be writen in prose form.
5. To prevent further vandalism- semi-protection policy must be applied to the article
6. Inline ciations missing

This was the initial observation. Further comments are expected to improve the quality of the article. Amartyabag TALK2ME 04:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

also...

Apparent inconsistencies with relevant section of MOS:

a total land area of 3,287,590 km² (1,269,219 square miles).

a total land area of 3,287,590 square kilometers (1,269,219 m²)..

Am i correct? This is just one example - there are many more. Merbabu 06:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I've corrected the territorial area of india as 3287263 sqkm....which is correct according to the india.gov.in website as well as the india yearbook 2007 published by govt of india.the previous info was 3287590 which cited cia as its reference.but i've corrected it and added suitable references...Gprince007 15:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

## History

I'm not sure if this section makes sense. The history of the geography sounds kind of odd and the section is really about the Indian Plate rather than about geography. Any objections to deleting the section? --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 22:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. It is somewhat weird to have a History of Geography section. But the information presented in the section is relevant for the article. Should we change the section title? Or merge it into any other section?--GDibyendu (talk) 12:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

## Lead paragraph of the article

I feel that the article should begin with "The geography of India comprises of...." instead of "India is a country in South Asia..". The article is about Geography of India and the introductory line should be the former and not the latter....Gprince007 (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

'comprises of' doesn't make sense since the geography doesn't comprise of anything. However, the broader point is proper, so I'll rewrite the first sentence. Let me know if it works for you. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 18:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Sounds better now !!! Gprince007 (talk) 12:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

## Maps and References

The maps may need a rework and turned into svg wherever it makes sense. Can someone work on this? References also needs to be standardized. I am volunteering to work on that. Once these two tasks are done, I guess we should file a GA review first and then proceed as it seems reasonable. Does it sound good?--GDibyendu (talk) 12:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

## GAN

I am proposing to go for WP:GAN now, once we attain GA status, we can try to get FA-status. Does it sound good?--GDibyendu (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Well I am copyediting the article and feel that at this point of time if we push for GA, a number of issues regarding the language / grammar might come up. I am almost done with copyediting but still i am not getting enough time for completing it. Also i feel that we might need to add some more sources. An article with this length wud certainly need more than the current 39 references. Gprince007 (talk) 15:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

## Wetlands

I don't think the 'cold and arid located in the Ladakh region' can be regarded as wetlands. There may be a lot of water in the form of snow there, but wetlands are characterised by standing water and general swampiness, which doesn't seem to apply here. Suggest moving the Ladakh bit to the Climate section. milwyn (talk) 10:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

## POV flagged images

Nichalp (talk · contribs) flagged a bunch of the maps used here as POV back in 2006 because they don't distinguish between disputed territories (Kashmir etc.). I deleted the image description pages because the images are at Commons so changes to the images should be discussed there, but I figured I'd mention it here in case there is any merit to his claims even though no one else seem to have objected in the intervening 3 years.

The "disputed" images are:

--Sherool (talk) 16:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

## Edit request from Gaganbansal123, 16 June 2010

"Geology of India". geohead:Earth Science on your desktop. http://www.geoahead.com/strati/india/index.cfm. Retrieved June 6, 2005. "The Land". The Great Mountains of the North. http://www.geocities.com/kkbros.geo/kked8/docs/Geog04.doc. Retrieved June 6, 2005.

Gaganbansal123 (talk) 06:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Done and thanks! Avicennasis tb? @ 07:52, 4 Tamuz 5770 / 16 June 2010 (UTC)

## Borders in infobox

I was surprised to see Afghanistan listed under the borders section of the infobox. All the borders are sourced to a fairly short .doc file produced by the Department of Border Management, Ministry of Home Affairs. The file doesn't say, but I'm guessing these borders include the lands of all claimed and disputed regions (at least the Afghanistan border must include some disputed areas under Pakistani control). I wonder whether this is the best approach for the infobox. I see that the issue is described in the Political Geography section, but still the infobox strikes me as confusing. I wonder if it would be better for the infobox to describe borders of actual control. If not, could we at least add a footnote or note explaining what is being described in the infobox? The .doc cited does not seem to say that these borders include disputed areas not under Indian administration, so I can't even tell exactly what is being described. Thanks. Pfly (talk) 02:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

## "Adolf Hitler takes the hookcross from india. "

wtf? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.233.11.148 (talk) 13:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

## Longest river in India?

I have reverted an edit from 21 June 2011 which claims to have "corrected" the longest river in India from "GangesBrahmaputra" to "Brahmaputra, flows through Guwahati metropolis (2,900km)". This seems to make absolutely no sense at all to me. Only a section of the Brahmaputra is in india, and at 2,900km it is shorter than the Indus river which is 3,180km long and also has a section in India. It seems that the section of the Brahmaputra in India is about 1834 km (58.0% + 4.2% disputed of its total length according to List of rivers by length). The Ganges river is 2,240km long, entirely in India according to Ganges#Hydrology (its name changes at the border). The Ganges and Brahmaputra share distributaries and are sometimes considered a single river system so "Ganges - Brahmaputra" makes some sense as the longest river, but a strong reliable source is needed here to distinguish between the various options. Sadly I have thus far been unable to find one, but my inclination is to change the entry to Indus, as this is the longest river of which any part flows through India.

I recognise I am far from an authority in this field and welcome discussion. Please can we discuss any proposed changes. In any case, please, please, please cite a suitable reliable source when changing this.

Many thanks,

--MegaSloth (talk) 14:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I've taken a further look at this and I have realised that my estimates of the lengths of Brahmaputra and Indus within India are nonsense - I've confused area with length. Sorry about that. It does appear to me to be certain however that the Ganges is the river with the longest length within India. I note also that the relative lengths of Indus and Brahmaputra don't seem to be universally agreed - Encyclopedia Britannica for example quotes the same length for each (EB does not seem to commit to a longest river for India, perhaps sensibly). My Wikipedia searches for India's longest river suggests that the most popularly accepted answer is actually the Ganges or Ganga, however Indus and Brahmaputra are both also asserted to be the longest in different places. I could not find anywhere that might be described as a reliable source committing to a longest river for India. --MegaSloth (talk) 14:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

## entail

I'm afraid, you can say, "The geography of India entails the physical geography and human geography of India." Or you can say, "The geography of India entails the description of the geographic features of India," but you can't say, "The geography of India entails the geographic features of India." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I had it written that way before it was ... dumbed down. [4] I believe it is still correct as is, but other versions preferred. Ubiquinoid (talk) 03:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I have to agree with Nikkimaria's revert. I prefer "describes" to "entails." All my examples above are rare examples of the usage of "entail." A search of the literature seems to lead back to Wikipedia. Besides, a reader is looking to understand, not to get confused by unusual (perhaps even nonstandard) usage. Finally, "entails" implies necessity. The new reader is not interested in what the Geography of India necessarily implies, imposes, involves, or requires, only in what it is. Wherever this particular usage began on Wikipedia, it was related, I'm guessing, to making a distinction between the Geography of India and the term, "Geography of India." I would urge you to change back to "describe" and not continue your highhanded approach here. Nikkimaria is one of the regulars at Featured Article Reviews. She knows a thing or two about language. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
BS. The issue with the other editor's edits -- well demonstrated elsewhere -- is pernicious delinking of relevant terms, with language to suit. But, sycophancy aside, whatever. Ubiquinoid (talk) 05:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid, I was mistaken. When I did an initial search for that particular usage of "entail," my search engine threw up half a dozen books. Upon further examination they all turned out to be Wikipedia pages (masquerading as books). This usage of "entail" is nonstandard and was introduced in Wikipedia in the Geography of Mexico page in 2007 by a banned editor, Corticopia (talk · contribs) in this edit. This error has been reproduced and mirrored in several pages and sites, all related to Wikipedia. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

## BIG mistake on Vindhya mountains--3,000 FEET--not 3,000 meters

this is an obvious mistake, that even a novice like myself (a history, not geography teacher) was able to catch; if one consults other sources--including the specific article on the Vindhya Hills, their height is listed as a maximum of around 3,000 feet--an enormous difference between the information listed in the general article on Indian Geography, where the AVERAGE height of the Vindhya Hills is listed as more than 9,000 feet! This is what made me suspicious; in any case this sort of mistake really undermines the reputation and mission of Wikipedia, as a universal and fairly trustworthy information resource. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.18.101.56 (talk) 00:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

## Total Area of India

In the article the total area of India is sourced from Britannica Encyclopedia and the figure thus obtained is different from both the main article on India and Official website of Government of India. I think that this article should mention the total area of the country as what claimed by the country and this can be clarified in the notes section as done in the main article on India. Alok Bansal (talk) 15:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Geography of India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at `{{Sourcecheck}}`).

You may set the `|checked=`, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting `|needhelp=` to your help request.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set `|needhelp=<your help request>` on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot 11:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Geography of India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the `|checked=`, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting `|needhelp=` to your help request.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set `|needhelp=<your help request>` on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot 13:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Geography of India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the `|checked=`, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting `|needhelp=` to your help request.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set `|needhelp=<your help request>` on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot 01:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Geography of India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the `|checked=`, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting `|needhelp=` to your help request.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set `|needhelp=<your help request>` on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot 06:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Geography of India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the `|checked=`, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting `|needhelp=` to your help request.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set `|needhelp=<your help request>` on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot 11:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

1. ^
2. ^ K2 – Brittanica.com