Talk:India/Archive 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14

Moving forward constructively

I outlined three possible approaches to the Official Languages issue in the infobox in the Official languages section above. Just listing the languages of the Eighth Schedule without a footnote explaining what role they have is, in my opinion, misleading. But subject to that, any one of those three options is fine by me. Can we please discuss the merits and demerits of each of the three, without getting sidetracked, and try and arrive at agreement on which of them we will use.

To make the discussion easier, these are the options which I feel represent the legal position correctly:

  1. We can list all languages that are used by any state as official languages. But this will create a practical problem because the list at Official languages of India is still not completely reliable. I have been trying to check it and correct the mistakes, but it is difficult to get access to State Acts for all states so it is likely to take a very long time.
  2. We can change the entry to say: "Hindi and English at the Central level, various others."
  3. We can list the languages in the Eighth Schedule (as we have now, but adding Bodo), and add a clearer note. The list would then read:
"Hindi, English, Assamese, Bengali, Bodo, Dogri, Gujarati, Kannada, Kashmiri, Konkani, Maithili, Malayalam, Manipuri, Marathi, Nepali, Oriya, Punjabi, Sanskrit, Santhali, Sindhi, Tamil, Telugu, Urdu (see note†)"
And the note would read:
"†Hindi and English are the official languages of the Union, the other 22 are represented on teh Official Language Commission and have other privileges. In addition, each State has its own official languages."

To start off, perhaps everybody could state which of these versions they prefer, which they can live with, and specific objectiosn they have to any of them? -- Lexmercatoria 00:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I have made my stance clear already. I want go for option 3. I don't understand what is the problem when we are providing a footnote clearly stating the status of Hindi and English. As I have said earlier, India is federal union of states and Delhi alone doesn't represent whole of India. Gnanapiti 00:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)!
Well, I'm not sure I like any of the three options. The version we were discussing above is:

Hindi[1], English,[2] others

  1. ^ Official language of the union.
  2. ^ Subsidiary official language of the union.
The link "others," which now links to the "Schedule 8" section of the "Official languages of India" page, both describes and lists the schedule 8 languages. I think this is both accurate and jibes with other secondary sources. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
This is a nice, compact solution. deeptrivia (talk) 03:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I second deeptrivia. KnowledgeHegemony 15:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I concur. Isn't it true that the "set of languages used as official by the union government, any state or UT" is not the same as the "set of languages listed in the 8th schedule"  ? For example, I don't think Sanskrit is the official language of any state or UT (please correct me if I am wrong) and French is an official language of Poducherry [1]. So listing the 22, 8th schedule languages shouldn't even be an option for the "Official Language" field of the infobox. Abecedare 04:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, in theory you can answer any UPSC exam in Sanskrit, although I don't expect very many people have taken that option. But apart from that, the Eighth Schedule has absolutely nothing to do with official languages at the State level. Some of them happen to be official, others aren't, and there are languages which are official in particular states which aren't in the Eighth Schedule. I personally also don't think "Hindi, English, others" describes the situation accurately, but there's really no point flogging a horse that's dead, beaten to a pulp, and virtually indistinguishable from the ground. I'm going to try to persuade one of my academic friends to write an article that properly describes India's language policy, but until then I'm happy to abide by whatever the rest of you can agree upon (and spend my time actually finishing the rewrite of the article on Kesavananda Bharati which I've been working on). -- Lexmercatoria 16:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Lex, Well, how about

Hindi[1], English,[2] others[3]

  1. ^ Official language of the union.
  2. ^ Subsidiary official language of the union.
  3. ^ These other 21 languages are represented on the Official Language Commission and have other privileges. In addition, each State has its own official languages.

This is a more compact version of your option 3. Sorry, the previous footnotes are getting repeated, but I don't know how to fix this.Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

And what exactly is the reason that you want to go for a "compact" solution when things can be made much more clear with addition of just a few more words? Are we discussing about making this article more informative and a better one anymore? Gnanapiti 03:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Here is my take: Linking to the Official languages of India is preferable to just dumping a list of languages, since it better serves the reader in understanding the complicated situation. Explaining the nuanced position (which I don't think can be done in a few words) in a detailed article is superior to listing of raw data. Abecedare 04:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, how about not dumping Hindi and English in the list, instead give link to Official languages of India letting the reader not get confused with complicated situation? I'm OK with this proposal of mine too. Gnanapiti 18:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Adding everything everywhere will result in the article that's 10000kb.....we should have a more logical approach of classifying what is needed and what is linking Official languages of India is a better solution. Its not that we are ignoring other scheduled languages. KnowledgeHegemony 15:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Don't give doublespeak arguments like this. They are not going to help this discussion. No one is asking to add everything everywhere. As I said, I'm OK with my proposal of linking the whole section to Official languages of India rather than dumping Hindi and English, thus making the things less complicated. Gnanapiti 18:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok. Since the nuance between the languages of the eighth schedule and the 'official' languages has been reiterated.. I feel, its fair not to list the languages of the eighth schedule. But... but.. all languages that are "official" languages of states should be mentioned in the infobox along with English and Hindi. There will, of course be appropriate accompanying footnotes. And all of this will be in a collapsible box, which I prefer, stays 'collapsed' by default. If this is not possible, then we can as well refrain from mentioning any language and just point readers to Official languages of India coz "No info is better than misleading info".
  • The constitution provides for any state to totally sidestep Hindi if it so wishes. For example, a state like Tamil Nadu or Karnataka will use English with every entity(state, center, supreme court, parliament...) outside of its own state. And within their own states they use their own chosen languages.
  • Otoh, it is with English that there is no escape. A state like UP or Bihar is constitutionally bound to communicate in English with a state like Ktaka or TN, Andhra, Bengal etc.,. No amount of whining 'Hindi is the official language of the union' will cut any ice.
  • In the light of the above, just matter of factly stating that Hindi is the official language of the union is grossly misleading and totally at odds with an intuitive understanding of the phrase. There is a reason why the constitution conspicuously avoided declaring any language 'national'. India's case is probably unique in this regard and drawing parallels with the United States(where English is the "national" language) or any others is specious.
  • And in any case, I cant understand what the hell some of the ones nitpicking here are trying to prove. Is it some dyed in the wool bias against anything non-Hindi? Or is it because they grew up 'believing' that Hindi was the "national" language? If people are game to put "others" in the box, what is the problem in 'expanding' the "others" and then wrapping them all up in a compact collapsible box?! Or is it that the few extra bytes that will get added to the article size(and lead it to self destruct) that so worries our self styled watchdog? Sarvagnya 20:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I am glad to see that you agree that 8th schedule is irrelevant as far as "Official language" is concerned. I would also encourage you to avoid bringing up "National language" since that is a red herring, as no one is proposing that we label Hindi as the "National language". By the way, English is not the "national or official language" of US either; recent attempts at declaring it the "national" or "common" language failed too. [2]. Finally as Lex, Dab and others has pointed out earlier there is currently no verifiable list of official languages of the state. Abecedare 21:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
A verifiable list of official languages used by the states and UTs shouldnt be difficult to gather at all. Most of them are well known and where there are doubts we can certainly check on their official websites. If still, we fail to make a complete list(I cant see why that'd happen) we can list whatever we have gathered and the rest can be added as and when we are able to gather them. And I wasnt using "national" language as a red herring at all. I was just replying to Fowler(I think) who brought in the comparison with US. And when I said English was the natl lang of US, I was going by wikipedia article. And even from the link you gave above.. I think it is clear that English is indeed the national language of US though the debate really seems to be about what "national" is. And in any case, I dont think different states in the US use different languages in administration. Some of them may use Spanish in addition to English, but they all use English. Sarvagnya 21:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it's proving quite difficult for me. Karnataka is famously IT savvy, but most other states don't seem to be. If you have the time, it would be great if you could pitch in and verify the information at Official languages of India#States with citations to reliable sources (a good bit of what's there at the moment seems wrong). I've been working my way through the list, but it's very slow going. -- Lexmercatoria 18:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Nope. Doesn't cut it, Sarvagyna. You can ramble on all you want, but the article is not about the states; it is about India. The official language(s) of India are Hindi (and English). The best you can get is Hindi, English, and "other," with the "other" linked to a soon-to-be-created "Official languages of Indian states," which you and your cohorts can have a ball with. If you don't agree, I will take this to an RfC and also to the village pump. I guarantee you I have the experts and the secondary sources on my side, and you don't. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
What is this, some kind of a threaten or something? Why do you always involve in editing in bad faith? What do you mean by this article is not about states? If states doesn't make up India, then what does? This article is not about Government of India either. If Karnataka doesn't adopt Hindi as official language and uses Kannada for all it's administrative and official purposes, does that mean Karnataka is not part of India? And I remind you that Karnataka is not the only state that doesn't use Hindi as official. The very sentence The best you can get is Hindi, English, and "other," with the "other" linked to a soon-to-be-created "Official languages of Indian states," which you and your cohorts can have a ball with. shows whole purpose of your editing in Wikipedia. It's clear that you are not interested in making this project a better one, instead involved in pushing your own vendetta. Again don't even try to threaten. It's not going to help us in anyway. Gnanapiti 00:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Here is the link to Karnataka official language act, 1963 and here is the bill passed in 1981 that extended the use of Kannada Language as official in the day to day administration of all the local authorities. Gnanapiti 00:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
If he had to push his own vendetta he would'nt have come up with all those sources and this discussion. KnowledgeHegemony 17:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that India has like 24 national languages. But I dont think the Infobox should be long enough to list them all. I do feel that Hindi and English should be listed, and a link to the other ones can be present. Otherwise, the infobox will be too long. Anyway, please keep in mind that there are only 3 edits per day per page. Anyway, so the toda hut image... (The culture section has two pics, both relating to architecture) Nikkul 12:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I find the "Hindi English Other option the most apt. The "best of both worlds" kind. Also the most accurate, in my opinion. You get all the languages mentioned.AJ-India 03:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this compromise (proposed and) effected by user Knowledge-Harmony is reasonable: it mentions all the languages explicitly and it singles out and separates Hindi and English as official languages of the union. I think this is the most accurate as well, since (as users Lexmercatoria, Sarvagyna and others have pointed out) India is a little different from other multilingual countries where the official language of the union is shared as an official state language with the predominant language of the region.) I have made some changes in K-H's edits (in keeping with earlier discussions here).
As for user: Gnanapiti's allegation that I am promoting my own biases here, all I can say is that as late as June 28 (see my post towards the end of the discussion above), I was saying, "... (a) keep only the English, or (b) English and Hindi (as official languages), or (c) 23 languages, or (d) bag the 'ganarajya' and simply keep the Bharat." It was only when I began to read the secondary sources, which seemed unanimous in their characterizations, that I was reluctantly driven to my current position. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
PS I should add that reading the secondary sources was a learning experience for me. Although I was aware that from the early days of the Independence struggle, the Indian National Congress had worked hard to promote an indigenous official language for the (eventually) independent country, I wasn't aware how the process actually unfolded early on; in particular, I wasn't aware of the role played by the Indian civil services immediately after independence in subverting the process (before the "official language" issue became a political one in the early 1960s). See the excerpts below from the paper of David Laitin, which is well worth reading in its entirety.
Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
That article sounds fascinating, but they want me to pay an obnoxious 32 USD to get access. Extortionists. It's at times like this that I regret not staying on in academia after my Ph.D. - I really miss the free access to academic databases. -- Lexmercatoria 18:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
You can ask F&F, who I assume has it downloaded, to email you the article. If he is busy with other stuff, I'd be happy to look it up for you. Abecedare 19:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Sure, send me (WP) email and I'll send you the pdf. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


I found that this section contains an incorrect, literally imperfect quotation from an external reference 11. And this is a subject of conflict in terms of interpretation by the readers of Wikipedia.

Am quoting the exact text from the currently existing page under the heading Etymology:

The Constitution of India and common usage in various Indian languages also recognise Bharat (pronunciation (info), IPA: [/bʰɑːrət̪/]) as an official name of equal status. Hindustan (/hin̪d̪ust̪ɑːn/ (info)), which is the Persian word for “Land of the Hindus” and historically referred to northern India is also occasionally used as a synonym for all of India.[11]

The reference to "Land of the Hindus" to "historically referred to northern India is not entirely correct considering different interpretations readers can take, and is a deviation of the policy in use within Wikipedia, in my opinion. This is because the actual quote in reference 11 (which says refers to Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. (2007). Retrieved on 2007-06-18.) gives this :

The name Hindustan is sometimes defined as north of the Vindhya mountains. It is also occasionally used as a synonym for all of India.

Therefore I request concerned approvers to approve a change in the wording / phrasing of the text detailed above.

Thank you.

Ssenthilprabhu 04:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, maybe we are looking at a different page. See the linked page [3], which states, "... also spelled Hindusthan (Persian: “Land of the Hindus”), historically, northern India, in contrast to the Deccan, or southern India. This area can be defined more particularly as the basin of the five Punjab rivers and the upper Gangetic Plain.". Abecedare 04:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Taj Mahal

The Taj Mahal is one of the seven wonders of the world now. Please change that on the page.

Also, the Taj Mahal page is having a vote on whether or not to include this new recognition [of the taj being one of the seven new wonders] (even though 100 million people voted (the most populous global decision in the history of man)). Please input your opinion. Nikkul 15:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

"Seven wonders of the world now." Hmm. Unfortunately, the Seven wonders of the world which really refer to the seven wonders of the Ancient World were named long before Shahjahan met Mumtaz Mahal and impregnated her enough times (17) to eventually cause her death for which he was famously remorseful. I don't know what Seven Wonders you are talking about, but every so often, some tourist company, or some TV channel, in a bid to drum up more business or boost their ratings, draws up a "Seven Wonders" list. But these lists are ephemeral, which the Taj is not and best not associated with. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that a vote by 100 million people around the world is more likely to represent the seven wonders of the world than some Greek guy sailing around the Mediteranian and calling anything out of the ordinary a Wonder of the World. Six of them dont even exist! The vote was the largest global decision in the history of man. It has been acknowledged by the whole world. Go to any news site in the world, the story is there! This is a global campaign. You can not just assume that this is some tourist company looking to drum up business. All the news sites say that its a nonprofit organization. The Taj has been named a new wonder of the world by a very well known and accepted campaign. It's real. It's global. We're going to have to accept it. Nikkul 22:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

This current commericial exercise does not in any way affect the original seven wonders of the world, and is definitely less notable. It is clearly not notable enough to deserve any mention on this article. deeptrivia (talk) 00:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
We don't want this article to suffer from WP:RECENT. A sentence is already mentioned on the Taj article. The Taj itself shouldn't get too much coverage on this page since there is so much other important information to be told. GizzaDiscuss © 06:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to note that WP: RECENT is "only an essay. It is not a policy or a guideline" It merely reflects the opinions of the author. Nikkul 17:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay then, I'll use a policy to support my point. We will be giving WP:UNDUE weight to a recent fad that will die away in a couple of years. GizzaDiscuss © 22:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

100 million people voted or there were 100 million votes? Big difference... Everything I've read says 'a poll of 100 million votes' and anyone could vote an unlimited number of times. Finally, the poll was not supported by international groups such as UNESCO because it reflects "only the opinions of those with access to the internet"[4]. BURNyA 23:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Not just people with internet, but people who knew about it. Unlike a national election where it may not be compulsory but at least everyone is notified about it, people must have known about this poll only through advertising. It is not universal. GizzaDiscuss © 23:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I honestly didn't know about it until after it was over. I watch national news and, listen to XM talk radio when I'm in my car, and I'm on the internet all day at work. Either I was in the wrong places at the wrong times, or just didn't pay enough attention, or it just wasn't big enough. BURNyA 01:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Indic Tag

The Indic tag is very disruptive. I think it should be moved somewhere else so that its not at the top. I have not seen one site with a tag and an info box under it. I definately think the info box should be at the top since it relates more to india than the tag which relates to the article (the wiki page) not its subject. Nikkul 17:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I have seen it attached to the bottom of the infobox in language infoboxes. Can you try that somehow then I don't have a problem. --KnowledgeHegemony 09:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Languages in the infobox

Just a small point, it looks a bit untidy... The bold text "Union" should be lined up with "Official Languages". Not a bit point but oh well. Speedboy Salesman 11:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Concerning Gnanapiti's edit comments on the "States and others" versus "States" issue: It is incorrect to say that "All languages listed are official languages of respective states." Sanskrit, Kashmiri and Sindhi are not official in any Indian state. In addition, Khasi and Garo are official languages in Meghalaya, but aren't in the list. So "States" is probably a misleading label. (This, by the way, is why I have reservations about using the Eighth Schedule as the criterion for bunging languages into the infobox). -- Lexmercatoria 18:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree my edit summary was a mistake. But apart from those three languages that you've pointed out the rest are all official languages of states. If we have a strong reference that Khasi and Garo are official languages of Meghalaya, I believe we need to add them to the list. Gnanapiti 19:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
Following Sarvagnya's suggestion, I have listed all the Official state languages in the infobox rather than the 8th schedule languages, which as has been discussed before are irrelevant/inaccurate in this context. I have based my inclusions on the Official_languages_of_India page. Since the information in that article is yet unverified, I would highly encourage everyone to help in finding appropriate sources for the official state languages, so that we can be certain that we are providing accurate information on the main India page!
PS: On my screen the collapsible box listing the languages is uncollapsed by default. is that true for others too, and if so, does anyone know how to change the default ? Abecedare 19:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm in the process of finding citations for all states, but it's taking time.
Re the collapsible box, according to this, it should be possible by using 'class="navbox collapsible collapsed"'. That would mean making a version of the "collapsible list" template which uses this class. The template is terrifyingly complex, so maybe someone with more experience could try? -- Lexmercatoria 20:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
The puzzling part is that Vancouver uses the same template (i.e. {{Collapsible list}} ) as the India page in it's infobox, but they appear collapsed by default. So, as you say, the issue is best handled by someone who really understands the mechanics. Abecedare 21:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I found a page which says that lists collapse by default if there are two or more collapsible lists in the same infobox. Vancouver seems to have two, as does South Africa. -- Lexmercatoria 21:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it turns out that for this page, three lists make the default=collapse. So, I've added a third category, "Classical" and listed Sanskrit and Tamil there. The boxes are now in the collapsed state. I took out "Union" from the title because all the secondary sources list Hindi and English as the Official languages of the country. The "union" part is explained in the collapsed asterisked footnote. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

PS I'm guessing that Sanskrit and Tamil are not official languages, but perhaps Lexmercatoria can find some way to list them. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes "classical language" is a 'tag' and has little.. nothing infact, to do with "official"ness or a language's status as an administrative language or some such. Also, it is a tag that the Indian government conjured on the fly(bowing to political pressure) and it is at odds with both the "scholarly" and "intuitive" definitions and understanding of the term. If the govt., wishes, any of the 1600 or so languages can be 'declared' "classical" by day break tommorrow. Doesnt mean a thing. And in any case, discuss edits like these before you make them... or at the very least, like Gnanapiti says, dont shoot your mouth off in edit summaries at the first hint of opposition. Sarvagnya 03:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
That's fine. I can introduce an extra collapsible box in the economy section and make all the boxes collapse in default. What upsets me is that both you, Sarvagyna and your new cohort Ganapita, revert first and discuss later. As far as I am concerned you are two of the rudest, the most discourteous, churlish, and graceless people I have had the depressing privilege of meeting on Wikipedia. If Ganapiti had not automatically reverted (with edit summary "illogical"), but discussed here first and explained that Sanskrit is not official (something I realized myself), the page would not have been locked up. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Only if you had asserted your royal presence here in talk page first discussing the edits that you were going to make when you very well know that we've been working on that particular section of the article for long time now. Thanks to great efforts by User:Lexmercatoria, User:Abecedare and some part me in Official languages of India, we've been collecting sources for all official languages and reflecting them in the article. So this edit by you without any discussion sure seemed illogical to me. By the way I see that you have new cohert now who has never ever touched this article before and now jumps right in and reverts without any explanation! Gnanapiti 04:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Fowler - for starters, your chronic misspelling of my username is getting as old as it is juvenile. So cut the crap first. And do I have to remind you that it is you who has appropriated the moral high ground on this and every talk page you frequent. You have stonewalled the simplest of edits for weeks on end with your non-stop drivel and driven many an editor to despair. It is then, a bit rich of you to call us names... more so after I just warned you to "cease and desist". Several editors like Nikkul(for all his faults) and U=a, KH and many others in the past have been at the receiving end of your snobbery. You have given me nothing to smile about either. I can say to you all the things that you've just said about me and I can say that with conviction. Not out of spite. It is you who has been driving well meaning editors away with your "this is a FA... all edits have to be discussed... do not edit before discussion" nonsense for over 6 months now. So you better clam up and practise what you preach. 'nuff said. Sarvagnya 05:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Like I said, "discourteous, churlish, and graceless." What else is "cut the crap," "nonstop drivel," "nonsense," and "you better clam up?" This talk page is littered with other examples of your truculent language. It is true that I have raised the bar on this page, but my allegiance is always to the reliable secondary sources, and I have produced them time and time again (of which the "official language secondary sources" was but one example). As for misspelling your name, please accept my apologies. I am a bad speller, especially of unusual names. You could have left a little note on my talk page like others have done here and here, but regardless, the fault is mine. My apologies again. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Gentlemen, we all have worked diligently on this topic and found sources, presented robust arguments and discussed every aspect in detail. Now that we have finally come to what seems to be a consensus position (i.e. listing Hindi, English + all the official state languages in a collapsible box), lets not a few minor differences and momentary hot-bloodedness spoil what should be a time of mutual congratulations. If (as I think) we all are agreed on a common position, perhaps we can ask Blnguyen to unlock the page.
PS: I too think that Classical languages are irrelevant to the topic of official languages, but my guess is that F&F was trying it out just to see if the infoboxes could be collapsed by default by adding a third collapsible list. Even if my reading of his past reasoning is wrong, from the comment above it appears that F&f now agrees that we need not include those languages in the infobox, right ? Abecedare 05:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Your reading is correct. I was trying to be helpful, seeing that people were not able to make the darn boxes collapse, and explained so immediately on the talk page, but ... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, How is the infobox in the collapsible box below? I have collapsed the non-numbered footnotes. This might be useful, especially later on, if the number of footnotes increase. Note also that I have changed the infobox footnotes to symbols, to avoid confusion with numbered footnotes which link to references. All the lists now collapse by default. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

"Influence of India on the world"

The section is unsourced, POV and a list of quotes. Wikipedia is WP:NOT Wikiquote. I'll remove it. GizzaDiscuss © 10:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Hair trigger protection

I'm really surprised at such quick action taken by the admin Blnguyen in protecting this article. Was there vandalism or extended edit warring? I didn't see any. There were precisely three reverts, of those two were by the Kannada tag team. Can the esteemed admin please explain here in the talk page the reasons behind his action? Parthi talk/contribs 05:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I left a post on his page explaining the situation. I can't imagine the protection will last for too long. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Good News (perhaps)

Some good news related to the India page: I have gotten the India article in the Simple English Wikipedia to "Very Good Article" status (which is their equivalent of FA status). The article itself can be seen here and the VGA candidacy review here. I just thought that the editors of this article would be interested in some good news after the weeks of edit warring and talk page conflicts. Universe=atomTalkContributions 11:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Very nice work. Congratulations! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I have to say that in many ways this article is more representative of India than the one here. Good job.--Blacksun 09:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Original Research

I have been away for bit and I have no time to follow the pages of discussion on the languages you guys have been having but from what I have read so far, I am afraid that you guys are walking a very fine line. Please keep in mind that you do not indulge in original research. For instance,
1) In most cases you cannot tell us what the constitution means but have to cite usage and interpretation.
2) I also read some comment about how "classical language" tag is meaningless; something trumped up by the government for political reason. I don't give a hoot what you think might be the reasons behind it. Your analysis of the significance of the status of a language as deemed by GoI has very little bearing here. Regarding, no one in academia agreeing with the choice of Tamil as a classical language - here is one scholar who disagrees with your assessment.
3) For the life of me, I fail to see why the article is attempting to list all the official state languages instead of the ones in the 8th schedule. Now you have French which is not a major language elevated to the same status as major languages like Tamil, Gujarati, Marathi, Assamese etc. Presenting the list in the format you guys seem to be going for can be argued as original research.
--Blacksun 14:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Blacksun, that sage piece by that 'scholar' is brandished in my face almost every second day on wikipedia. Everybody has an opinion and Mr. Hart has his. And I am not even going to debate his opinion here. And in any case, where have I said that Tamil is undeserving of the tag? That the 'eligibility requirement'(sic) was changed from an antiquity of 1000 years to 1500 years soon after Tamil got the tag, has its own tale to tell though.
That said, it is no secret that the very category of 'classical' languages was created by the govt., under political pressure. The category didnt even exist until 3 years ago. And it is no coincidence that the category was created soon after the present secular govt., came to power with the support of our friends from Kumari Kandam. It was part of the CMP to 'accord' Tamil the 'status' and to do that, they had to 'conjure this on the fly'. All this is plain as day to anyone except those from the lost continent. You can gloat over a certain language's status all you want, but that wont change reality. And you dont have to take my word for all this.
As for my comment that it is at odds with scholarly definitions of the term, well.. it is. And that is the reason, Classical language doesnt redirect to Classical languages of India. Sarvagnya 17:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately for you, his opinion is more credible + relevant than yours. --Blacksun 09:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's keep it simple

Let's stick to the Official languages of the Union and the 8th Schedule. And since both Tamil and Sanskrit are included in the 8th Sch., their entries in the infobox can be like Tamil(also classical), Sanskrit(classical). I wonder (just like Blacksun) why do we need to have official languages of individual states. KnowledgeHegemony 16:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see how the classical status of Sanskrit and Tamil is relevant information for the Official languages field in the infobox. To me that is akin to appending Bharat Ratna after A.P.J Abdul Kalam in the President field of the infobox; which again is true and a high honour but irrelevant in the context. Abecedare 16:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, but similarly it is also irrelevant to include all the official languages used in the individual states. KnowledgeHegemony 16:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
KH, we don't really disagree. If I recall correctly, the first preference for both of us is to simply include "Hindi, English, others" with appropriate footnotes and links; although we can live with listing all the official state languages too. Anyway, I am sensing a feeling of deja vu all over again :-) Abecedare 17:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
(ec)No it is not. An "official" language is reasonably and intuitively associated, among other things with a language that is used in administration and as the preceding discussions have shown, it is only fair that we list them. From what I understand, the languages of the eighth schedule is like a pool of 'potential' official languages. Seen from that perspective, if there is consensus, I am not really averse to listing them too.(That will even help us take care of the "collapsible" issue). Sarvagnya 17:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
No your understanding is wrong. Language of 8th schedule are the languages that have federal support in their growth and are overly important than say French which is a residue language from colonial times and mostly has its status because no one has bothered revoking the treaty in the state. Sorry, but having a list where all the major languages are at same status as French is stupid and you are going to have a serious fight over it. You seem to like to think that federally deemed status of languages has no relevance but I have to respectfully disagree. This is an article on India - not on individual states. 8th schedule languages by their very nature are far more relevant than the list you guys have built which makes me feel like pulling my hair. --Blacksun 09:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but including the Eighth Schedule under the heading "official languages" is plain wrong. That box is to list official languages, not languages which are "supported", and the languages of the Eighth Schedule aren't "official languages" in any sense of the term. And this isn't "Original Research", it is well borne out in the scholarly literature. Dr. Mallikarjun of CIIL describes the significance of the Eighth Schedule quite well in this paper:
The languages of the Schedule have preferential treatment, and the languages listed in this schedule are considered first for any and almost every language development activity, and are bestowed with all facilities including facilities to absorb language technology initiatives of the government. It is needless to mention that the Technology Development in Indian Languages (TDIL) did not, and under present circumstances would not percolate beyond these languages.
"Preferentially treated" does not equal "official".
I think many of us here think that some version of "Hindi, English, others" is fine, but there are also a number who think that that formulation doesn't accurately reflect the linguistic diversity of India. Including the official languages of the States (which are "official" within India in at least some sense) was the best compromise we could find. If you have any better ideas, please put them forward. If you insist on the Eighth Schedule, then we'll need to make a separate section for it. It can't go into the "Official languages" section because languages like Sanskrit, Kashmiri and Sindhi are not official in any sense of the term. -- Lexmercatoria 10:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
That depends on how you define official. What exactly is the 8th schedule? To me (and many others) it is a defacto list of official languages which is also a good compromise. When the government went to the trouble of making a list of significant languages how in the hell can that not be considered official? Who are you to define official in this context?? Adding state language is downright ridiculous and misleading due to presence of many minor languages in individual state official languages. You are redefining something that has always been defined in another way. If you ever read any article in a newspaper or magazine they will mention 8th schedule languages as official languages besides English and Hindi. Sanskrit, Kashmiri and Sindhi are far more official in India than French. I reject your argument 8th schedule (federal) is less significant or official than state languages in an article on Indian union. How is it not original research when by adding state languages under official language tag on an article of Indian union implies that they have a federal status? --Blacksun 11:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
We've been over this a thousand times. If you can't be bothered to read this page or the articles I cite, that's your loss. I'm not going to to rehash it. If you want to call Sanskrit an official language, go right ahead. It's no skin of my back if Wikipedia becomes a laughing stock - as it will if it says Sanskrit is an "official language" in India. Good luck. -- Lexmercatoria 20:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally, if you care to take a look at this article, you will see that the DMK is actually trying to have the languages of the Eighth Schedule declared official languages. Now why would the DMK need to do that if the languages are already official, as you claim? You might want to think that over. -- Lexmercatoria 21:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and here's a quote from the current UPA Government's common minimum programme:
"The UPA Government will set up a committee to examine the question of declaring all languages in the Eight Schedule of the Constitution as official languages."
So, why would they need to examine this question if the languages were already official languages? If this doesn't conclusively establish the fact that they are not currently official languages, I have no idea what will. -- Lexmercatoria 21:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Thats perfectly in line with my understanding as I've stated above(or was it below?) somewhere. The languages of the eighth schedule are 'potential' official languages... but not official just yet. As for why official state languages should be mentioned, well simply because in India's case, it is not as open and shut as "Hindi and English". Blacksun is requested to read the discussions on this page. Also, M. V. Pylee, an expert, deals with the situation in a chapter dedicated to dissecting and explaining the official language issue in his book here. Sarvagnya 22:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's is what it would look like if all three—union, states, and 8th schedule—were included. I have added explanatory notes for each group (instead of footnotes), since they immediately provide the context for listing the group; otherwise, the eyes begin to glaze over at the prospect of deciphering the rationale for such a surfeit of languages. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

No, No, and No. You guys are amusing. I read everything you have linked but you know what? NONE OF IT even remotely comes close to saying that state languages are more official than 8th schedule languages, speaking in the context of India. 8th schedule is far more official than state languages. Even the papers you have posted support this view. Furthermore, DMK seems to argue towards making 8th schedule to have the same status as Hindi and English. But the fact remains that in the context of India, 8th schedule list is far more significant than list of state languages. --Blacksun 23:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Given down is my proposal for the infobox. I haven't provided detailed explanation or footnotes for now. They can be added accordingly at a later time. This format gives the exact idea of status of languages IMO. Gnanapiti 21:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

No. As I have stated many times above, all the secondary sources say that Hindi and English are the "official languages" of the country. When Britannica, Encarta, the UN, UNESCO, US Government, UK Foreign Office, etc (see my 15 secondary sources), talk about the official languages of the country, they mean the union (whether or not the states have their separate official languages). In the first box, Hindi and English have to be out in the open (not collapsed under "union") as I have indicated in my proposed infobox (whether or not you want the explanatory notes or not). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
No, their is no need to make a list of official state languages. It is rather an overkill in the context of India article. Not to mention it will be hard to maintain in future as it is definitely more fluid than the other two. Just dont bother with it. Please for once try to keep things simple instead of over analyzing everything. --Blacksun 09:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
No. The article is titled India, not Indian States. Official languages of the country India only IMMHO. Moriori 09:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Final Proposal for Languages in Infobox

To Lexmercatoria, Abecedare, Sarvagnya, Gnanapati, Blacksun, Knowledge-Hegemony, and others: Here is the one more (hopefully last) infobox. It has collapsing boxes for "Official Languages," with Hindi, English, and the Official States Languages and it has a collapsing box for "Other Languages" which has 8th schedule languages. As a consequence of this tripartite choice, a lot of languages end up being listed, and many listed twice; I have therefore provided a sentence at the top of each list that explains what the list is about. (Lex. and others: please feel free to alter these sentences if you think they are not accurate.) If the consensus is to not include the 8th schedule languages, then their box can be easily deleted. As for myself, all I care about (per secondary sources) is that Hindi and English are listed. Beyond that, whatever combination of collapsible boxes is arrived at in the consensus, is fine, and can be accommodated in the infobox.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

KnowledgeHegemony 15:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Your version too is fine too (with me); however, I'm guessing that some people might object to 8th schedule languages being listed under official. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
No sorry, I disagree with it. It is downright silly to state list when most of it overlaps with 8th schedule. It is very simple: You CANNOT do ORIGINAL research here. State languages by themselves have no federal status. 8th schedule languages, on the other hand, have a clearly defined federal status. Considering the list largely overlaps - you put the 8th and discard the bs list you guys have compiled which you will not find on ANY other India related article and for a good reason. For example, take a quick look at CIA fact boook - what does it state as India's official languages besides English and Hindi. MY, OH MY - the original 8th schedule languages. If you guys want to do research go join a research group and publish. This is not the place. Adding state languages under official language tag on an article on Indian union implies that they have a federal status which I think is not true. Having said this, I can live with the choice presented by KnowledgeHegemony but absolutely no to yours Fowler. Apologies. --Blacksun 10:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Don't know if I should laugh or cry, since I am merely trying to be flexible to accommodate the disparate views (and the OR part seems strangely familiar, as you will see from my "Original Research?" section above :) ). I do think that you should read the extended discussion above, since there is a danger of it being repeated here. As I have repeatedly said above, for the purposes of the infobox, all I care about is that Hindi and English be listed first and separately (in accordance with the reliable secondary sources). Beyond that I am happy with many variations. Here are a few options:
1. "Official Languages: Hindi, English, States" This would result if you removed the 8th schedule collapsible box in my infobox.
2. "Official Languages: Hindi, English. Other Languages: Eighth Schedule" (this would get around the problem of calling the 8th schedule languages "official") This version would result if you deleted the "states" collapsible box in my last infobox above.
3. Mention Hindi, English, States under "Official" and 8th schedule under "Other." This is the most general version of my infobox.
4. Knowledge-Hegemony's version above.
5. Mention only Hindi and English.

Could the others (Lexmercatoria, Abecedare, K-H, Sarvagnya, Gnanapati, ... ) please respond. Please also indicate which version you would prefer. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Fowler, I did not mean anything personally. I have immense respect for your work. However, the infobox you showed implies state as an official language of Indian union. You will need citations for that. I personally prefer option 3 or 4.--Blacksun 00:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
We've already been through this whole thing and doesn't make any sense to go round and round in circles. I've already presented my arguments and also my proposed version of infobox, which still I stick to. Now, I leave the issue with well informed editors like User:Lexmercatoria and User:Abecedare who have worked so hard towards this project. Let them see all versions of infobox, arguments behind them and come to a conclusion on whatever is appropriate for this article. I request Blacksun to go through the entire discussion in this page and Talk:Official languages of India to make sure he understands what we are trying to achieve. Gnanapiti 14:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I think you should go find a source that I requested in Talk:official languages of India instead of worrying about me catching up with your past discussions.--Blacksun 00:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm not worrying about you. I don't even care whether you understand or not. It was just a request in case you missed the word as I felt that you'll be the one at loss if you don't go through the discussions since no one here has the patience to explain the things over and over which has been already done several times. Huh. Gnanapiti 01:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
You are sitting there (wrongly) assuming that I have not went over past discussion and acting condescendingly without taking time to read what I am trying to say. Just because you have wasted your time in the past making wrong assumptions does not mean I have to abide by them. I do not require your patience or your approval. I know how to get my point across in Wikipedia. --Blacksun 08:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Blacksun, please see the detailed discussions in the previous sections - I know it is very lengthy, but you can perhaps look over only the comments with/about sources and ignore all the personal opinions.
Both F&F and I began with the POV you are expressing above with regards to the the status of languages listed in the 8th schedule but the numerous secondary sources produced by F&f and Lex, have convinced us that those are not official languages although they have a special status as explained in greater detail in the Official languages of India article. Yes, some sources such as CIA factbook do label the 22 languages as official but that passing reference is contradicted by every scholarly source that looks at the subject in detail.
Note that I am not arguing that the 8th schedule languages are "less significant" than the official state languages - that judgment is surely a matter of opinion. However the only contention here is that official state languages are official state languages, and all the proposed versions mark them as such without claiming any federal status.
As for my preferred version: I like K-H's succinct version the most, although I can live with any version which lists Hindi, English and all the official state languages. I would prefer not listing the 8th schedule languages at all (just as I voted for not listing classical languages above), but I think this whole issue is overblown and therefore will not stand in the way if others indicate that they wish to list the 8th schedule languages in addition to the ones previously mentioned.
PS: I know this subject has been under discussion a long time now, but I would request that we don't change the status quo till everyone involved is on the same page, since such a step would surely inflame emotions and just lead to the page being protected. Thanks. Abecedare 22:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I have not seen a single thing that makes me feel that state languages have any official status federally, forget about more official than 8th schedule languages. Furthermore, CIA factbook is not alone in this regards. I am positive that there are many other examples from major newspapers that do the same thing. I can be bothered to hunt them down as soon as you present sources that includes state language as official languages of Republic of India instead of pointing me to articles that argue the fine points of why 8th schedule languages are not fully official. Maybe I missed it in the plethora of discussions. Furthermore, marking them as state languages is not good enough. I consider that as original research - you are promoting something that gives false impression to the readers. Their is absolutely no need to do this nor is there any precedence for it. However, 8th schedule languages have clear precedence over state languages (Mentioned in the constitution specifically for special treatment, can be used for examination, and have been used as defacto list of official languages of India before: CIA factbook, for instance).
The entire thing baffles me. On one hand, you folks are arguing that 8th schedule are not FULL OFFICIAL languages and so they should not be in the infobox. On the other hand, you want to include the state languages that have absolutely no business in this article. I mean FINE dont mark the 8th schedule languages as official languages. Just call them 8th schedule languages but don't confuse the matter by listing both state and 8th schedule as pretty much the entire thing overlaps. Oh wait, it doesnt have French. I wonder if that goes against or for the argument. *scratches head*
I apologize if I am creating obstacles in your hard work but it is the way I see it and I have no problems changing my opinion if I am given a logical reason to do so. I hope that is mutual.--Blacksun 23:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry Blaksun, but you lose me when you use phrases like "more official", "full official", etc. The situation is as follows:
  • India has two official languages for the union: Hindi, English (the latter having subsidiary status)
  • Indian states are allowed to choose their own official languages (Constitution of India, Article 345), and all have done so. And yes, Poducherry has chosen French as one its official languages.[5]
Now I could understand if you said that only the first in the above list deserve to be mentioned in the India article, although many editors object to that. But I do not understand when you say (1) that the 8th schedule languages are More official than the official state languages, since I don't know what that means, or (2) 8th schedule languages are more significant than official state languages, which as I said above is a matter of opinion, and irrespective of whether it is true or not, does not make them official languages.
As for the current significance of the 8th schedule: The listed languages are meant to be
  1. used to enrich Hindi [6]
  2. used in UPSC exams Para 4b
  3. helped in their development Para 2
I hope you'll agree that the first two points hardly qualify a language for official status. And as for the 3rd point, it does indicate that the languages are considered "major", but calling them official would be akin to calling any geographical regions chosen by the GOI for special development, "official regions of India". In concluding, I'd like to point out that the constition itself never refers to the 8th schedule languages as official, while it specifically calls the state languages, Official language or languages of a State. Of course, if the DMK or UPA proposal that Lex has linked to above passes, the situation will change dramatically and the article will have to be modified to reflect that; but as I am sure you know wikipedia is not a crystall ball.
I hope the above summary has been useful to you. If you wade through the above discussion you'll find secondary sources which make the same point. Thanks. Abecedare 02:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
PS: I just noticed that the CIA factbook gets the number of 8th schedule languages wrong too (14 instead of 22). Abecedare 02:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
First of all, I think that you missed a point where the GoI is obliged to see the development of the 8th schedule languages according the 1968 Official Languages resolution. Anyways, let me clearly state exactly what I am saying.
1) Hindi and English are no brainer. However, anyone who knows anything about India will agree that mentioning just those two languages is a gross misrepresentation.
2) State languages are not official languages of Indian union. They are official languages of the state and the state is free to chose whatever they want. If tomorrow some state choses Chinese as one of its official language it is free to do so. However, Chinese will not then become an official language of India. I hope that is clear.
3) 8th schedule languages are, as you say, not official languages either. However, they are mentioned in the Constitution of Republic of India. The fact that they are mentioned in the context of Republic of India makes them, in my eyes, more significant to this article, which is about Republic of India, than state languages which should be mentioned in individual state articles.
So, in brief, you need not mention 8th schedule languages as official languages of India but the fact that their is a movement to give them that status and that they have a special status under the constitution of Republic of India makes them more significant to this article than a list compiled for official state languages, for which, as of yet, you have not provided a single citation to support that they have any federal role or status. So, why exactly do we pick official state languages over 8th schedule languages to be included in the infobox? I am sorry but I cannot be any more clear than this. Once again, you guys keep harping on the finer points of why 8th schedule languages are not official languages while missing the big picture. Please do not repeat your arguments or assume that I have not went over the past discussions - I am getting tired of being told that I need to read up (which I have) while you are missing the point that I am trying to make. --Blacksun 08:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Blacksun, You say "First of all, I think that you missed a point where the GoI is obliged to see the development of the 8th schedule languages according the 1968 Official Languages resolution.". How could have I done that when I linked to that very resolution in the preceding comment and specifically wrote, "The listed languages are meant to be ... helped in their development Para 2" ?
Anyway, since both you and I have made our respective arguments and see the same evidence but arrive at differing conclusions regrading the relative status of State languages and 8th schedule languages as official - I think we will just have to agree to disagree and let other editors chime in. Cheers. Abecedare 09:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
That is a cop out. You have not made a single argument or provided citation for relative official status of state languages in the context of Republic of India. All you have done is explain why 8th schedule languages are not the perfect choice without ever making the case for state languages. I am more than willing to change my position if you make a stronger case for inclusion of state languages. The way I see it: GoI has responsibility towards 8th schedule but has no responsibility towards state languages. You have to pass a federal resolution to list or delist as 8th schedule but no such measure is required to be listed as an official state language. How can you say then that state languages have a greater federal role or status than 8th schedule languages? If anyone can elucidate this for me, feel free to do so. I will gladly change my position if these questions are answered.
Finally, India is a very stable article. Past editors, including Nichalp, have favored using 8th schedule in the infobox (check early archives). I find it surprising that this was changed without presenting a single source or argument that trumps state languages over the 8th schedule. I propse that we have two sections: 1) official language: Hindi, English 2) Recognized (or give suggestions) languages: 8th schedule languages. Thanks --Blacksun 09:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Eighth Schedule Languages Again

I just went back and re-read the secondary sources that I had compiled earlier. I am afraid I have to side with Blacksun. (My original goal was to make the point that Hindi and English had special status; after that discussion, I didn't pay that much attention to the sources, and, in particular, to what they said about other languages). It seems that the languages mentioned in all the references are the 8th schedule languages. The secondary sources don't all say that the languages are officialj languages, but have words to the effect that these languages are recognized by the constitution. The main point, however, is not whether the languages are technically official or not, but whether in the context of articles on India or the languages of India, they are mentioned by reliable secondary sources in discussions of official languages. Sorry to go back to the sources, but that is all we can go by. The secondary sources only mention Hindi, English, and 8th schedule. So, how does one resolve this? One way to get around the semantic problem would to have two boxes: one for Hindi, English (and labeled) "Official Languages;" and the other for 8th schedule languages, labeled "Official Languages Commission Languages." "Officially Recognised Languages." (Changed in light of Blacksun's comments below.) I am reproducing the secondary sources below (winnowed to make them more focused):

In particular, David Laitin's words (in reference 8) are significant: "And the 'Eighth Schedule' specified a list of fourteen "languages of India" whose speakers would be given protected seats on the Presidential Commission to implement the All-India language policy." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

PS Sorry, Blacksun, I didn't see your post (you must have posted while I was compiling the sources)! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
That is exactly what I have been trying to say. I did read the entire discussion that had taken place but it was primarily about Hindi & English. Somewhere along the lines, user Abecedara proposed using state languages instead of 8th scheduled languages citing the fact that 8th schedule languages are not official. However, neither are state languages. Add to the fact that secondary sources tend to mention 8th schedule languages in the same breath as official languages. This cannot be said about state languages. Not to mention, this entire argument has come up before kindav. Nichalp cited: --source; Manorama Yearbook 2006, pg 507, ISBN 8189004077 -- to support 8th schedule languages inclusion and also stated that French is not the national language of India. --Blacksun 11:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, how about the following infobox: It has two boxes 1) Official Languages: Hindi, English, 2) Officially Recognized Languages: 8th Schedule Languages (listed).

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

That is fine with me. You can call it just recognized or whatever else. --Blacksun 12:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Support: KnowledgeHegemony 16:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
PS I have changed the category from "Officially Recognised Languages" to "Languages Recognised by the Constitution" (8th Schedule Languages). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

(This was a reply to Lexmercatoria, who seems to have removed his question.) Well, here is the logic (as I see it). Agreed that 8th schedule languages are not "official," however, the languages mentioned in the secondary sources, in addition to Hindi and English, are only the 8th schedule languages. The "countries infobox template" has a number of language variables one can use: two are "pre-made" in the template. These are "official languages," and "regional languages" (the latter is not official state languages, but rather unrepresented languages that do not have official status); however, it also gives you a choice of defining the variable by choosing "languages_type" and creating the languages heading in a flexible manner. That is the option I have chosen. Clearly, the country infobox template allows that option, otherwise it wouldn't be there. The fact that secondary sources on India mention 8th schedule languages, but not official languages of the states, doesn't leave us with much choice. We can't have the official states languages. It is either "official languages" (Hindi and English) or choosing the flexible "language_type" with "official languages" (Hindi and English) and "Recognised Languages" (8th schedule). I have to run, but this is the logic. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Could Lexmercatoria, Abecedare, Sarvagnya, Gnanapiti, and others please respond? We have spent a lot of time on this topic and I know that it is getting to be exhausting, but it is best to get it over with. Believe me, I don't have any interest in prolonging this discussion, but unfortunately our hand is forced: the secondary sources only mention Hindi, English, and the 8th schedule languages (and not official state languages). The only way that I see it can be done (without mislabeling anything) is shown in the info box above. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I tried your latest infobox in the article by seeing its preview and I felt it looks quite 'distracting' and 'ugly'. It takes the attention of the reader away from the main article. KnowledgeHegemony 16:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, please suggest what you prefer. (Note that the references appearing on the left in the infobox above, will not show up in the actual article (and there won't be any repetitions). Since you supported the previous version, I guess it is a choice of what to call the 8th schedule infobox:
a) Recognised Languages (also a previous version)
b) Officially Recognised Languages (previous version OK's by Blacksun and KH)
c) Languages Recognised by the Constitution (current version)

Also, the explanation in the 8th schedule infobox can either be put in a footnote or be made shorter. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I think he might be talking about how its bolded. I guess it makes it stand out and can be distracting. --Blacksun 23:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the refs F&F; given the secondary sources I am happy with listing only the English, Hindi and scheduled languages in the infobox. However I do share K&H's concern about the current arrangement being somewhat cludgy. How about the first column saying only "Official languages" (does anybody object to this ?), with the second column containing the two collapsible boxes. My suggested short title for the 8th schedule infobox is simply "Scheduled languages" (ethnologue uses this terminology). A couple of potential though minor problem with using "recognised language" is (1) it suggests that the languages not listed are not recognised as (Indian) languages which obviously makes little sense :-) , (2) that the constitution may be recognising some other non-scheduled languages in some completely different context (this is the reason I had used the phrase "recognises in particular" in the Demographics section). Cheers. Abecedare 23:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, how's the new infobox on the main page? I have changed "recognised languages" to "Scheduled Languages." Unfortunately, I think, if we only have official languages, Lexmercatoria will object that "scheduled languages" are not official. As for the bolding, it comes with the template. ("Largest City" etc are in bold-face too.) I have removed the explanation as well, and made the "8th Schedule" infobox more compact. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I am satisfied by this version. I think it looks much cleaner without the black separator line in the previous version; and the left justification (rather than center justification) of the first column entries also blends in with the remainder of the infobox. Thanks F&f for your attempts to accommodate so many disparate views :-) Abecedare 01:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Good work F&F your efforts were indeed great KnowledgeHegemony 05:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I am satisfied with the format of the version shown by Abecedare too. However, I will state that calling them scheduled languages is bit useless as the reader is not going to have any clue what it means without clicking further. We should attempt to avoid such phrasings. Their is one thing about "click to read in detail" and entirely different when you make it so that its "click to understand what the hell this means." We should avoid the latter and strive for the former. I noticed that quite a few of the secondary sources by F&F refer to them as recognized languages which should be good enough for us. We should not sacrifice readability over unnecessary political correctness. --Blacksun 08:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Blacksun, I do understand your point that "scheduled languages" require clicking on the link for explanation; but, my guess is that almost anything short and sweet that will make an apt title for the left hand column will require further explanation. Even "recognised languages." (By whom? What about the other languages? Like Abecedare said, "Are they not recognised?) So, since as you say, you are satisfied with the current format, I'd say let's stay with it, and you and Abecedare can now work on improving the title. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Appositive Phrases

Dear Universe=atom, In my version of the last sentence of the lead ("A pluralistic, multilingual, multi-ethnic society, India is also home to a ..."), the appositive "A pluralistic, multilingual, multi-ethnic society" precedes the subject "India." That is OK. Here is an example from the New Oxford Guide to Writing:

Besides in your version there is redundancy in "In addition" and "also." Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually the appositive doesn't agree with the subject. The appositive relates to the Indian society (pluralistic, multilingual and multi-enthnic) while the subject is India, the country. I would suggest rewording the sentence to something simpler, perhaps even breaking up the sentence into two, since the first half(which discusses the Indian society) has little to do with the second half of the sentence (which talks about India's wildlife and protected habitats). AreJay 23:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
No, the appositive doesn't relate to Indian society. Had the subject been "Indian society" it would have read, "Pluralistic, multilingual, and multi-ethnic, Indian society is ...." The sentence has exactly the same structure as the "Bishop Andrewes" example. The reason why the "also" (a subject of much previous discussion on this talk page) has been added, is that it de-emphasizes the main clause a little in contrast to the appositive phrase. Note that the sentence is similar to the sentence: "India, a pluralistic, multilingual, and multi-ethnic society, is also home to a diversity of wildlife ...," but in its current form, the two disparate elements—the society of people and the diversity of wildlife—are separated more, thereby making the transition from one to the other less jarring. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Nice point. Universe=atomTalkContributions 13:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Hindustani ?

Do we need this newly added demonym listed in the Infobox ? I know it is used in literary and historical context, but AFAIK the term is not used in any official documents or formal (non-literary) writing. Also the cited source is a lexical database which groups "cognitive synonyms", and hence has grouped "Hindu, Hindoo, Hindustani (a native or inhabitant of Hindustan or India)". I could see adjectives like Bharati/Bharatiya listed instead, but even that is very rarely (if ever) used as a demonym for India in English. Thoughts?
Also, anyone know why the "‡)" symbols appear before the lat/long coordinates of New Delhi in the infobox ? Abecedare 01:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need "Hindustani." Were we to allow historical demonyms, the list could be very long. As for the "‡)" symbol, it seems to be an artifact of the lat/long, a recent problem I'm guessing. Other country pages like Pakistan, China, Nepal, ... have similar problems. We could remove the lat/long info for New Delhi (which seems to be different anyway from that on the New Delhi page) for now. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your opinions. I added the demonym because Hindustani is used frequently by Indians themselves at the conversational level as well as in several Bollywood movies. For example see the film title, Phir Bhi Dil Hai Hindustani. In other words, the demonym is not only a historical word but is still used today. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 03:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any reason why we should add Hindustani. "The term is used in conversation frequently" is subjective. As I have witnessed the usage of term is not so frequent. Again, "several Bollywood movies" is subjective. Even if it is used in movies, that's not a good reason to add it here. At most the term can be used in Hindi wikipedia or any other language wikipedia where the term is in use.(I haven't come across the word Hindustani in Kannada. Instead, the term widely used is "Bharatiya".) Gnanapiti 03:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. I don't know about the movies, but this is the "India" page of the English Wikipedia, and Websters' main entry for India, refers to "Indian" as the demonym: "of or from the subcontinent of India : of the kind or style prevalent in the subcontinent of India : INDIAN" Also, according to the OED, "Hindustani" is "A native of Hindustan; a Hindu or Muslim of Upper India." That means that regardless of how Indians use "Hindustani" in conversation, in the English language "Hindustani" still retains its historical meaning, i.e. a native of Northern India." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
interestingly, the OED also gives a meaning of Hindustani as equivalent to Urdu, not "Hindi+Urdu" (and adds, "By earlier writers sometimes applied to Hindi itself."). We may need to review our definition of Hindustani. "WordNet" is obviously not a "reliable source". dab (𒁳) 11:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Dab, Yes, the Hindustani language use to be the same as Urdu (or, more correctly, Urdu use to be the same as Hindustani). The Hindustani page does say belatedly (towards the end of the lead paragraph), "In fact, before the Partition of British India, the terms Hindustani and Urdu were synonymous." As far as I am aware, things began to change after 1947 (or perhaps starting with the poetry of Iqbal a little earlier), when Urdu, especially in Pakistan, began to acquire its highly Persianized literary vocabulary; contemporaneously, in India, modern Hindi (which had emerged in the late 19th century) began to move even more in the opposite direction, adding all kinds of Sanskrit neologisms. The term "Hindi-Urdu" was created by linguists (I'm guessing in the 1960s) as a more descriptive and neutral (since Hindustan also meant India, which, after 1947, was a different entity) replacement for "Hindustani" (or old Urdu). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
PS You might be interested in reading the excerpts from David Laitin's paper at the end of the section here. Laitin, who says, "Gandhi also emphasized the need for an indigenous all-India language as something of grave need, and promoted Hindustani, a north Indian koine that blurred the distinction between Hindi and Urdu," is also not quite correct. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
PPS And here is the entry, "Hindostanee" in Hobson-Jobson (not always completely reliable, considering it was written in 1886, but correct here). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
that's all very well, but I am still surprised that the current (2007) OED has "Urdu" and adds that in earlier times it used to mean Hindi. --dab (𒁳) 13:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, my version of OED, which is the current on-line version (actually the 1989 second edition) says for entry Urdu, "A. n. Formerly, = HINDUSTANI n. 2; in recent use distinguished from Hindustani (the lingua franca) and designated as the official language of Pakistan." For Hindustani it says, "2. The language of the Muslim conquerors of Hindustan, being a form of Hindi with a large admixture of Arabic, Persian, and other foreign elements; also called Urdu, i.e. zaban-i-urdu language of the camp, sc. of the Mogul conquerors. It later became a kind of lingua franca over all India, varying greatly in its vocabulary according to the locality and local language." You are right, the "Hindustani" definition could certainly be improved. For one, what they mean by "Hindi" is not modern Hindi, but the "Hindi" dialect that was spoken in the Delhi area in the 16th or 17th century; and by "Urdu" they don't mean modern Urdu, but what was called Urdu in the 19th century. Perhaps someone should write to them, but, given that it is the OED, they might have reasons for the choice of words ... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
you are right, I suppose our Hindustani article is doing alright. dab (𒁳) 13:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

First Woman President

The first woman president will take oath.

--Florentino floro 04:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

As User:Abecedare has already explained in the edit summary, although the news is latest and of much importance it doesn't really fit into the main space of this article which is supposed be a high level Summary style article on India. Thanks for showing interest in the betterment of article though. Hope to see more such constructive edits from you in the future. Gnanapiti 05:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Footnote in Infobox

The second footnote in the infobox states that "This includes only Indian-administered territory" (or something like that). That is present where it states the area of India, the reason of which is logically deductible. However, why is it present where it states the latitude and longitude of New Delhi? Is that at all related to Indian-administered territory? Universe=atomTalkContributions 16:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The ‡) symbol in the lat/long of New Delhi, is just an artifact of (or rather the result of a bug in) the lat/long program. The same problem exists on other country pages, where other footnotes symbols appear. I am removing the lat/long info for New Delhi for now, until the bug in lat/long has been fixed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Why does it say India is multi ethnic?

If you go to the CIA's world factbook website, it says that India is somewhere over 70% Indian - Aryan & 25% (or so) Dravidian. (I dont agree with the term Dravidian) but the point is, India is not "MULTI ETHNIC" 21:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

nonsense. "Indo-Aryan" and "Dravidian" are huge linguistic super-groups, not single ethnicities. You might as well say they're all Homo sapiens (which is also true, of course). dab (𒁳) 21:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I wonder if User: is confusing ethnicity with race (whatever that is). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
yes; race used to mean "breed, type" and could apply to groups smaller than an ethnos, and has now come to mean "super-phyllum" or what. Racism and related trouble is first and foremost a semantic confusion. dab (𒁳) 22:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
You people havn't done your research. If you ask an Iranian what they are, I mean after the Persian part, they will say Aryan (at least some will). ANd the same can be said for some Afghans, Pakistanis, and Indians. I mean this is not a debate. Many people from this region say there Aryan. And this can be said for some Europeans (of course some of the Euorpeans who believe there Aryan, might have a racist version of that, similar to that of a white supremacist group)....Anyway.....the point is.....Even the CIA recognizes that most Indian people are INDO-ARYAN. Now if you want to say India is multi ethnic fine I know u people are not going to understand what im saying cuz some of u might not be Indian. But this article should at least say somewhere in the start of the article that India is said to possibly be the homeland of the Aryans. 08:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Ultimately, we are all from Africa, including you and me. Our ancestors left Africa only about 50,000 years ago. That is the big story. After they left Africa, whether they came straight to India along the coastal route (as some ancestors of the Adivasis, India's original inhabitants, did, or as the ancestors of the native Andaman islanders did), or they migrated a little later out of Africa into the region of Western India/Pakistan/Iran along the coastal route, then migrated into Central Asia, then into Europe, and (for some) then back into Iran and India, as it apparently happened for some Indo-Aryans (according to Y-chromosome evidence), it doesn't really matter. The DNA is more or less the same for all humans. As for what is the homeland of the Aryans? According to most historical linguists, it is Southern Ukraine, west of the Dneiper River, not India. It is people in that region, who are considered by mainstream opinion in historical linguistics, to be the original speakers of PIE (Proto-Indo-European). Sanskrit is a descendant of that language. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Without discussing origins or Indians, there are hundred of different ethnicities in India (e.g. Bengali, Gujrati, Tamil, Assamese) etc. I believe our anon friend is utterly confused by the words Ethnicity and Race. Since it has already been pointed out to him, I believe reiterating the same thing would be pointless unless he reads the previous comments. --Ragib 19:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Total Area of India

3 Questions:

  • What is India's area considering all areas under actual administration and total area as claimed by Indian government?
  • Similarly, the same data for Pakistan (actual and claimed)?
  • What are the CIA figures based on (their considerations)?

Please mention the source you refer to gather your data. KH 14:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

...... *waiting* KH 09:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Total area of India as per India yearbook and indian govt website is 32,87,263 sq km. [7] However CIA website states it as 3,287,590 sq km. [8] I guess we should go by the figures stated by Indian govt and make the necessary changes in the article.Gprince007 14:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Help on Indian law

Hello, I am an editor from Britain who mainly does the law pages. I wanted to request some contributions from either experts or people who know a little about the Indian legal system for the Indian law page. I thought this would be the best place to ask. What does Indian law say on issues of contract, trusts, property, and criminal law? How many decisions of the House of Lords remain in the common law in India? Are you still burdened (like us!) with Donoghue v. Stephenson in tort law? To what extent has Indian common law followed its own path since independence, and how influential does Commonwealth jurisprudence remain? What is the constutional and administrative law balance between the state and federal levels? And so on... If people could help out at the Indian law page I would be very grateful. Wikidea 01:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the resident expert on Indian Law is user:Lexmercatoria, who sadly seems to have withdrawn from the WP enterprise. I am hoping that this is temporary. I have already left a post on his talk page encouraging him to return. Perhaps you could post your message there as well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal of statement

I removed this recently added statement from the lead:

Historically, South Asia was always famous as the richest region of the globe [9].

for the following reasons:

  • It is not directly connected with the Republic of India, which is the subject of this article.
  • It, while true if interpreted in certain contexts, is vague overly-broad (and arguably incorrect) in its current formulation (South Asia? always?)
  • It is sourced to an essay in the Time magazine by William Dalrymple, and not to some scholarly article. As such it is equivalent to an Op-Ed piece which is usually taken as a reliable source for the author's opinions but not necessarily the stated facts. (see discussion here)

If other editors think that the past wealth of India/South Asia is a worthy topic to be covered in the main India page, we should find reliable academic sources that document the relevant times and statistics, to use as citations. Abecedare 07:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. No need for that recently added sentence. I noticed that there were some other minor (redundant or incorrect) changes made in the lead in the last week or so. I have reverted those as well. Also, the preposition that seems to go with "market exchange rates" in the literature is "at," not "by," i.e. "at market exchange rates," rather than "by market exchange rates." So, I've changed that as well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I strongly disagree. This was a quote from a Renowned Historian William Dalrymple, and QUOTED by TIME Magazine. The quote is relevant because is describes the history of India and it's influence around the World.

This had also been backed up by Renowned Economic Historian and former OCED Head Angus Maddison. You can find it in the List of regions by past GDP (PPP) and also in his research in The World Economy: Historical Statistics.

Your Case isn't Strong. You are merely using blanketed statements with no real substance. I will change it later if I don't see a strong case. You can't say that's not a relevant quote, unless you disagree with the MEANING behind it, and your trying to use Censorship. This leaves the impression that your intentions are questionable. Can you provide anything to PROVE your case? Cosmos416 15:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Cosmo416, I have reverted your edit because it is redundant. It echoes what has already been said in the second paragraph (lead). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Fowler, it is not redundant, and I see no clear mention of this quote in the same context. First you said the facts were incorrect, and now your saying it's very repeptive? That's a complete lie. It sounds like your trying to marginalize historical facts.

Why are you fighting this so hard? Do you have any real argument? I have provided 2 VERY Reputable sources, that deal with India's influence throughout history. Cosmos416 21:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Cosmos, here is the sentence from the second sentence where the basic point is made: "Home to the Indus Valley civilization and a region of historic trade routes and vast empires, the Indian subcontinent was identified with its commercial and cultural wealth for much of its long history." (emphasis added) If you wish to add a citation to the Angus Maddison paper to the sentence, you are welcome to do so.
Also I trust that your original edit was well-motivated and never questioned your motivation or truthfulness - I urge you to extend F&F and me the same courtesy. Thanks. Abecedare 01:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and added the citation to Angus Maddison's book myself. Abecedare 01:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Abecedare, I understand your concern (as I would have about your intentions aswell), and I know I'm acting in good faith, as I have provided a Quotation from a Historian William Dalrymple in article he wrote for TIME Magazine.

I have also provided the secondary source of Economic Historian and former OCED Head Angus Maddison. The statistical resources in his research in The World Economy: Historical Statistics are also mentioned and provided in the List of regions by past GDP (PPP). I actually have the Maddison book, and will provide more statical data as a secondary source if needed. Cosmos416 14:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but these historical GDP estimates are unreliable. They are based on many conjectures about economies of a thousand years ago. The Wikipedia article is the work of one editor Jagged85, whose edits on the Indian mathematics page I have found to be exaggerated. For example, there is no agreement even among Indian economic historians on the economy of Mughal India, let alone early medieval India. There are some who think that there was widespread recession during many periods and others who think that the recession only affected parts of north India. The bottom line is that statement is too definitive and too conjectural. It does not belong anywhere on the India page, much less the lead. You are welcome to add it to the List of whatever ... you quote. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Since *this article* is about the Republic of India, and not the Indian subcontinent, such claims of economic data pre-1947 are irrelevant. Both Pakistan and Bangladesh can claim that the same quote applies to them as well. Mughal India <> Republic of India. The Time Magazine quote applies to Historical Indian subcontinent, and NOT to RoI, the modern country. --Ragib 00:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

As I had guessed, there are problems with Maddison's book. Here are some excerpts from a review by Bryan Haig (Australian National University), Economic Record, volume 81, 2005.
(I have added excerpts from reviews of other books by Maddison to the discussion page here.) If Maddison's estimates for Australia from the 19th century, moves Haig, an expert on Australian national accounts statistics, to say that "by the standards of Australian official statisticians, they (Maddison's estimates) are inaccurate and irrelevant as a measure of Australian real income in the 19th century," then I am afraid it is hard to pin much confidence on Maddison's estimates of India from first millennium. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Ragib, I didn't see your post. I agree with you. The sentence introduced by Cosmos416 at the very best belongs to some economic history article, and there too it needs to be accompanied by a discussion of the statistics' likely inaccuracies per the critique of Brian Haig. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

PS Well, Cosmos416 and others, have already edited the Economic History of India article and introduced many inaccuracies there. For example, Maddison is quoted twice and the second time called a "Cambridge historian." In fact, Maddison was an undergraduate at Cambridge, who after attending a few graduate schools chose not to go for a Ph.D., worked with the OECD in Paris, and finally at the age of 52, joined Groningen University in 1978 and stayed there until his retirement. Could someone please keep an eye on that article? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


Look at the French article on India.[10] Beautiful. Many sections and beautiful images. Need to learn from that and if adopting the style of it, by including more sections and the beautiful images, this article can be improved a lot. Chanakyathegreat 16:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

What to learn? Wikipedia is not about creating sections and adding images. That's a beautiful article, I agree, but keep in mind that this is a featured article. Gnanapiti 22:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

External links of "General reference"

I feel the external links of the General reference section should be removed. They all give only information that would be present in this article (and other related articles) if it were complete, thus not respecting the first item of the list of Links normally to be avoided ("Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article"). However they could be used in references according to WP:EL#References_and_citation. Moreover Britanica requires registration, thus violating item 6 of the previously mentioned list of forbidden external links ("Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content"). BernardM 12:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I support retaining the General reference links (especially CIA factbook and LOC), since they do provide an independent and reputable source for trustworthy and comprehensive information, which expands upon the content of the article. Also, as per my reading of the WP:EL guidelines, these links are not "forbidden"; their inclusion simply needs to be given careful thought, which I think has been done in this instance. Any other thoughts or suggestions ? Abecedare 15:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Negotiation Cont'd

Folwer & Folwer,

“PS Well, Cosmos416 and others, have already edited the Economic History of India article and introduced many inaccuracies there.”

(1) Watch yourself; DON’T make FALSE incriminations against users. It can come back to haunt you.

(2) You’ve changed your argument 4 Times! (And continuously refuse to even show any hard proof.

(a.) First you said the facts were incorrect, I proved you wrong by providing 2 Reputable sources. (I never said I was relying on Maddsion, so STOP putting words into others mouth, Got it?

(b.) Second, you claimed it was Repetitive, I caught you in a LIE and you are trying to marginalize historical facts.

(c.) Third, you claimed that Dalrymple is not a historian, when in fact it says so in his Wikipedia Bio, on other Reputable sites. Another Lie you’ve been caught in.

(d.) Fourth, You have resorted to choosing which source is more reliable than the other…First, I doubt you have any credentials, and YOU are in NO position to critique people with credentials, and who are internationally known..

(e.) You listed and gave the impression that Brian Haig as being an “expert” in economics. He’s not an Economic Historian, he ‘s Psychology professor! Lol. Explain to all of us how a unknown psychology professor writing a criticism makes him the authority? And can you please list the “Other Experts” as well in detail. Which links sources, sentence number, etc.

So you just gave a complete lie. So I see no relevance in his criticism, he’s not even worthy enough to have an article about him in wikipedia, is well known internationally.

(3) I said that Maddison could be used as a Secondary Source, and I’m using the TIME magazine as the Primary Source, so your objections up til now have simply shown you really don’t want this quote in the article, because you like what is conveys.

(4) Another user has reverted and you keep making up new reasons in hope everyone else will give up. You sound remarkably similar to two USERS on here. Maybe we should do an IP check on a to find out what the real deal is.

(BTW: Maddison was former head of the ‘’’OEEC’’’, which is now called the ‘’’OCED’’’)

You are just finding new ways of to disagree, cause conflict, and instigative edit wars. In the end, you have no intention of Negotiating, or even showing any Solid proof.

Stick to the Quotation given originally, lets negotiate, stop trying to sideline it. If you don’t want to be a constructive part of the process, or even willing to be flexible, then don’t bother.

Edits: “Historically, South Asia was always famous as the richest region of the globe.”

Quotation by Historian William Dalrymple, in an Article for TIME magazine . [P.S: William Dalrymple's latest book, The Last Mughal: The Fall of a Dynasty, Delhi 1857, has just been awarded the Duff Cooper Prize for History and Biography],28804,1649060_1649046_1649026,00.html

Cosmos416 00:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Going on Google and doing a search on "Brian Haig" is not the best way of checking the antecedents of "Bryan Haig" (Can you tell the difference? It is spelled differently.) Bryan Haig, is a economic historian at the Australian National University and former editor of the Review of Income and Wealth. As for Maddison being "head of OEEC," first of all, I do know that OEEC changed its initials in the 1960s; however, Maddison was never Head of either OEEC or OECD. He was, as he says in his own biography (see the Angus Maddison page that I recently copy edited), head of the economics division and later promoted to Assistant Director of the Economic Development Department. Do you know how big the OECD is? This site will give you an idea. The big boss of OECD, in any case is called the Secretary-General and Maddison was in never in any danger of being even remotely considered for that post. As I have indicated above, I have added excerpts from reviews of four books by Maddison to another discussion page.
Sorry to be blunt, but please don't delude yourself that there is some negotiation going on here. Wikipedia doesn't work like that. As I said earlier, your statement that South Asia was historically the richest region on earth, is fraught with too many problems to belong to anywhere on the India page, much less the lead. Quoting Dalrymple or Time magazine, serves no purpose. Dalrymple is a popular historian, not an academic historian. (If you think he is an academic historian, then please tell us where he got his Ph. D. and which academic journal he has published articles in.) There is a legion of popular historians out there and all their pronouncements on the topics of the day are not worthy of Wikipedia. Believe me, when it comes to economic history of India, Maddison, problematic as he is, is a lot more credible that Dalrymple. Finally, I suggest you read Types of source material. "Primary" and "secondary" sources don't mean the first and second. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You keep making the WRONG assumption that the Maddison's work is inaccurate, while it is referenced in other scholarly research. Most Research will have some form of Criticism, but whether which side it falls on is not YOUR DECISION.


You've already changed your arguments at least SERVERAL times as shown above. This Quotation by Historian William Dalrymple, is the SOURCE, from an Article for TIME magazine .

“Historically, South Asia was always famous as the richest region of the globe.”,28804,1649060_1649046_1649026,00.html

Now can you show reputable sources that DIRECTLY REFUTE that QUOTATION? IF not, you don't have a case, still.

Cosmos416 16:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

If the quote is Historically, South Asia was always famous as the richest region of the globe, why do you want to add it to the India article?. Wouldn't it be better to put it in South Asia, after all, this region includes several countries besides India. --Victor12 17:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
If you insist on this quote here, shouldn't we add the exact same quote and claim to Pakistan and Bangladesh too? After all, the quote and all references are to South Asia, of which "Republic of India" (this article) is a part. Please focus on the subject of *this article* which is the modern republic. Any pre-1947 references to "India" doesn't mean the modern republic, rather a superset consisting of RoI, Pakistan and Bangladesh. --Ragib 18:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that Cosmos416 (talk · contribs) has NOT read the reference he's trying to add, I request reading it again ... it says Historically, South Asia was always famous as the richest region of the globe. South Asia is not India alone. Per WP:V, we can't add such a subjective claim without any reference, and if you add a reference, it must actually support what you are claiming. Further addition or misquoting of this would just be plain trolling. Thank you. --Ragib 18:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Economy of India

I am not a registered user of Wikipedia, so someone who is might want to edit the following bit in the article on India: "Although income inequality in India is relatively small (Gini coefficient: 32.5 in year 1999- 2000)[7] it has been increasing of late. Despite significant economic progress, a quarter of the nation's population earns less than the government-specified poverty threshold of $0.40/day."

This recent article shows that more than 77 percent of Indians(836 million) live on less than .50 cents per day:

While the official Indian government figures state only 26 percent of Indians are living in poverty, international figures, such as the World Bank list anyone making less than 1 dollar a day as living in extreme poverty:

That would put, at the very least, 77 percent of Indians in the "extreme poverty" category.

I think it is important that Wikipedia adds the information from this most recent Reuters article(and the report it cites) in order to give a more even-handed look at poverty in India rather than simply cite/repeat official Indian government statistics. I don't have a Wikipedia account, so I can't really do this myself, but for the sake of credibility, I hope someone does take into account this new news article and report.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:56, August 15, 2007

Thanks for your post. Although Reuters is not always a quotable source, I agree that in this case it is reliably reporting something the Government of India itself has recently stated. I agree oo that a change will need to be made on the India page, but it would be good to actually see the report. Do you have a web site for it? I know that it was reported in today's New York Times (not the exact statistic, but the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's reference to it yesterday). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I do not agree with the classification "extreme poverty." That is simply a ridiculous jump of putting two and two together. The notion that you can apply a universal $1 a day number to classify poverty universally is also ridiculous. Their is a very good reason why the government of India has its own poverty line. Even national poverty lines are fuzzy and do not give a clear picture as cost of living can change dramatically from one part of country to another.--Blacksun 09:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
This, as you will yourself recall, has been discussed on these pages before. Please read the discussion here on the Government of India's poverty line. As for "extreme poverty," I agree that it is not for us to characterize it, it is enough to provide the numbers (per capita daily income etc.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, the actual report can be found here:

It's actually a very interesting document. Some good information that could be used for the India page(s). It is also probably the most recent report of its kind.

Oh, by the way, if you(or anyone else here) is a dedicated researcher of these topics and wants to transfer portions of some of these reports onto Wikipedia, here is the NCEUS website. Some other good reports on it:

Here is one more link that gives a longer synopsis of the report than the Reuters version: —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 23:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Will take a look at it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

PS I am a little mystified why the gentleman in the Hindu newspaper report is smiling. Seems a little grotesque for a report that is so somber. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Their are various agencies that come out with such data and often it is conflicting depending on their methods. Here is an article where the author makes some very valid points about various holes in the way this particular data was collected and analysed: --Blacksun 09:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, NCEUS report (according to the NY Times) is being taken very seriously by the current government (which includes at least two very capable economists, Manmohan Singh and Montek Ahluwalia). As for your link, I don't know who Mr. Jain is, but as a columnist for the "Business Standard" he has a likely ax to grind. I agree though that the report should be read and the statistic first stabilized in a daughter page like Poverty in India before it is included in the India page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, there is a good chance that the NCEUS report is pretty on the mark. Indian government organizations aren't exactly known for painting India, especially India's economy, in bad light. The NCEUS report is a rarity among official Indian government reports. Especially when it comes to poverty--instead of adhering to international standards, like the World Bank's measure for poverty(either 1 to 2 dollars per day per person), India has come up with its own standard for poverty that has to do with...caloric intake, ignoring issues like shelter, infastructure, health care, etc when assessing the expenses and needs of the poor. Too much of the "we need to paint India as a superpower" mentality. Unfortunately, the Indian government's official line on their levels of poverty have been universally accepted in statistics, including Wikipedia. I mean, it's a little bizarre. Wikipedia's article on poverty cites the international standards for poverty, on one hand, but on the other, quotes the official Indian government party line on poverty in articles on India...even when the Indian government comes out with stats like 77 percent of its population lives under .50 cents a day. Here are a couple of articles that discuss the problems with the poverty stats given by the official line: and
All in all, I suspect counter articles to the NCEUS as written by shills of specific interests that don't like what the report might herald. But as you said, the Prime Minister is not only not dismissing the NCEUS report, he's taking it quite seriously.
P.S.: Yes, the picture of him smiling was odd, when you consider the report he was delivering.
I noticed that you provided no real counter arguments except bunch of unsubstantiated b.s. like "Indian government organizations aren't exactly known for painting India in bad light." In fact, it is normal for Indian government agencies to RAISE growth rates few years down the road after more accurate data analysis is done. That would point towards modest reporting not exaggeration. However, it really does not matter whether you label 77% of the population as extremely poor or not because the reality is not dependent on what you might propagate on Wikipedia. --Blacksun 15:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I find it ironic that you've cited one article that calls into question the finding of an Indian government organization as *exaggerated*--a report that has received wide acceptance in the press and the Indian government, including the Prime Minister, as your basis for ignoring the report, but in the next breath, state that Indian government agencies tend to be *modest* in their reporting. And that you call my remarks "unsubstantiated B.S.", while you cite a single article written by a virtual unknown with tenuous, at best, arguments against the widely accepted NCEUS report as a reason to keep the NCEUS statistics off of Wikipedia and to call into question previously reported rates of povery in India. If you had any real interest in the topic, you'd do a little research on your own--I gave links to just two articles that call into question the hype around poverty eradication and poverty stats given by the Indian government(and here is another:; there are dozens more articles and books on the very same subject. But, as you said, it won't matter what you propogate on Wikipedia; reality is reality. Indian poverty won't disappear just because you or some guy in some magazine say so. I've said my bit about this topic and I have no Wikipedia account, nor do I have a greater investment in this topic than what I've said thus far, so I'll leave it to better heads to decide whether the NCEUS report is kept out of the India article or not and hope the facts don't get hijacked entirely by one person. Until then, I'll wait for you to declare on Wikipedia that India's poverty rate has dropped to 0%, citing some obscure and unreliable journalist on...Business Standard. Then we can all go out and celebrate this new "reality"! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) being taken very seriously by the current government (which includes at least two very capable economists, Manmohan Singh and Montek Ahluwalia)...

  • For starters, MS and MSA are hardly the only quotable economists on this issue. Also, 'taking it seriously' from an academic standpoint isnt the same as using it to pass judgement about poverty levels. Neither MS nor MSA extrapolate the findings of the NCEUS report to claim that poverty levels worse than what the Govt., of India says it is. Like Blacksun points out and as commonsense tells us, a single $-a-day yardstick for the entire world is ridiculous.

...I don't know who Mr. Jain is,...

  • Whoever he is, as a columnist for Business Standard, he is infinitely more quotable than you are.

... but as a columnist for the "Business Standard" he has a likely ax to grind...

Reliability of a source when the writing poor

Can a source be reliable when the writing is poor? Here is an example.

Exercises for high-school students. Please correct the following sentences inadvertently provided by Mr. S. Jain, columnist for the Business Standard, in his column India whining. Mistakes of grammar, usage and internal consistency are indicated in italics. Here are two examples. The exercises follow in the compressed section.

  • Example: "A full critique of the NCEUS report will require much more space than this column affords, ..." ("A full critique of the NCEUS report will require more space than is afforded to this column, ...")
  • Example: "Since the unit records of the 2004-05 round of the National Sample Survey (NSS) were made available to the NCEUS, the chances of it having read the data wrong are low." ("chances of it reading the data wrong are small.")

How seriously does one take such a "source" when its prose would not pass muster in a half-way decent Wikipedia article? User Universe=atom will vouch for this I'm sure. Such a source, in my view, can't hold a candle to peer-reviewed research in academic journals, or even well-written newspaper columns. Contrast this now with a different column and columnist (that I found as a result of clicking on of the links above). I don't know the columnist C. P. Chandrasekhar either (and their writing might not be perfect) but I can tell at a glance that s/he writes clearly. The columnist writes in order to communicate. Mr. Jain's writing, in contrast, is strained and full of attempts at literary elegance, when its simple sentences are poorly written and lack clarity. The world of newspapers, such as it is, is full of "sources" that can lined up to support the most outlandish assertions. Clarity in the writing is, consequently, ever more important; lack of clarity hinders the evaluation of a source's content.

As for user:Sarvagnya's sentence, "For starters MS and MSA are not the only quotable economists on this issue ..." I don't know which economists he has in mind, but the ones I know of who have written on this topic (including some of happy memory) like V. K. R. V. Rao, K. N. Raj, Jagdish Bhagwati, T. N. Srinivasan, Amartya Sen, Partha Dasgupta, ... are unlikely to be in Mr. Jain's camp. They are also infinitely less quotable in grammar books. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

bah! Sarvagnya 22:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

English as Second Language Speakers in India

You will recall that last week some folk tried to insert a sentence about India having the largest number of English language speakers of any country in the world. The number of speakers, it was claimed, was 350 million. Well I looked into it and discovered that the number is grossly exaggerated (more than three times the actual number). I have since corrected the page List of countries by English-speaking population. India does not have 350 million English language speakers. The number is more like 85 to 100 million, which includes both people who speak English as a second language and those who speak it as a third language. India has the second largest English speaking population after the US. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems like your data came from 1991 Census. I would be interested in last census data if it can be tracked down. It is quite possible that their is a significant increase. --Blacksun 09:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
My numbers, which are really the latest numbers of TESOL-India (Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, India), are approximately 55 million more than the Census of India's numbers from the 1991 data. TESOL-India's site, India: World's Second Largest English-Speaking Country explains Wikipedia's bloated numbers, i.e. the difference between the 350 million number mentioned on this Wikpidedia page and the more plausible 100 million number:
I agree that it would be best if we had 2001 statistics, but for some reason it takes the Census of India a long time (a decade?) to work up the statistics. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Critical Attention all concerned associated with WP:IND

The article India, is now in a not so good condition. There are a lot of visible flaws in it. I think it would be bad to put it in WP:FAR. I am pointing out some of my concerns:

  • Inconsistant use of ciations in Lead, going with the trend it would be better not to have any citations in the lead.
  • Many parts of the article are not ciationed properly, mainly Government, Politics, Foreign relations and the military, Geography, Culture
  • Missing section- Transport, Media
  • Elaborate-
    • Climate- Temperature (create a seperate section) take data from Climate of India, it is a FA,
    • geography-political geography, neighbouring countries, latitude, longitude, timezone, size
    • Sports (better to create a seperate section)
  • Link to sub articles, see also, adding of appropriate templates.
  • The section 'Subdivisions' may be turned into prose. Name the largest state and district in terms of area/population.

This are my premilinary observations. Pls discuss the matter in Talk:India and improve the quality of the article. In short my main concerns are verifiability and compehensiveness. Amartyabag TALK2ME 15:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the review Amartyabag - it is always useful to have more (constructive) independent views of the article. Here is my quick response to a couple of points you raise:
  • As WP:LEAD specifies the lead is not exempt from the verifiability requirement. So if it presents some facts (that are disputable) and not explicitly repeated later in the article (eg the 7000 km coastline), they need to be cited. There is no consistency requirement to cite everything or nothing in the lead. That said, I agree with you that one or two citations from the lead can perhaps be moved to later sections.
  • The topic of additional sections (on Sports, Media etc) has been thoroughly discussed in the past and the current consensus is that more sections are not desirable or warranted. Of course, if you or any other editors feel strongly about this issue, it can be reopened, but hopefully only after the earlier discussions have been read and considered by the proposer.
  • As per WP:SS, a summary style article need not cite every detail that is referenced in the sub-article, so we don't need to reference many of the undisputed facts in this article - especially since several of the sub articles are themselves FA. But if there is anything in particular that you think needs referencing, it should be relatively easy to find appropriate references on this well-covered subject.
  • I didn't understand what you meant by "Link to sub articles, see also, adding of appropriate templates.". Can you clarify ?
Cheers. Abecedare 16:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I think certain templates like Countries in Asia, SAARC, etc may enhance the article. Amartyabag TALK2ME 10:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
That has in fact been tried earlier and I had happened to argue against it. You can look at the discussion in the archives and see if you disagree with the points made. Thanks. Abecedare 14:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I don't mind a review. Good things come out such reviews (generally). Ofcourse, it will pass it and never be further listed in WP:FARC. So lets see whats the outcome. Perfection comes with criticism. KH 14:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Are we going to keep Toda hut image in the article for the centuries to come? As if the hut image is representing the whole cultural scenario of India. Gnanapiti 15:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I think the Toda hut doesnot represent culture of India properly. I will propose some of the photos of festivals like Diwali can do justice. I will propose the photo
Koodiyattam is an artform traditionaly performed in Kerala, India. Recognised by UNESCO as a Human Heritage Art
from South India. Easteren and NE is not represented by photos. Amartyabag TALK2ME 06:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
One more thing I can suggest, which I think can end this debate about the use of photos in the culture section. Lets select 1 photo from each state (if available) related to the culture of the state and we can change these photos every fortnight (15 days), much importance can be given to any picture of festival which falls during the period. What all other think about this??? We can have a straw poll, to have a consensus on this matter. Amartyabag TALK2ME 06:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Amartyabag, please read through the extensive discussion on the subject of images in the talk page archives (particularly 22-25) before reopening this Pandora's box. IMO this topic always produces more heat than light, and our efforts may be better directed at improving some other project pages than playing around with the images here, which will likely effect the reader's experience only at the margins. Abecedare 06:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
A reminder to all- Sport in India and Culture of India are in bad shape. KH 16:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


I dont know if others feel this way now, but I know in the past many of us thought that the pictures and the article were a little dull (for example the Ajanta Caves image is unclear, the Agni pic is a lil dull, the Toda image doesnt represent all of India) Does anyone else feel that way? Nikkul 14:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Ajanta image, if you believe it is dull I recommend you to send the image to Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates#Nomination_for_delisting since that is the first criterion. Personally, I don't think the Ajanta or the Agni image is dull. As for the Toda Hut, there is no image that represents all of India apart from a map of India. Do you want the entire page to be full of maps? :) GizzaDiscuss © 03:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
If no single image can represent India's culture, how is it that you think the Toda hut is representative? Also, is it even a hut?! Some time ago, somebody suggested that it was actually a temple. As for the Deepawali image... yes... I also think it'd be more representative than the Toda 'hut'. But Nikkul, which is the image that you're talking about? Sarvagnya 20:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
See my comments in the Talk:India#Critical Attention all concerned associated with WP:IND section above. This may end the debate about the use of photos. Amartyabag TALK2ME 05:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me just point out that I was the one who brought up the Diwali photo thing before, so I would totally be with you in replacing the Toda hut picture with a Diwali picture. In fact, i have already gotten pics of diwali to be posted here. Here are my suggestions: Nikkul 15:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Replace the toda hut pic with a Diwali pic because:
    • 1- Toda Hut does not represent all of India; only a tiny number of indians are Toda's
    • 2- Even Toda's dont live in those huts anymore. They live in modern homes as someone else had pointed out earlier
    • 3- The Toda image does not represent any one region of India
    • 4- Diwali is celebrated all over India by more than 800 million people
  • Replace the Ajanta Caves image with the Taj Mahal image because:
    • 1- The Ajanta Caves image is dull and can barely be seen
    • 2- The Taj Mahal is more historical than Cultural for Indians.... It's more an artifact from history than a part of modern Indian culture
    • 3- This will leave us with an option to add another image for the culture section

Please feel free to comment on any proposal —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nikkul (talkcontribs) 15:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Shoot me now.--Blacksun 15:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
A Nishi tribal wearing traditional "Hornbill" headdress.
The Indian Ocean Tsunami December 2004.
People keep saying that Toda image is not representative of India because India doesn't live in huts. The image is not about housing in India; rather, it is about decoration and art. (I won't repeat the argument, since user:Abecedare has written so eloquently about it in an earlier discussion in these pages). The Toda image is also about the painstaking care displayed by the Toda people in the hut's upkeep and maintenance. That clearly is not representative of urban India, most of which seems to have steadfast disregard for upkeep and maintenance. It, however, is representative of rural and more traditional India, where not only is upkeep a fact of life, but also where, even today, (according to 2001 census) 65% of the country resides. As for the Taj Mahal being symbol of something, I think on the contrary, it is culture, not history. The latter would be exactly the same today, had the Taj not been constructed; the former, however, would be unrecognizable without Mughal art (and its nonpareil symbol, the Taj).
BTW, I am not suggesting that nothing be changed. Here are three featured pictures that could perhaps be put somewhere in the article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I think it is unfair for the Layman to think that a majority of Indians wake up in Toda huts as is shown in the culture section. It is a misrepresentation of Indian culture since 99.99% of Indians do not live in Toda huts Nikkul 17:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)