Talk:India/Archive 27

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 20 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30


India maintaining Cordial relations?

Are you kidding me? India is perheps the only country in the world that has trouble with all its neighbours. Fought war with China, 4 wars with Pakistan, orchestrated tamil tiger movement in Sri lanka that led to a brutal terror in that country, border disputes with Bangladesh, Involvement in Maldives and Nepal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Where does it say indian has cordial relationship with neighbours? . It says "India has maintained cordial relationships with most nations". Neighbours != most nations. And the wars you talk about are all mentioned in the very next lines. --Sodabottle (talk) 04:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
As well, most countries in Asia have horrible relations with their neighbours YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 04:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
The IP has a point. it sounds like a sentence from Times of India. guess every country wants to think they are peaceful people and everyone else is evil. let us remove it. --CarTick 12:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I disagree, countries do have trouble with their neighbours but that doesnt prevent them from having cordial relations. Take South Korea for example. They are royally pissed at the Japs for their 40-year occupation and China for backing the North during the Korean war. Yet Japan and SK exchange a large number of business and tourist visitors evey year and South Korea is an active investor in China. Japanese and Chinese restraunts abound all over the country. Some guy is pissed at India, let him take it to some anti-India forum. Not here. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 14:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Guys, WP:DFTT! --RegentsPark (talk) 14:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
U'r right. Sorry I got carried away so im shortening my post , removing the irrelevant stuff. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 06:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Note/Source 153

Note 153 seems to have a bit of a problem. Not much of an issue, but I noticed it and so I thought I should point it out - the article is dated 2009, but it says it was retrieved in 2007

^ "Country profile: India". BBC. 2009-08-19. Retrieved 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

There's likely an issue of the source being updated multiple times. The retrieved date appears to be when it was first retrieved for this article, and since then, the source has been updated a few times. Aside, the source appears to have dropped the "largest cinema" bit, currently there's only a "most prolific film industry" in a sidebar, I don't think that's enough to source this sentence. Will need a better reference for that; once I find one I'll change the reference itself. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 00:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

clear visible mistakes in Topographic map of India under Geography Section

1. kaveri river was mistakenly given as kasveri river 2. krishna river was mentioned as tapati 3. godavari river was misspelled as godavara 4. mahanadi was was misspelled as manahadi 5. yamuna was was misspelled as yamunda —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Good catch. These are major errors and possibly undermine the credibility of the article. Either the spellings need to be fixed or the map should go. --Nosedown (talk) 08:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks IP. For now I have replaced the File:India Geographic Map.jpg with File:India_topo_big.jpg. The new map has major cities labeled instead of mountain ranges and rivers, and so is a hybrid political and topographic maps ... but at least it doesn't seem to have any glaring spelling errors. Abecedare (talk) 09:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

"South Asia"

This is absolute nonsense that idiots have unleashed on the world, It's not true, and cursory evaluation of a real encyclopedia will show that India's not a part of Asia. Neither is Saudi Arabia. It's only idiots who buy into this puerile nonsense. And, btw, Europe IS a part of Asia. Why don't you people go to that page and write West Asia there? Read a real dictionary or encyclopedia and you'll see. Stop catering to idiots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Oxford English Dictionary: "India, the name of a country in South Asia, ..."
Britannica Concise Encyclopedia (entry for India): "Country: South Asia ..."
Is that enough evidence? Abecedare (talk) 16:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

India image rotation

I cannot understand how some of the established users here agreed to add images shot in U.S. and other countries to the India image rotation template. The Red Panda image was shot in Munich Zoo and the Bengal Tiger image was shot in a zoo in U.S. Anyways, I have replaced the Red Panda image with one on the Common Kingfisher and I removed the Tiger image since I could not find a high quality image of the Bengal Tiger shot in India.

Secondly, there are other low quality images in the template. The first one I want to point out is -- Image:Wheel of Konark, Orissa, India.JPG. It is a ridiculously low quality image and is nothing better than what a tourist would take. I'm sorry but that image does not deserve to be in the template.

The other one of concern is Image:Shiva Bangalore .jpg. There are several disturbances in the image including a plant, people roaming around, a tent etc.

Please, there is no point in adding images just for the sake of it. --Nosedown (talk) 06:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Another recent discussion is at Talk:India/Archive_26#Some_suggestions. I personally don't see what's important/significant about Image:Shiva Bangalore .jpg and why it merits inclusion. I would prefer to replace that with some high-quality image of Hoysala or Chola architecture (if we can find one). Another image that appeared to gain consensus for inclusion was File:Toda Hut.JPG which is both extremely good quality and highly representative of the tribal culture within India. The Konark image, I would reject on quality grounds, but an image of the Konark temple is a valuable addition to the article and therefore it should be replaced with something of better quality. —SpacemanSpiff 05:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not in favor of the Toda hut image. Firstly, it represents a very small part of India's culture. If an image is added to the template, it should be noteworthy and representative of a considerable component of the diverse Indian culture. I do not see how the Toda image is important to the India article (it is important to the specific concerned articles but not the main India article), especially when there are several other more important topics which can be covered. --Nosedown (talk) 07:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Given the diversity and breadth of Indian culture, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to find a single image representative of a considerable component of it. The Toda Hut image represents a small but significant portion of India's culture - the indigenous population, which incidentally does not have a single image on the page. While even the tribal population is incredibly diverse, for the purposes of this article there is little choice but to use homogenising terms like Indian culture in order to describe or present them there. As SS has pointed out above, Image:Shiva Bangalore .jpg merits removal and replacement by another image (perhaps one of those below). Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 12:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, it eventually turned out that apart from the image on the Golden Langur, none of the images in the Flora and Fauna section were shot in India. I had a frustrating time trying to find replacements for all those images. I'm really disappointed by the lack of concern shown by other Wikipedians towards this issue. --Nosedown (talk) 07:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The Toda Hut is not a good pic of Indian Culture. Please see past discussions.
The pics of animals don't have to be taken in India. An Indian peacock in zoo in America is still Indian. If a person leaves India, does that make him not Indian? I would suggest you try to find pics from India of the same animals and have them discussed here before changing it on the main page. This is wikipedia policy. Nikkul (talk) 07:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, let me just make it clear that the original rotation has been decided by a consensus of around 20 editors. If you would like to suggest changes, please discuss it here before changing. Do not make unilateral changes to a consensus. Thanks. Nikkul (talk) 07:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

A) Provide me a list of all those "20 editors" and source confirming their approval of each of the images in the Template. You "unilaterally" added a Lotus image couple of weeks back so don't go around preaching others to seek consensus. Where was the consensus when you made this, this and this edit?
B) I will not tolerate any image not shot in India being added to this template. That's final.
You have a history of creating trouble here and seriously, I'm not going to tolerate your non-cooperative attitude. Knowing your history, I'm sure you'll revert again and if you do so, I'll be compelled to seek mediation. --Nosedown (talk) 10:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

First of all, the main monuments & animals to be included in the rotation was discussed in a consensus with around 20 editors. Please see past discussions here here here and more!

You have gone ahead and replaced entire monuments and animals without discussion. In the past, I've only improved pics of the monuments and animals that had already been AGREED upon.

The Lotus Temple was agreed upon by past consensus. I simply changed the brightness of the image.

Second of all you need to discuss ANY major changes. This is wikipedia policy!! Changing the subject of an image is TOTALLY different than changing brightness/contrast of images. For example, in the past I replaced the image of Shiva in Bangalore (which had been agreed upon in consensus) with a better clearer image of the same monument. You have replaced entire monuments without any discussion!

P.S. Do not threaten to start a edit war next time. I have worked on this page long before you started. Don't dare tell me I'm disruptive! Most of the images on India-related pages have been my contributions!

Nikkul (talk) 03:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

In November 2007, after months of intense discussions and debate, the original Culture Rotation was approved with consensus. See Here. Please do not make unilateral changes without discussion. This is wikipedia policy. Nikkul (talk) 04:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
OK, since there seems to be no clear consensus on what images go in (so far, only me and you have commented on this issue), I guess we have reached a stalemate. I'll go ahead and add those images to which we both agree (the Odissi dancer image) and remove those images for which there is no clear consensus (the Konark image). At the same time, I'll take the freedom to edit the captions since there are currently in terrible shape. --Nosedown (talk) 18:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Also, Nikkul you are yet to prove that any consensus was achieved for the images in the Flora and Fauna section. And I don't care for how long you have been editing Wikipedia. Fact remains that you are the one of the most disruptive editors over here and the fact that you have banned in the past proves that. I'm not here to edit war (neither do I have the time, nor the motivation), but you have to realize that you cannot have things your own way. --Nosedown (talk) 18:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


How about mentioning the fact that India's second official language was Persian for over 500 years. There are many words in Hindi and Punjabi languages that are borrowed from Persian. (talk)ditc —Preceding undated comment added 00:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC).

This article is about the Republic of India, not Indian civilization. The republic of India started in 1947 Nikkul (talk) 05:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

12th or 11th ?

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

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


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

The article also has a topographic map of India in the Geography section. What kind of map(s) were you looking for ? Abecedare (talk) 03:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
A circuitous route, but if you click on the Images and media at Commons link at the bottom, you can find this map category. —SpacemanSpiff 05:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
A map something like this is what's in most encyclopedias, although better quality. But this could be very helpful. I was looking for where in India Madras was, and this map has that. (talk) 07:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Collapsing the template

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

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

A key consideration in writing an encyclopedic article is making editorial decisions about the most relevant details to be included. As editors we are required to make this choice rather than presenting a reader with an indiscriminate collection of information, under the banner of "reader choice". Thus, the decision on including or excluding the largest cities template should be primarily based upon the dueness of the information, rather than secondary aesthetic concerns of whether the template is collapsed (which reduces accessibility) or not.
The current consensus, based on earlier discussion, is that the list of largest cities is arbitrary and undue information for the main India article. If anyone wishes to argue that that is not the case, we can of course reconsider, but the point of collapsing the template arises only if and when the information itself is decided to be worth including. Abecedare (talk) 22:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Abecedare. Forgive me, as I do not really understand how WP:DUE applies here. When I read that section of WP:NPOV long ago, I got the idea that it applied to cases where there are differing points of view from reputable sources about the subject of an article, and that no undue weight should be given to any particular POV. I just reread it, and it hasn't changed much. So please explain how the inclusion of a strictly informational table of city populations would qualify as UNDUE.
I read what I believe is the most recent conversation in the archive that I found here, and there seemed to be a number of ultimate possibilities that you suggested beyond actual removal of the template. Were the template's involved editors unwilling to bend? The images do seem to be a bit much, especially the one that is often duplicated in another part of the article.
Agree to putting off the accessibility issue of collapsing the template to later. I only suggested it because the purpose of collapsibility is to balance between full accessibility and article/template longevity issues.
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  22:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Due weight (and I am not talking about just WP:DUE) does not apply to points-of-views alone. It encompasses all content, and is an essential feature for any encyclopedic writing. Also refer to our earlier discussion, which essentially covered the same ground of encyclopedic articles requiring editorial discrimination, and not being a dumping ground for all information about the subject (which, when the subject is India, would be a many gigabytes of content!)
As for the previous discussion about the city population list: it is not a matter of editors being unwilling to bend. It was about editors presenting cogent arguments for why prose description of urban, rural demographics of India served a greater encyclopedic purpose than a listing of population of the 20 largest cities. The only argument presented for retaining the list was uniformity with some other existing country articles, which is not very convincing at this stage of development of wikipedia where articles are written with widely varying quality control and editorial oversight. Are there any substantive arguments for including the list in the main India article ? Abecedare (talk) 00:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Then if I read you correctly, when you invoke DUE you are not invoking the Wikipedia policy of NPOV? Is there a Wikipedia policy or guideline that does cover your opinion of due weight? Is their a policy that would not allow the inclusion of this information template?
I didn't press the Navbar issue too hard because you made some very good points for exclusion; however, your present opinion of due weight was not one of them, as I recall. Your use of "dumping ground" seems a bit inflammatory, don't you think? Use of this term may be regarded as pejorative, and when used in discussion about another editor's contributions, it can sometimes be regarded as uncivil. Editors who have put a lot of work into an article or template might become unduly volatile about such wording even though it is not your intent for that to happen. I do understand that it must seem a monumental task to be involved with such a large and popular article as India.
Yes, again, I did read the discussion and am aware of the insufficient reasoning those editors gave for keeping the template. The best substantive argument that I can think of is that the information appears to be very useful and is presented in very compact form. If one were to decide to travel to India, or if one were writing a school paper on India, such terse and direct information as is presented in the template would be an important ingredient in their plans and choices. I wonder at this point if you are still willing to consider, say, a no-image, compact version of the template? I would be glad to ask about this on the template's Talk page.
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  01:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
  • The first sentence of WP:DUE says: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." (emphasis added). But frankly what I said in the first paragraph above follows directly from wikipedia's mission of being an encyclopedia, which is even more fundamental than NPOV, RS etc. To wit, one can write an encyclopedia that presents only certain POVs, allows originial research, doesn't demand reliable sources etc, but it is impossible to write an encyclopedia (or, any work really) without having some criterion for discriminating between content to be exluded/included. On wikipedia the chosen criterion is importance as judged by coverage accorded in reliable sources.
  • The "dumping ground" phrase was pilfered from WP:ENC. I should have linked to it though, to make the allusion clear.
  • Coming to the issue of including the list of cities: Usefulness, by itself, is not a valid criterion on wikipedia for deciding what content should be included in an article. One can argue for almost any content being useful to some subset of readers (list of presidents, prime ministers, state capitals, state populations, Bharat Ratna awardees, Filmfare award winners, ... ? ) but that does not mean we include it in this article. The listing of largest India cities is available on wikipedia, and we have (IIRC) over 50,000 related articles for readers who are in interested in delving into any particular aspect of India.
  • To answer your last question: as before, I am open to considering inclusion of the template, but for reasons mentioned above and in the earlier discussion I am yet to be convinced that it is (even close to) the most important 5 kilobyes of information that we can add to this article. However I'll let others weigh in, since I sense that I am repeating myself. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 01:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, I agree that others should weigh in. I do not understand, though, why you seem to think that this template would harm the India article. You pretty much said it all in your first paragraph above. WP:V states that the "main threshold for inclusion is verifiability . . ." (emphasis from policy), and this template comes complete with what appears to meet that criterion, that main threshold: a reliable source. Usefulness, as you say, by itself is not a valid criterion, however the usefulness is not by itself. The useful information in this template is backed by a reliable source. The navbar we discussed previously did not possess that sound backing. This template does. Yet you do seem to think that it some way harms the India article. Maybe we should take a look at WP:PRESERVE, since this template was removed, and the silence in the previous discussion from the template's involved editors, while it seems to connote "consensus" for that removal, I have serious doubts that those editors were satisfied with the outcome. Seems to me that they just gave up without much of a fight because they felt that it was hopeless to try to deal with the situation. I could be wrong, but there they are, continuing to maintain the pretty much orphaned template and to watch for vandalism of it.
  • I suppose the answer to your question, "Are there any substantive arguments for including the list in the main India article ?" must be yes. Aside from the informative usefulness, there is the most substantive of all, the one you gave yourself having to do with verifiability. So if this template does not harm the article in any way, then re-inclusion of the template seems to be the logical conclusion.
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  06:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I just noticed that more images have been added to the template. I left a note on the template's Talk page that I will have to withdraw my support for returning the template to the India article unless the images are removed.
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  01:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

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

I am for this Template, BUT we need to list only top 10 or 20 cities and have 2-4 pics. Nikkul (talk) 07:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Definite no, in my opinion. The template is nice, but as Abecedare mentions above, it's undue in this article. All we need is a link to the list of most populous cities and that's present. Every section can see additions of templates like this, but all that does is draws away from the summary style of the article. —SpacemanSpiff 07:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from, 26 April 2010

Cities by population

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



1 Mumbai Maharastra 13,662,885 11 Jaipur Rajastan 2,997,114 2 Delhi Delhi 11,954,217 12 Lucknow Uttar Pradesh 2,621,063 3 Bengalouru Karnataka 5,180,533 13 Nagpur Maharastra 2,359,331 4 Kolkata West Bengal 5,021,458 14 Indore Mathya Pradesh 1,768,303 5 Chennai Tamilnadu 4,562,843 15 Patna Bihar 1,753,543 6 Hyderabad Andhra Pradesh 3,980,938 16 Bhopal Mathya Pradesh 3,792,375 7 Ahmedabad Gujarat 3,867,336 17 Thane Maharastra 1,673,465 8 Pune Maharastra 3,230,322 18 Luthiana Punjab 1,662,325 9 Surat Gujarat 3,124,249 19 Agra Uttar Pradesh 1,590,073 10 Kanpur Uttar Pradesh 3,067,663 20 Vadodara Gujaraj 1,487,956 2008 estimation[1] (talk) 11:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC) Hello Sir, Please add the Indian Cities by Population (talk) 11:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is appropriate. Firstly, you have not given a reliable source, but secondly, that kind of detail is not appropriate to this article. It is, however, well covered in List of most populous metropolitan areas in India.
If you disagree, please see what others here think, and if there is a consensus to change it, it can be altered. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  11:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Not done:Considered trivia (WP:Trivia), i.e. see United States for example. Unless you can find another large country article with this information on it.

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


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

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

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

Reverted; while there may well be unnecessary links in the article, the links to neighbouring countries are particularly relevant to a geographical article, and it is reasonable to expect that a reader interested in India may also be interested in the surrounding nations. "Overlink" is intended to reduce nuisance links, not reasonable ones. --Ckatzchatspy 22:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
As I explained in some detail above the excessive wikilinking is both distracting in the lede, a disservice to our readers, and against wikipedia's own manual of style. But I am not going to edit-war over it, and let others weigh in if they think the issue is important enough. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 06:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I think these links ought to go, the lede is a sea of blue and very distracting. Linking a laundry list is not really essential; Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Pakistan are linked within the body with more context, China finds mention in the body many times and can be linked there too. —SpacemanSpiff 07:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Abecedare, yes, I saw your explanation, and am well familiar with that particlar MoS text and exactly how it found its way into the Style Guide. (That's certainly no comment on you, by the way; it is a long-standing frustration related to tiresome MoS politics.) However, I do strongly disagree with yor statement that it is "a disservice to our readers". The real disservice lies in presuming what the readers know, and - more importantly - presuming what they might want to know. This is a geographical article and as such it is very realistic to expect that readers may wish to read related articles such as those on neighbouring countries. --Ckatzchatspy 08:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Digicomrajkumar, 12 May 2010


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

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

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

Edit request from Siddharth4, 10 May 2010

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

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

Done. I wasn't sure if Hindustani should be retained in addition to Indian and Bharatiya, so I have removed it for now for conciseness. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 16:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
The edit should be reversed - Hindustani is far more common that Bhartiya. Even Hindi cinema uses the term Hindustani e.g. Phir Bhi Dil Hai Hindustani, Raja Hindustani, Saat Hindustani, etc. I personally have never heard the term Bhartiya used to describe the people of India; Indian or Hindustani are the most commonly used terms. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 17:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree. My reckoning is that Hindustani is more prevalent than Bharatiya. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Oppose:Bhartiya is correct as Indian is a citizen of India, similarly Bhartiya is a citizen of Bharat. However Hindustani of Hindustan cannot be used as Hindustan uses a broader perspective and India is commonly referred to as Bharat, thus Bhartiya is the correct Hindi demonym of Indian.-- WorLD8115 (TalK) 18:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I understand that Bharat is used as another name for India, as is Hindustan. However, the demonym Bhartiya is never used while the demonym Hindustani, along with Indian is most oft used. With regards, AnupamTalk 18:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Bhartiya is the correct demonym per standard Hindi and also the "official" term. However, Hindustani is the more colloquially used term. Bharat is not just another name for India, it's the official name, unlike Hindustan. No opinion on increasing bloat by adding Hindustani in, but Bhartiya ought to stay. —SpacemanSpiff 18:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with SpacemanSpiff that Bhartiya is the official term. Even the National Pledge of India–India is my country, all Indians are....when translated to Hindi is read and recited in Schools as Bharat mera desh hai aur samast bhartiya mere (भारत मेरा देश है और समस्त भारतीय मेरे).....Thus Bhartiya term must be used.-- WorLD8115 (TalK) 18:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
In that case, inserting both is a good compromise since Indian, Bhartiya, and Hindustani are all used. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 20:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
It is trivial to verify that both Bharatiya and Hindustani are demonyms and adjectival forms for India in Hindi.
Now for my OR: Bharatiya seems to be significantly more prevalent as an adjectival form and especially in formal contexts (eg, Bharatiya Janta Party, Bharatiya Vayusena, Bharatiya Praudhogiki Sansthan etc), and has the advantage of corresponding to the official name of the republic. In everyday speech though, and especially when referring to a native of India (particularly, a Hindu hailing from the Hindi heartland), Hindustani is arguably more common, with Bharatiya perhaps being considered too formal. Anyway, my main point is that there is no wrong answer here: we can keep Bharatiya alone giving weight to the official terminology; keep both Bharatiya and Hindustani; or remove both, since this is the English encyclopedia. I am fine with any of the three approaches.
PS: Just found out that the word demonym itself isn't included in any of the major dictionaries (OED, M-W etc). It's a neologism coined in the 90's, which perhaps owes its popularity to wikipedia. Abecedare (talk) 21:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I think option three is best, remove this altogether. When I opined in favor of retaining Bharatiya, I was under the assumption that it was convention around here to include it, but on looking at a few other articles I see that it isn't a necessity. Leave just the English word in, and be done with it. —SpacemanSpiff 21:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
True. For example, Japan doesn't list Nippon as a demonym (can't think of any other relevant examples off-hand). Abecedare (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
That sounds good. On reflection, the Bharatiya/Hindustani naming is murky anyway with, IMRO, Bharatiya having a slight upper edge because of modern usage. --RegentsPark (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I support the inclusion of all three demonyms: Indian, Hindustani, and Bhartiya. With regards, AnupamTalk 21:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Anupam, I think you're misreading the discussion above. The proposal now is to exclude non-English demonyms altogether, not include all three.--RegentsPark (talk) 22:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Dear RegentsPark, if that appears to be the consensus then I will respectfully honor it. I hope this helps. Thanks, AnupamTalk 08:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Is their a conclusion to this discussion? I supported including all three demonyms while there was a proposal to only retain "Indian." Neither one of these suggestions has been implemented. If I do not hear anything, I will restore all three demonyms in the article. With regards, AnupamTalk 04:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I've edited the article and only the english demonym remains. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Excessive charts and tables

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

Yes, the tables have been added are completely unnecessary especially the section International rankings has to be removed completely and the religion chart also should be removed as it is clearly stated in text format in demographics section.-- WorLD8115 (TalK) 16:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Agree on both. The most prominent statistical measures (population, GDP, per capita GDP, HDI, literacy rate, Gini etc) are already provided in the text of body of the article, and the choice of the other statistical measures in the International rankings seems arbitrary. Abecedare (talk) 18:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Introduction of India

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

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

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


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

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

FYI, A standing army consist of soldiers who stand full-time with the forces. (Not all) Reserve troops are active during peacetime. So they cannot be counted in among "standing army". For eg India's Territorial Army comprises of volunteers who receive military training for sometime and and are pushed into service in an emergency only. (Mohanlal and Kapil Dev are Lieutenant Colonels in TA).Arjuncodename024 18:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


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

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

About democracy

I found it strange that u reverted my edits, you that and every body knows that India is the largest democracy in the world. So why did u reverted my edit? And 2ndly the most populous term have been used many times in other articles too therefore its better to change and make it as the largest democracy.--Kkm010as© 13:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Largest has multiple connotations, in this context, most populous is the correct term. —SpacemanSpiff 16:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Agree. we will be then endlessly arguing what "largest" means.--Sodabottle (talk) 17:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Editing request for the GDP

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

Image voting

Image rotation for Indian military

Newer inclusions

  1. It makes sense to have the various branches of the military represented in the section, rather than just the air force. --Nosedown (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Those in favor
  1. --Nosedown (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
  2. Good EV. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
  3. Agree but certain changes is required. Instead of the Su-30 MKI image which is of poor quality, File:Indian air force dhruv helicopter j4042 arp.jpg image of the HAL Dhruv will be better. Also, the stealth ship, INS Shivalik image can be added.Bcs09 (talk) 02:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Those not in favor
  • Terrible quality images. Not worthy on a Featured Article like India. Poor image quality and subject coverage. Nikkul (talk) 03:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Images should be shot in India

Newer inclusions:

  1. There are several species which are not endemic to India and these include the Bengal tiger, Nelumbo nucifera, etc. I cannot understand how someone can agree to have images of these species shot in some other country included in the India article. For example, the only thing in common between that Bengal tiger in a Florida zoo and India is that some distant relative of the tiger happens to roam in one of India's tiger reserves. Lack of concern by other Wikipedians towards this issue just showcases complete disregard for the credibility of this article. The Flora and fauna section must only include those images which depict Indian living organisms in Indian natural environment. And point is, when we have high quality images of these creatures shot in the natural Indian environment, then why borrow an image which was shot in a Florida or Munich zoo? Beats common-sense. --Nosedown (talk) 11:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
  2. I agree, images shot in India are more representative of India. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Those in favor
  1. --Nosedown (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
  2. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Those not in favor
  • I would rather have Featured Images of Indian animals (original rotation) than have bad quality images (above) of animals in India Nikkul (talk) 03:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Many of the images above don't even show the full animal! Nikkul (talk) 03:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Konark image

  1. There has already been a discussion on this - Template talk:Indian image rotation#Shabby additions. --Nosedown (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Those in favor
  1. --Nosedown (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Those not in favor

Removal of Mysore Palace image

  1. What a bad image. Does not give the full view of the structure and there are too many distractions including grass and a notice board. --Nosedown (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Those in favor
  1. --Nosedown (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Those not in favor
  • Nikkul (talk) 04:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC) Please wait for consensus before removing these images!

Addition of Meenakshi temple image

  1. The caption says it all -- perhaps one of the most important structures in southern India. And a beautiful image too. --Nosedown (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Those in favor
  1. --Nosedown (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
  2. -- There should be at least one PERMANENT Hindu temple image in this section. Hindu temples revolve around lives of Indian masses and any article on India is incomplete without Hindu temple Picture. Holy Ganga talk 16:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Those not in favor
  • Nikkul (talk) 04:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC) There are already 3 temple images!

Addition of Oddisi image

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

Replacement of Lotus temple image


Old version:

  1. The older one has too much contrast and is of inferior quality. --Nosedown (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Those in favor
  1. --Nosedown (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Those not in favor

Replacement of Akshardham image


Old version:

  1. The proposed image is of the front view and hence better IMO. --Nosedown (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Those in favor
  1. --Nosedown (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
  2. --Nikkul (talk) 18:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Those not in favor
Other views
  • If you're going to rotate images on a regular basis, please do the associated discussing on some dedicated sub-page, not on Talk:India. Imho, rotation of images is an exceptionally bad idea because it ties down lots of man-hours desperately needed elsewhere. --dab (𒁳) 12:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Image voting results

It has been more than two months since the voting was posted and no one has opposed the suggestions apart from Nikkul. I believe there is a clear consensus to incorporate the suggestions posted above. --Nosedown (talk) 16:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

You need to have CLEAR WP:Consensus. No one voted FOR most of your image changes either. You need clear consensus to change images on Wikipedia. This is wiki policy Nikkul (talk) 18:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Iamswapniljadhav, 20 May 2010

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

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

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

Not done —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chzz (talkcontribs)

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

The main articles for this are Healthcare in India and Poverty in India. Iamswapniljadhav, these are not semiprotected, and you are welcome to work on them. Once you have produced a clean account in these articles, you can ask for inclusion of a summary here. --dab (𒁳) 13:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC) India is suffering by terrorist activities so far.......but India is a very peaceful country.This is held by some neighbouring countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

consider changing pic military section randomly

Like in flora section consider changing su-30mki,Hal tejas,Arjun tank,ins viraat,ins shivina,T-90,Akash SAM,Nag missile,Agni missile series etc at regular interval.-- (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

We need to have top quality pics before we place them on the main page. Right now we don't have such great pics Nikkul (talk) 17:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
You might take a look at these pics:=

And i could post more pics which are top quality and so consider them for rotation.-- (talk) 03:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


The introduction needs a serious overhaul. That India is being considered a potential superpower by many analysts, that we are active members of groups like BASIC, BRIC, United Nations G20, G8+4 need to be stated. And why should things like poverty, and malnutrition be mentioned in the introduction? China too is suffering from more or less the same problems as India but I don't see anything being mentioned in the introduction of China.

Also, a mention should be made of the recent UN report in the 'economy' section which praises India for taking giant strides in terms of slum development.

Someone make these necessary changes as soon as possible. Otherwise questions would arise about the credibility of a Wikipedia article which ironically has been termed as one of wikipedia's bests despite containing so many discrepancies as stated above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

See the section above "Intro needs reworking". Munci (talk) 09:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I've added a sentence about potential superpower since all other potential superpowers have this states on their page (China, Russia, etc.). Nikkul (talk) 17:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Taj Image

New Taj Mahal Image

I would like to switch the existing Taj Mahal image with this better image. What do you guys think? Nikkul (talk) 06:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the proposed new image is better than the existing one in any way - it is a low-resolution image, of poor quality (unclear), with an excessive blue tint. In contrast, the existing image is a clear, high-resolution featured picture, which means that it has been rated as one of the best pics available on Wikipedia (and on Commons as well). Therefore, I see no reason for substituting the existing image with the proposed replacement. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 12:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Agree, the existing one looks beter. --BwB (talk) 08:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Problem about Federation

In general "Federation" means a country formed by separate states that have given certain powers to a central government while keeping control over local matters and "Constitution" means the system of beliefs and laws by which a country, state, or organization is governed. Previously you said that both are same while its not true. Therefore I thought its worth mentioning it.

2ndly you removed a vital point that is (It is a constitutional republic and representative democracy, "in which majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law) it must be mentioned what kind of democracy does India follows there two type of democracy one direct democracy and other representative democracy, & India maintains a representative democracy and in what way.

3rd In (Indian federalist system) the term should be mentioned why because commonly there are two type of gov one is "Unitary sate" other run as "federal structure". It should be clear that in Indian federalism the preamble of the constitution defines India as a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic. Generally Unitary states are like UK, Canada or Japan whereas federalist gov are like Brazil or USA etc.--Kkm010as© 06:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The constitution says India is a "Union of States". So we can safely say it is "federalist" in nature. (We already have a Federalism in India article)--Sodabottle (talk) 06:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
In regard to this edit by User:Kkm010-
"The Constitution of India, the longest and the most exhaustive federation of any independent nation in the world, ..." . What does that mean?
"In Indian federalist system, the preamble of the constitution defines India as a ....." . The federal system in India is a product of the constitution. In that sense, this sentence is misleading. Arjuncodename024 08:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I have copy edited the first point to makes its meaning clear. the second one too needs work to make it clear.--Sodabottle (talk) 08:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I have now copy edited the second point as well to address Arjun's concerns. It now merely states "indian state is federalist in nature".--Sodabottle (talk) 10:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
If you guys think that Indian federalist system won't fit then you can write as (In Indian federalism) but it must be mentioned because any body can say that the county is run as unitary state which is not. So there should be flamboyant idea in what way and how the system is run.

Another thing I didn't get why Sodabottle removed the term federation instead of constitution pls make it clear. I explained earlier whats the difference where Arjun was stating both are same.--Kkm010as© 10:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

KKM, it is a grammatically wrong to say "the constitution of india is a federation". a country can be a federation, while a constitution can only be federalist. It is a purely grammatical correction.
Actually i accept the india is a federation as the constitution says we are a "union of states". I only differ from you in how to phrase it.--Sodabottle (talk) 10:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Constitution is "federalist" and and the state/system is "federal". Just to point out; Kkm has to look out for grammatical errors- one big reason i went for this revert. Arjuncodename024 13:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting my error I'm happy that you guys have written it correctly with all the important points mentioning. But one thing i would kindly draw your attention that is (It is a constitutional republic and representative democracy, "in which majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law) you have not mentioned the India as "constitutional republic" rather mentioning it only as a representative democracy! Why?--Kkm010as© 15:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Intro needs reworking

I believe the introduction needs reworking. There are lots of links but none of them are to the religions. There is recentism in that the only ruler mentioned is the British East India Company and the economic reforms of the nineties are mentioned as significant when they are nothing compared to the whole scale of history. And the negative aspects, here such as corruption and poverty are not normally put in the intro of country of articles. You don't see United States leading with "It has a high wealth disparity and a high homicide rate, do you? Munci (talk) 18:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Specifically I propose removing the part "however, it still suffers from poverty, illiteracy, corruption, disease, and malnutrition." and adding in wikilinks to Hinduism in India, Jainism in India etc. I'm not entirely sure how to balance the history more about pre-18th century history though. The other bits is enough for now. Any objections? Munci (talk) 00:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I also propose adding a sentence about membership of international organisations like so: India is a member of the Commonwealth of Nations, the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation, G15, G20, Asia Cooperation Dialogue, the Colombo Plan, Indian Ocean Rim Association for Regional Cooperation and the Non-aligned movement. What do others think? Munci (talk) 15:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Changing Nano with Reva

The Nano image need to be rotated with images of other automobiles from India like the Reve electric car.Bcs09 (talk) 02:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Reva is the world's largest electric car maker, and has significant sales in Europe. Anyone oppose rotating the Tata Nano image with Reva NXR image? Nikkul (talk) 18:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Did you seek consensus before making the change Nikkul? Tell me, how many people in India drive Reva? In what way is this particular vehicle even remotely significant to the Indian economy section? --Nosedown (talk) 18:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Global Peace Index

wonder how much credibility Institute for Economics and Peace have and if this is an information worth adding. --CarTick 12:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Global Peace Index already has an article but it would undue weight to mention anything about it here. try adding mention of that The Hindu article in Global Peace Index instead. Munci (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
what kind of weird response is this? --CarTick 19:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
What's weird about it? The index might be notable enough that it has an article but it is not notable enough that you make it one of the first things you say about a country. Munci (talk) 19:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
when did i say "one of the first things"? and why would be important to add India has x ranking in Global Peace Index article --CarTick 19:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry I may misinterpreted your intention. I thought you had wanted add information about the index to this article. Munci (talk) 20:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
i dont advocate its inclusion just because it is out there. i find it interesting, but, like i said, i am skeptical about the credibility of the organisation and the aptness and accuracy of the methodology used. I am also not sure if their data is adjusted for regional variation. --CarTick 00:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from, 11 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Where it says that India is in the vicinity of Sri Lanka and Maldives in the Indian ocean, please add ", and its Andaman and Nicobar Islands are also in the vicinity of the Indonesian island of Sumatra in the Andaman Sea.[4]" (talk) 19:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC) Not done

I'm sorry, but requests to edit semi-protected articles must be accompanied by reference(s) to reliable sources.
I suggest you get an account, then you can help us improve articles. Chzz  ►  00:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Here is a suitable reference [5]. I have also added it to the sentance I would like added. About creating an account here, I unfortunately have too many passwords to remember, so for now I think that I will continue editing with my IP address. Many Thanks. -- (talk) 19:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough; done, thanks. Chzz  ►  06:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)



This article, while highly visible and important to Wikipedia, has been indef-semi-protected since Nov. 2007. Quite a long time... I believe it may be safe to unprotect the article, at least on a trial basis. I had asked on WP:RFPP, and was advised to ask for public opinion here. I think it's a good idea to give casual editors a chance to contribute. :) Thoughts, comments? Avicennasis @ 05:41, 30 Sivan 5770 / 12 June 2010 (UTC)

  • i does not support this as this article is a hotspot for vandalism and it should be remain protected [Rahulchoudhary 09:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahulchoudhary003 (talkcontribs)

Language Categories

Is it not unbalanced to have the English category without the one for Hindi? As long as we stick to only the union languages rather than the regional ones, it won't make too many categories. The Eighth Schedule languages would instead fit on the various states. As for it being named Hindustani rather than Hindi, I'm sure it's so that both Hindi and Urdu are included. Would the title 'Category:Hindi and Urdu speaking countries and territories' be better? Also, I'm not entirely sure what "somewhere between 25 and 30 on the priority list of categories based on languages". Could this please be explained? Do you mean there are 25-30 languages more important for which to have such a category? Munci (talk) 16:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Hindi and English are not union languages - they are just official languages of the union. The cat says "countries speaking language x". so by extension, if Hindi is included, then similar categories for the other 30 odd major regional languages will have to be added - thus "category overkill". IMO even the English cat to should be removed.--Sodabottle (talk) 16:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Hmm if there were 'union languages' what would this be like then and how would this differ from 'official languages of the union'? I am sure the purpose in the language categories is to mean official languages though, especially considering Cameroon, Puntland and Papua New Guinea are currently part of the English-speaking countries category. Perhaps renaming is in order to make this clear? Removing both categories could be fine though. Munci (talk) 13:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
well, i assume the category is all about categorising a group of countries speaking a certain leanguage. i dont see any problem in adding the category. I would also recommend adding Category:Tamil-speaking countries and territories. --CarTick 14:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Like it says at Category:Countries by language (which should be renamed Category:Countries by official language), "To categorize countries per official language. When a country does not have an official language (e.g. the United States), a de facto categorization is used.". And at Category:Tamil-speaking countries and territories: "This category includes countries and territories where Tamil language is official.". Munci (talk) 14:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
well, categories are made by wikipedia users and they are neither policies nor guidelines. Tamil is official language of Tamil Nadu and Tamil Nadu is part of India last time when I checked. It is also one of the constitutionally recognised languages spoken by over 60 million people. --CarTick 15:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I know this but Tamil is an official language of one state (and one union territory), not of the union. Munci (talk) 15:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
so what, State is part of the Union. but it doesnt matter. the point is India is also a Tamil speaking country. I would include Category:Konkani speaking countries if there is a rational to make one and exists. --CarTick 16:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────My two cents: First, there exists an inconsistency between the criteria for including articles in Category:English-speaking countries and territories and Category:Tamil-speaking countries and territories — the latter (as also Category:Hindustani-speaking countries and territories) has an official language requirement, the former does not. So, the criteria for including articles in equivalent categories need to be made uniform (I don't see why there should be any requirment for the lanuage to be official if the category includes territories where the language is spoken - these are two different things and the former, in my opinion, imposes an unnecessarily high standard). Second, the Union Territories are administered by the Union Government (even though Puducherry, the UT in question, has a legislature) and technically, Tamil could be considered the official language of a federally-administered territory. In any case, all the 8th Schedule languages are Constitutionally recognised and I see no reason why one or more of them should be preferred over the other(s). Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 16:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The inconsistency between the different categories is not necessarily there because of the link at the start of Anglosphere (to List of countries where English is an official language). Due to the category having been moved, it is impossible to tell who was the creator. Otherwise, they could asked what definition they meant. Either way, they should be consistent. Would having two categories side-by-side one for spoken, one for official work? Munci (talk) 17:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
it sounds silly to include only the official languages. it would also be silly to include, for example, Category:Gujarathi speaking countries to USA article. Just because somebody created these categories with a "off the cuff" description doesnt mean it is not debatable and changeable. --CarTick 17:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Why do you think it sounds silly to only include the official languages? Not that I'm firmly set on the idea, but to know. I agree that adding Guajarati speaking countries to USA would be silly and I agree that the descriptions are debatable and changeable. With that comment about inconsistency, I was trying to describe the way things are already done. Munci (talk) 17:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
cause in some countries like in India, it does not reflect the actual demography. --CarTick 18:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
That's true. Then there are other countries where the official languages reflects the spoken language even less like Mauritius, where the only official language is English despite Mauritian Creole and other languages being more widely spoken, and Equatorial Guinea, where the official languages are French, Spanish and Portuguese even though more than half the population speaks Fang, and Indonesia, where the only official language is Indonesian despite Javanese being spoken by roughly 2/3 of the population. Munci (talk) 18:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
that is interesting. apparently, it all depends on who writes the constitution. like the guy who created the Category:Tamil-speaking countries and territories. I also would like to remind ourselves that we create a category only when a number of items can be categorised into it. for example, we could have created Category:Mauritian Creole speaking countries if a few other countries spoke that language. --CarTick 18:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, the only thing I'm really opposed to is current situation where English is included but no other language. I had tried to add the Hindi category but was reverted. Munci (talk) 18:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I would say, we add any such category which exists for any Indian language. i would bet it is not too many. --CarTick 18:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Let's see what SpacemanSpiff says. Munci (talk) 19:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
It should be all or nothing - Either remove English or add all the 100 odd language cats. I prefer the former.--Sodabottle (talk) 19:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
these categories are useful. dont think, we will end up with 100. many languages are spoken only in India we wouldnt ever have to create categories. --CarTick 19:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I missed this when I logged in earlier, but there are a couple of reasons (as we discussed on this talk page earlier, before Regents removed the cat) -- first, if we are looking at the "official" languages of the union, the category should be Hindi and not Hindustani, standard Hindi (Khariboli) is not the same as Hindustani, as is spoken in Pakistan or Fiji. If we are looking at any language that is spoken, then the problem is that you are looking at incongruent representation of categories, do we include the two official languages, the 20 or so Eighth schedule languages, do we include any language that has more than x million speakers? (when we had the earlier category discussion, I had opined against Tamil Nadu being included in the Tamil speaking cats also -- what level of geographic entities should be categorized). As for English being added, I believe this is the English Wikipedia and it serves the reader well to see which countries are linked by the English language. Adding a Hindi category doesn't serve much purpose as it will be a single entry category. I was inclined to take these cats (Hindustani and Tamil) to CfD a while back, but then other things came up and I forgot about this. Besides Munci, I think this kinda links to the earlier discussion on Tamil in Reunion that we had on the Tamil People (?) article too. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 04:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
All cats of the form Category:<Indian language> speaking countries and territories must be added to this article, but just count how many are there. Since adding all of them isn't pragmatic, adding none is ideal. BTW, if we had a cat "Category:Countries having Hindi as official language", we could have .... !! <grin> Arjuncodename024 05:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
ok, let us do this, let us try to assemble all existing categories and see how many it can get before we make a decision. Let us say that we would have to have more than two countries with a sizeable population speaking a certain language in order for a category to be created. Indian states while useful to be in the category, should not be included in the "criteria count". --CarTick 11:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


  1. Category:Tamil-speaking countries and territories, India, Sri Lanka, Singapore and may be Malaysia
  2. Category:Hindustani-speaking countries and territories will have to rename it to Hindi, India and Fiji
  3. Category:Urdu-speaking countries and territories, India and Pakistan
  4. Category:Bengali-speaking countries and territories, India and Bangladesh
As you can see at the sourced introduction of Hindustani language, or by reading Hindi by Yamuna Kachru, Hindi and Urdu are two registers of the same language, Hindustani. Hindi, Urdu and Hindustani are all from the Khariboli dialect. Fiji Hindi is the sole outlier in being from Awadhi instead. There is also a broader meaning of Hindi, which would include all three though. "As for English being added, I believe this is the English Wikipedia and it serves the reader well to see which countries are linked by the English language." - I do not see this a good argument at all. Things should categorised according to how well they fit, not by an assumption that people will be only interested in things to do with their things. I don't see the connection between this and the discussion of Tamil in Reunion, except for it being about Indian languages. The way I see it, there are 3 (possibly even 4) options:
  • No language categories
  • Including only the categories for official languages of the union
  • Including any categories that exist for all the Eighth Schedule languages.
  • (Including any categories that exist for any languages spoken in India.)
The current situation of including English and no other language is unacceptable. By the way, I fixed the link for you Cartick even if still doesn't lead anywhere. Munci (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I dont know what the "Tamil in Reunion" discussion is all about. can someone pls point me where I can find it. if i were to rank the categories, i will place Category:Tamil-speaking countries and territories on the top considering it has more number of countries in it. I think that is the main reason why English is there, dont see anything wrong in it. --CarTick 18:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
here. basically how Tamils in Reunion are ethnically Tamil but dont speak Tamil--Sodabottle (talk) 18:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Once the above cats are included in the article; editors can create presently non-existing cats of languages in the above format, and can add to the article page. Then, no editor will have the moral right to make any selective removal of them. And then the page gets flooded with them. The above listing is of no use. As for the English language, editors will feel it as a "neutral" language and wouldn't care to flood with Indian languages as i said. Arjuncodename024 20:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
We can decide already at what point it does stop; it's not an inevitable slippery slope. Most of the possible languages will never have categories created for them anyway because they are only spoken in India. It certainly couldn't get more flooded than the categories for English language, which aren't opposed there. Munci (talk) 21:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Indian page watchers

interesting observation, nothing to improve the article, but still related to this page. according to my theory, of the 2000 odd watchers, atleast 100 people are "actively watching" this page. The peak in page view of this recently created article by me on 15, 16 and 17 after I participated in a conversation starting 15 on this page. I am assuming each page view corresponds to an independent user and each user clicked the page only once. --CarTick 21:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

What does watching a page let you do? Nikkul (talk) 00:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Nano or REVA

I notice an edit war going on between Nikkul and some other users. I am not sure if we need to have images of any of these cars. --CarTick 20:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

By sales, both models are somewhere at the bottom of the market (nano would beat reva though). If we want to showcase them as "accomplishments of indian engineering" why dont we rotate them.--Sodabottle (talk) 20:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I havent followed up on this much. apart from the cheap prize, Is it really a big accomplishment? --CarTick 00:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
We've had this discussion before, I've opposed the addition of the Nano image as it is in no way representative of the Indian economy, the Reva image less so. (There should be two discussions on the Nano image in the archives from the last eight months. The auto industry itself is not representative of India, and even if we need an image from that, Maruti Suzuki is India's largest manufacturer (and until it was folded under the Suzuki brand, was individually a Top 10 manufacturer world wide). As for the edit war by Nikkul, this is across many articles, if there's a picture he uploads, no consensus is required, if someone else adds a picture, he quotes all sorts of policy asking to get consensus. —SpacemanSpiff 04:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I concur. Fact remains that Nikkul will revert edits by others claiming that no consensus was reached but at the same time, will add images without seeking consensus. In my opinion, it is about time the some of the established editors take up the issue of his disruptive edits. Coming back to the Nano image, I'm of the opinion that an image on the Indian automobile industry is very much relevant to the concerned section. And I also agree with the fact that an image should be added which is representative of the industry. I initially felt that Nano was apt as it showcased the dominant small car industry in India. However, it would be more better if an image of a more popular car, such as Tata Indica or Hyundai i10 (both of which are also manufactured exclusively in India), is used. --Nosedown (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Nano is the cheapest car in the world and i my opinion it is more important to Indian economy then reva and its also showcase the indian small car industry RahulChoudhary 15:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
The pic of REVA was NOT added by me. And it was added only AFTER discussion on this page and consensus about rotation. So DO NOT TELL ME THAT I'M MAKING DISRUPTIVE EDITS!
Reva is one of the best selling Indian exports, especially in Europe. India's auto industry is rapidly expanding. Nikkul (talk) 16:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Nikkul, tell me how many Reva cars have been manufactured till date? Forget about the so called "best selling Indian exports", the total number of Reva cars manufactured till date would be less than the number of Maruti-Suzuki Zens exported from India. Regarding Nano, it actually represents the auto-mobile industry of India better, because - a) Its the cheapest car in the world, b) Its an Indian brand, unlike a Suzuki or Hyundai. Shovon (talk) 17:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
What discussion? BCS09 proposed something. 6 days later you seconded it and changed the picture. That is not consensus. TWO editors agreed to it. Now you have Cartick, me, Spiff, Shovon, Rahulchoudhary003 have all comeout against the move. So where is the consensus. Now that the discussion has started don't revert until everyone agree on it. You say Reva is "one" of the best selling auto exports. By numbers it doesnt even figure in the cars exported list.--Sodabottle (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

(od) I've got nothing against showing the Nano. It is identifiably Indian and is notable as the epitome of the 'cheap car'. Not sure about the Reva (relatively unknown).--RegentsPark (talk) 21:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Nikkul, your edits are disruptive because you never take other editors into confidence before making changes such as this and then, instead of trying to build a consensus, you will engage in an edit war ([1] and [2]) and claim "consensus was established". Who were a part of that consensus Nikkul? --Nosedown (talk) 18:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I think nano is more important to Indian economy than reva.Because it is totally an Indian brand, It is the cheapest car in the world and The car is expected to boost the Indian economy, create entrepreneurial-opportunities across India, as well as expand the Indian car market by 65%. BINOY Talk 06:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
The next Generation of Reva, Reva NXG.

I think Reva NXR will be better. But if someone is having objections why not have the Reva NXG.Bcs09 (talk) 14:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC) Mr.Binoy, Reva is also an Indian brand. Now purchased by Mahindra & Mahindra Limited. I would like a rotation of both images. Both Nano as well as Reva NXR/Reva NXG. That would be nice.Bcs09 (talk) 14:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I think REVA has manufactured more cars in India than Tata Nano. Also, I think the significance of Reva is greater to India's economy because REVA sells a LOT of cars to Europe. I think we should rotate these 2 images. Nikkul (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, both Forbes and The Hindu puts the number of Reva sold till date at 3,500. Compare that to the number of Nano delivered till date. The figure is 35,000. Shovon (talk) 05:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
If we go on pure statistics basis, then the place may be taken up by some other car. So I do feel that the best thing to do is to go for the rotation of Nano and Reva images. Both are beautiful and both have their own No.1 Rankings. Binoy also don't have objections to a rotation policy. So lets rotate Nano and Reva.Bcs09 (talk) 02:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
How about we just create a Mosaic then? Vedant (talk) 21:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Rather than that a rotation policy will be better. Even if needed Tata Indica indlucing the Vista variant and Mahindra scorpio etc can also be included. And the rotation need to be frequent may be a week. If all the people can entrust that job to me. I can do that job perfectly. Ever week the image will get rotated to something new.Bcs09 (talk) 02:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm okay with that too. This just seems like such a trivial and pointless technicality to argue about when easy solutions exist. Vedant (talk) 03:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I also support rotation but it should be regular and include some more Indian cars like Mahindra Logan , Tata Indica Etc RahulChoudhary 05:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I too support rotation. Thanks to Bcs09 for volunteering. --Sodabottle (talk) 05:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks, since there is a consensus, I am starting this with the Reva NXR. Tata Indica, Mahindra logan, Tata Nano Europa all can be added as part of the rotation policy. The Reva image will stand for a week. If there is a consensus on changes that is more frequent than a week, like a change every three days, I'm okay with such an idea as well.Bcs09 (talk) 03:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Can you write the code for the same. Using case, it can be a daily rotation, It seems weekly rotation is going to be difficult.Bcs09 (talk) 02:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I also think that Daily rotation would be better then weekly rotation RahulChoudhary 07:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
There is no consensus here. Several of my concerns with the REVA image remain un-addressed. Firstly, I need a more credible source than which says that REVA is the most selling electric car. Secondly, it still hasn't been established how this particular image is representative of the Indian automobile industry where 99.99% of cars either run on petrol or diesel; not electricity. Address these concerns and you'll get your consensus. --Nosedown (talk) 09:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
The Reva is (according to multiple sources) the largest selling electric car in the world and Reva car company the largest seller of electric cars. Also the Reva car is NO.1 in its category that's electric cars. Sadly this position is not been achieved by the 99% cars that run on gasoline engine.Bcs09 (talk) 17:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
PS - Two more points - Just because someone hasn't objected for two days doesn't mean a consensus has been established. Secondly, rotation is done through making changes to India rotation template, not manually changing the images everyday. --Nosedown (talk) 09:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
A complete consensus is difficult to achieve. If such a consensus is reached it's excellent.
Zebu, a consensus has been reached on rotation of the images. It seems only you are objecting to it. You reverting the image was uncalled for. Must have checked the discussion page before making such a move.Bcs09 (talk) 13:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Most of the users agreed the rotation of the two Images and then started the rotation. There is also a proposal to rotate the images using Parser Functions. I think it is better to rotate the images each hour. BINOY Talk 09:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Here are some useful links about REVA

-- BINOY Talk 11:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The Tata Nano, the world's cheapest car.[6] India's annual small-car exports have surged fivefold in the past five years.[7]

The images will change each hour. Can make changes and can add to the article if there is no objection. --BINOY Talk 11:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Binoy, my concerns are still not addressed. Give me a credible source claiming REVA is the "world's largest manufacturer of electric cars". Secondly, explain how REVA is even remotely representative of the Indian automobile industry. Address these issues and you can have your rotation. --Nosedown (talk) 12:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Zebu, its more like "fully designed/manufactured in India" rationale. Since we are doing an hourly rotation we can rotate images of a lot of models not just Reva/Nano. --Sodabottle (talk) 13:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Zebu,[3] Reva is the largest selling electric car in the world. Reva is not only sold in India but worldwide. [4] The new target is to produce 30,000/year from the current 6,000/year of these Reva's and market it to 50 countries (from the present 24) worldwide by 2012.[5].Bcs09 (talk) 13:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Mahindra Scorpio
Binoy, I agree to the proposal to rotate images using parser function. It's a brilliant move. Along with the two images I also propose the image of Mahindra Scorpio, which I had downloaded for the same purpose from Flickr. So add it Binoy. I like this brilliant idea. If needed this can be replicated in other sections as well.Bcs09 (talk) 13:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • i think we can also rotate the image of military section by the parser function as well RahulChoudhary 14:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I support such an initiative. Bcs09 (talk) 02:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • The Mahindra Scorpio image is added to the rotation images.
  • Here is a reference link that says Reva has sold about 3500 electric cars, which is a small amout but more than any other company. It also says that there will be 1.5 million electric vehicles sold by 2020.
Here is another link that says The Reva-made G-Wiz (REVAi) is the best-selling electric car in the UK. BINOY Talk 17:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I think this has not been added to the Main, page. I still see only the Nano in the main page.Bcs09 (talk) 02:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
The rotation is not added to the main page yet. Because Zebu has some objections. BINOY Talk 05:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm still not convinced about how the REVA, an electric car, is representative of the Indian automobile industry. I have mentioned it twice before that compact diesel and petrol cars are representative of the Indian automobile industry, not electric cars. And it for this reason that I oppose the addition of the image. But if other Wikipedians do not have any objection to this, go ahead and add REVA to the rotation and degrade the credibility of this featured article. I will not oppose this anymore. --Nosedown (talk) 12:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
And just a note to all those claiming that Reva is the "largest selling electric car in the world", let me be more specific — the original REVAi (or G-Wiz) is the best selling electric car in the world, not REVA NXR. The car shown in the proposed image has not even entered production yet. This is the height of nonsense but that seems to be irrelevant here. --Nosedown (talk) 12:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I think you have a point but i'm still not understanding what do you want No rotation or rotation without Reva RahulChoudhary 12:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I just oppose the addition of the REVA image. I'm not against rotation of images. So in other words, I propose rotation without REVA image. --Nosedown (talk) 13:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I, too, support the image rotation without including Reva NXR. NXR model is going to be produced at the new 30k production facility on the outskirts of Bangalore. When it actually happens, then we can see. Shovon (talk) 13:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I think Zebu is right. I looked so many sources which says Reva is the largest selling electric car in the world. But i didn't find any. Since India is a featured article, adding REVA without a credible source will affect the article badly. See the article Kerala and Kochi which was recently removed from FA-Class. I think it's better to add the Reva image only when we find a source that says REVA is even remotely representative of the Indian automobile industry. Like shovon said, we can wait till it happens. BINOY Talk 14:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Reva is the largest selling electric car in the world and Reva car company the largest producer of electric cars. But I agree to the point that since Reva NXR will start production in 2011 it's better to wait till then.
  • I think now there is no need of rotation as the main consensus was between Nano and reva RahulChoudhary 17:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Let there be rotation without the Reva NXR image. Otherwise it will look boring with the same Nano there for ever.Bcs09 (talk) 17:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Not necessary that it has to be only automobile images. It can be automobiles+something else as well.Bcs09 (talk) 17:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • So what is the final decision? There are so many discussions about the Nano image are in the archives. Is the rotation is needed or not? BINOY Talk 06:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I think most people (except User:Nosedown) agree that we should have a rotation. Nikkul (talk) 07:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Nikkul, learn to read the comments of others more carefully — [6] and [7]. --King Zebu (talk) 07:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Rotation O.K. The Reva NXR image can be added after five-six months when it's production starts. Keeping the Nano only will be neglecting other developments.Bcs09 (talk) 10:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

-- (talk) 21:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)== Contradiction with other wiki pages ==

There is contradictions on this page with other wiki pages. For example when you type in Aryan it tells you how the word Aryan comes from Sanskrit but on this page there is no mention of anything Aryan at least not that I know of. Or for example on Aryan invasion theory then it lists that Aryans possibly came from India or invaded India, but here I don't think there is any mention of thing's like that at least not that I know of then (talk) 23:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

That's Aryan818 again; playing the same old song, albeit, this time remixed a bit. And he has some new tricks up his sleeve. First he added one bit to the Aryan race page[8] and now wants to use it as a source in this article. As before I would request serious editors, especially new ones, not to take his trolling seriously. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 04:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Deepak the Dictator, I was wondering if you could tell people what im saying that is wrong, or untrue, or not making sense, or incorrect. And what makes me a troll? I think your some Khalistan guy whos anti India and thats why you dont want certain things mentioned about India, or certain credits given to India then here. If im wrong tell me how im wrong. I bought up good points again then , and again then here , you ignored it, and did not tell me how im wrong, or what im doing that's wrong. (talk) 20:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
@Aryan818, please refrain from making personal attacks against other editors, using attack terms such as "dictator". You are not a new editor that you don't know the personal attack policy. --Ragib (talk) 21:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

yes thats correct —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

edit request in sports & other sections

In the 1st para of the sports section,its written that "BCCI also conducts Ranjee trophy,Duleep trophy,Deodhar trophy,Irani trophy and the Challenger Series".

Let me make myself clear."Challenger Series" is an ATP(tennis)tournament.It has nothing to do with BCCI and its a big error by somebody.

So please do the needful changes in it.I hope you understood what I meant.

And aslo there aren't articles like-"science & technology in india,transport,education & envirnment" and other stuff as well.If you go to countries like USA,China,Israel,Singapore,Russia and others,you'll find their profiles are well maintained and recorded.So please do make our country's profile like them as well.India's profile is very short & empty compared to other countries.So please do the needful changes.

And India has the 2nd largest standing army not 3rd.The whole world know that India is 2nd to China in number of army troops.Only Wikipedia thinks its 3rd largest army.So here also please make a needful change at he introduction in 3rd para.

PLEASE DO THESE NEEDFUL CHANGES,ITS MY HUMBLE REQUEST. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeadRed94 (talkcontribs) 21:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


In the 1st para of the sports section,its written that "BCCI also conducts Ranjee trophy,Duleep trophy,Deodhar trophy,Irani trophy and the Challenger Series".

Let me make myself clear."Challenger Series" is an ATP(tennis)tournament.It has nothing to do with BCCI and its a big error by somebody.So please do the needful changes in it.I hope you understood what I meant.

And aslo there aren't articles like-"science & technology in india,transport,education & envirnment" and other stuff as well.If you go to countries like USA,China,Israel,Singapore,Russia and others,you'll find their profiles are well maintained and recorded.So please do make our country's profile like them as well.India's profile is very short & empty compared to other countries.So please do the needful changes.

And India has the 2nd largest standing army not 3rd.The whole world know that India is 2nd to China in number of army troops.Only Wikipedia thinks its 3rd largest army.So here also please make a needful change at he introduction in 3rd para.

PLEASE DO THESE NEEDFUL CHANGES,ITS MY HUMBLE REQUEST. Thank you. -- (talk) 21:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your request. I looked up the challenger series and apparently there is a cricket series known as the challenger series. See this link. --RegentsPark (talk) 11:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
116.72. Regarding the army size. its about the "standing army"; not reserves not paramillitary; only standing army. there is a discussion somewhere in the archives regarding this--Sodabottle (talk) 13:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay thanks for responding.So remove that tennis(challenger series) & put the real on which is this-"".Please correct this error.BCCI conducts cricket challenger series not tennis.

And what about articles like:"science & tech in india,tourism in india,education in india,health & environment in india & many more"!! These articles are absent only in India(profile).Its available in all other countries.So please make these changes requested!! --DeadRed94 (talk) 15:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Note that the article is not semi-protected. Anyone can make the changes. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I've made the changes -- (talk) 15:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

A good idea. We need to summarize Education in India, Tourism in India, Science and technology in the Republic of India, Healthcare in India, Environment of India. But the problem is the article is already at 80K and with images takes a long time to load. adding all these will bloat it even more. Any ideas people?--Sodabottle (talk) 15:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

You mean,Wiki has not got enough space to store more info than this??? If so,how can articles of other countries be so big??? --DeadRed94 (talk) 15:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Its not a problem with storage. it has to do with page loading in different devices/internet connections. The bigger the page, the greater the page load time. Imagine trying to view this page with a dialup/slow dsl/gprs connection. So wikipedia encourages articles that reach a certain size (about this article's size) to be split into smaller ones.
Without commenting on whether these should be included or not, I think we can get rid of the details on administrative divisions for starters. Why list all the states and territorial disputes in the main article? --RegentsPark (talk) 15:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

only one line of poverty

half of the worlds hungry are in india poverty has incresed more and yet not a single mention of it.

what a biased article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Read the fifth paragraph of the Economics section. Learn to read carefully before bestowing your wisdom here. --King Zebu (talk) 17:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


I dont know about other pages. But, it is so much waste of everybody's time for a matured page like this. i thought we probably have one of the best internet connections, but yet reviewing the India page for some reason takes so much time. Semi-protection is so much better. --CarTick 21:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Changing Su-30Mki with INS Viraat

Indian Navy Sea Harriers and IAF SEPECAT Jaguars with USN F/A-18F Super Hornet fly past INS Viraat.

We should change that Su-30Mki pic with INS Viraat pic as aircraft carrier is true symbol of military might .Example-Russia proudly shows Admiral Kuznetsov, United Kingdom proudly shows HMS Illustrious, France proudly shows Charles de Gaulle and US proudly shows USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier.Su-30MKI is not true symbol of military might but aircraft carrier is.we should add the INS Viraat pic in page. Any thought.-- (talk) 19:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

yes yes........that's a good point,,,,,please change it!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeadRed94 (talkcontribs) 10:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

why INS Chakra, it is even not in service and not true symbol of military might whereas INS Viraat is in service. why not INS Viraat pics should be in place of INS Chakra. Any thought-- (talk) 20:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Why are some things about India mentioned in other articles but there not here then here ? ?

For example in the Indian language section it mentions Indo-Aryan language but, there is no mention in this article of Indo Aryan language. Another example on some articles there is information about Aryan invading India or coming from India, and yet there is no mention of Aryans in this article then. I might be able to give more examples but I hope this gives you an idea. Plus if I give more examples Deepak the Dictator might erase this anyway so I might be wasting my time. And for those of you who might block me becuase I called him a Dictator, take into considertaion that he calls me a troll, erases my edits, erases my posts in the discussion area (i can understand erasing edits but erasing posts in a discussion area?) he tells people to ignore me, he gets me blocked without telling me why, he doesnt always answer questions, and yet you people dont block him. So if you dont block him then please dont block me for calling him Deepak the Dictator. And by the examples I gave of the kind of things that he has done/does, I hope you can understand why I call him a dictator. (talk) 00:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

give it up,these ppl hav no patriotism for their my opinion the profile of india is 50% empty.why??-coz other articles like "science & tech in india,tourism in india,education in india,health & environment in india,transport in india" dont exist.ive requested several times to them.....but none have taken any action....perhaps they are anti-india or pakis.....keeping the reputation of our profile(india) low....just look at other tiny or small countries like singapore,israel,chile & countries like russia,usa,china,brazil........their's are so well maintained & recorded & is very dont hope any good from these ppl —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeadRed94 (talkcontribs) 09:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Must not Feed the troll.. must not.... --Sodabottle (talk) 09:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Aryan818, this is your final warning regarding your remark on other editors. If you again call other editors names, you will definitely be blocked (once again). --Ragib (talk) 02:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted approximately 10KB of new, undiscussed additions to the article, added by Aryan818 (now in his new reincarnation DeadRed94). This is a featured article, and any large scale additions need to be discussed and also comply with WP:S. --Ragib (talk) 20:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

No issues with the reversion. But is DeadRed a sock of Aryan818?. He seems to editing logged off from a 117 IP, while Aryan seems to have a 70 IP. (I have no prior experience with Aryan. So just confirming)--Sodabottle (talk) 05:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, I may be mistaken in assuming this is Aryan's sock, but either way, such large additions need to be discussed, this being a featured article. --Ragib (talk) 06:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
It is him alright, just a bit more polite, otherwise it is typical Aryan: calling names, puting too many elipses. A new editor comming in support of an existing and rather lonely POV pusher; seen it too many times to believe it could be someone else. I will be asking for a sock investigation and also for an I Pblock. I dont mind his jibes. But he has wasted too much of other editors productive time with his Jai Hind, Jai Aryan race nonsense. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 07:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

2nd part

u ppl say we need to discuss....

well how long will u ppl take to execute ur decisions...u ppl hav are just behaving like corrupted cheap indian politicians who take years to implement plans.

2 days back some1 said we need to change india's sukhoi with indian aircraft carrier to show our country's military might......but still there is the old pic of sukhoi...PM Singh has only met russian president nobody required pictures..

watever u all do,do for our country's sake.......let those who wish to make changes incorruptebly allow them.....& if it sucks then remove it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Im DeadRed94 (Vijay Khedkar).....INDIA IS CRYING

hey guys..........hello pay attention.......Im DeadRed94 & I know nothing of who the hell aryan is!!! and ive only made chenges in the sports section okay?? wat wrong have i done??? ive just improved and updated my country's profile damn it! plus ive only made changes like- wat else india has hosted (world military games,afro asian games),wat it has achieved through (hockey,cricket,chess)& other very important stuff!!! ive done nothing else!!

now listen to only concerned of my country's reputation in the entire world,do u get it u anti-indians??!! u ppl hav no patriotism for our motherland.......JUST COMPARE PROFILES LIKE RUSSIA,USA,UK,CHINA,JAPAN,SINGAPORE,ARGENTINA,ISRAEL N SO ON SO FORTH.......why are u ppl leaving our country's profile completely barren & empty there are no- 1.not much of variety of pics in sports,flaura & fauna,military,foreign relations &........ 2.invaluable articles missing-tourism in india,indian food(cuisine),education in india,sci & tech in india,health & environment &........ 3.our profile is empty & that is not the way we represent a country which is considered as a potential superpower

all i want in the end is INDIA,INDIA,INDIA,INDIA & ONLY U PPL CAN DO IT COZ U ALL KNOW HOW TO MAKE THE CHANGES & WHATEVER.......... —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeadRed94 (talkcontribs) 07:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I would like if you could read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Article size, for your answer. And also, if you could read Wikipedia:Civility, it would be easy for you to discuss. --SharadbobTalkC 13:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Cities by population?

Do we need a cities by population or a similar template?. Indian population is more rural than urban and there is no need for this template in a summary style demographics section. I think this is excessive detail that increases article size.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

A discussion over this topic took place sometime last year and there was a consensus to remove the template. Going by that consensus, I'm reverting the re-addition of the template. If someone wants to add the template, he/she should first seek consensus here. --King Zebu (talk) 14:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Where are the damn watchdogs?

Go through my cleanup job in the past five minutes. I cannot understand how such low-quality changes are incorporated into this featured article and other Wikipedians do not even oppose them? If things continue at this rate, it won't be long before this article loses its featured status. --King Zebu (talk) 14:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Irrespective of your tone which to me seems somewhat incivil and rude, I agree with your decision to remove the BrahMos missile and restore the picture of the Secretariat Building as well as the Science and Technology section (though it would have been nicer had the paragraph represented a summary of the article and not just a copy-paste job of the lede). I do however fail to see how adding a list of Indian cities by their population is grounds for an article to have its FA status revoked or indicative of a low-quality change. Had I seen the archived discussion, I wouldn't have accepted the anonymous user's edit. Vedant (talk) 19:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
If being frank and to-the-point counts as being "incivil and rude", then I have nothing else to say. Regarding cities by population template -- there have been several discussions over this issue and while there was no clear consensus in favor of it two months back, in September 2009 there was a clear consensus to remove it. Therefore, it is extremely annoying to see the template being added again and again without even initiating a discussion on this talkpage. --King Zebu (talk) 14:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Well maybe we have differing definitions of what constitutes incivility and rudeness but that's what I perceived. Now that you've made your point and I've stated I agree with it, can we move on? Vedant (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

India leftist?

i saw that under India, it said that India suns on 'left. I think India has come a far way from being a communist country! it's almost center of right! it is turning into a highly open economy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

illiteracy, corruption, disease, and malnutrition

User Nirvana888 has reinserted the following line which was removed sometime before:
however, it still suffers from high levels of poverty, illiteracy, corruption, disease,and malnutrition.

I think the phrase "high levels" is vague. Poverty and corruption sure (but a better source for corruption is needed). But Malnutrition and Disease?. Malnutrition was around 16-17% sometime back and how does one measure disease levels? (and what disease?). The reference given for disease is a general report on "healthcare in india", which says nothing about how there are "high levels of disease" in India. My point is: this assertion is too vague to be in the lead. Any suggestions?--Sodabottle (talk) 05:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

What the heck this is going on! every day i look this article and notice the top third section of the article its changing now an then. Pls stop this otherwise we will lose its featured tag sooner or later. And rather mention it as "high levels" write it as "however it still suffers from" etc.--Kkm010 | Talk with me 06:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Right, I reinserted a line from a long-standing FA version of this article because I could not understand why it was removed. The first part talks about how India has become one of the fastest growing economies and the the second addresses its continuing challenges. For the sake of neutrality, I found it strange that the "however" part was completely excised. Perhaps, one can work on better sourcing and I see Kkm has tweaked it. Nirvana888 (talk) 13:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the reasoning. To present a neutral depiction (or atleast in an attempt to), it's important to mention that India does suffer from higher than average levels of disease, poverty, illiteracy, malnutrition, and corruption. Provided we can back each of these claims up with citations, I think we should keep the sentence in but we should be careful not to engage in WP:POVPUSH while doing so. Nonetheless, the following facts can be made to support the assertion that the country suffers from high levels of the above:
  • India's literacy rate of 65% is lower than the 84% world average
  • 71.6% of India's population lives under $2 a day and some 42% under the World Bank's Definition of poverty
  • 47% of Indian children suffer from malnutrition etc. etc. etc.
It's clear that the claims are corroborated by reliable sources. It seems to me that the only qualm is integrating it in a fashion such that all parties will agree. Vedant (talk) 14:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I have added a better source for the corruption claim. Ok with others too. But disease still stumps me. what objective criteria does one use for "disease"?--Sodabottle (talk) 14:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I am not an expert but Healthcare_in_India#Disease elaborates a bit on high incidence of malaria, tuberculosis, polio, HIV/AIDS. I think it is fair to say that even among developing countries, India has a high incidence of these diseases. I think we just need to cite a good WHO study. Nirvana888 (talk) 14:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I totally agree with you guys by putting the poverty etc stuff but pls try to put reliable source, previously it was present but then some user might had removed it. Most imp the top third sectioned is being targeted by many user either some users are adding new info or they would try to remove the (illiteracy, corruption, disease, and malnutrition) section for sake of neutrality its worth mentioning it. We are not yet a developed country and every nation do have some probs. And I think the para is perfectly OK now. Please maintain or we would suffer the consequences.--Kkm010 | Talk with me 14:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree, this is all moot unless we can find a reliable source. With regards to the high incidence of disease, I am a little iffy on that one as quantification is an issue (i.e. for some diseases, only a small percentage of the population suffer from said afflictions although that number may be large due to the size of India's population).Vedant (talk) 20:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we need to remove "high levels" because India is a lot better off compared to most African and latin american countries. Nikkul (talk) 02:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree with U "high levels" aren't required because different people grant it differently some believe India has a massive poverty and huge illiterate others think due to high growth rate India could one day eradicate poverty completely. So let it be as it is I had rewritten the sentence previously. Thank You--Kkm010 | Talk with me 04:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Replacement of Su-30 MKI image

The Su-30 MKI image need to be replaced. One suggestion is the NAMICA and Nag missile image.Bcs09 (talk) 02:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

About population & military

Hello, I would kindly draw your attention about the population in India, in the top most section its stating India's population is 1.18 however many sources do say that by now it has crossed 1.2 billion people so please correct it.
And secondly please mention whether India have the 3rd largest stating army of 2nd in the world and try to put the latest figures as of 2009 because in Indian Armed Forces article data is complied as of 2006.--Kkm010 | Talk with me 05:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
India do have the third largest armed forces in the world in world. The latest figures is not available. With the Induction of Sagar prahari bal, the new mountain divisions etc, the number must have crossed that of the U.S. But still the number is not available in the open. But when taking the Army into consideration, the Indian Army is second to the PLA in terms of numbers.Bcs09 (talk) 02:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

And what about the population fact.--Kkm010 | Talk with me 05:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Wait another six months or so. we will have the prelim numbers from the 2011 census. --Sodabottle (talk) 17:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hindustan هندوستان

The Persian transliteration is absent in the paragraph —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Typhoon vs. SU-30MKI: The 2007 Indra Dhanush Exercise". Defence Aviation. 2007-08-08. Retrieved 2009-04-01. 
  2. ^ "Development of Ballistic Missile Defence System: Year End Review" (Press release). Ministry of Defence (India). 28 December 2007. Retrieved 2008-01-26. 
  3. ^ "Indian army receives first T-90 tanks made under Russian license". RIA Novosti. 2009-08-08. Retrieved 2010-03-10. 
  4. ^ ANDAMAN & NICOBAR COMMAND - Indian Navy
  5. ^ ANDAMAN & NICOBAR COMMAND - Indian Navy
  6. ^ "The Nano, world's cheapest car, to hit Indian roads". Reuters. 23 March 2009. Retrieved 27 August 2009. 
  7. ^ "". Wall Street Journal. 6 October 2008. Retrieved 27 August 2009.  External link in |title= (help)