Talk:India/Archive 35

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 30 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 39


Change required in the economic section

I noticed two statistical changes that is required in the Economic section. 1. India was the world's fifteenth largest importer in 2009 and the eighteenth largest exporter. be changed to India is the world's eleventh largest importer and the seventeenth largest exporter. 2. India's consumer market, currently the world's thirteenth largest be changed to eleventh largest. Similarly if other statistics are found to be outdated, they need to be updated as well.Madstat (talk) 14:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Super-sized center-aligned very pertinent British India map image

Wow what a sexy map! I love it! The queen will be proud. Can somebody make it larger!? Please. Sincere request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Fixed to original orientation. —SpacemanSpiff 12:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

New title for creation

A new title named 'Science and Technology' has to created under the section of economy. (This has to be a specific section not immersed in ther article as everyone gets lost into it. Specific countries have done this so India should too.) The country has invented and has good immense work under science in a lot of things. I was seeing China's article (I believe even the US and UK article has it) the other day, they have it and it details a lot of detail in science over years they have worked on. India should hav it as India also has a list of long inventions under science and technology. Do include List of Indian inventions and discoveries. Thanks. Hope to see this section included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

National Anthem

Isn't the length of India's National Anthem 52 seconds? Then, is the song being played on the "National Anthem" link wrong? Can we please have a better(and probable, correct) version of the same? Jobin RV Jobin RV 11:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Upload any panorama Image

I think we need some Cityscape panorama Image for the article like this

Panoramic view of Tirunelveli as viewed from the Palayamkottai bank of river Thamirabarani. Sulochana Mudaliar bridge, the 12-arch link between both cities, is on the far right of this Deepavali 2009 image.

thats all PumaPerumal 08:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

About Religions in the introduction

I find the line quoted below to be a bit misleading. It conveys the idea that the present day Indian culture is cleansed of Indian originated religions, and that Zoroastrianism, Christianity and Islam played the important roles in shaping the culture. Almost every major religion in the world has arrived in India not long after it was founded including Judaism and Bahai faiths. I personally think undue importance is given to the arrived religions in the introductory part as distinctiveness of Indian culture is well contributed by the Indian originated religions. I am not able to make any edits since the page is locked. I request people with those privileges to look into the matter.

"Four of the world's major religions—Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism—originated here, while Zoroastrianism, Christianity and Islam arrived in the first millennium CE and shaped the region's diverse culture.[14]" (talk) 02:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Well I added the suggested changes but the edits were reverted without discussing anything here to incorporate changes and requiring more sources, etc. thus letting it be and look like indigenous religions have done nothing to add to distinctiveness of the culture, which was the main point. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 13:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Do forgive me for reverting, but we all went to a lot of trouble with this sentence, starting around Talk:India/Archive 30 I believe. I see your and the IP's issue, although the same implication did not come through to me. Would it be fixed if the word "shaped" was preceded by a word such as "helped" or "further"? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I think 'helped' was there originally and am not sure when it got removed. An alternative formulation: Four of the world's major religions—Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism—originated here, while Zoroastrianism, Christianity and Islam arrived in the first millennium CE and are also a part of the region's diverse culture? --rgpk (comment) 14:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
May be something on the lines - The region's diverse culture is shaped by Four of the world's major religions—Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism- originating from here as also by Zoroastrianism, Christianity and Islam arriving in the first millennium CE.
Just suggesting ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 15:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I think if you change "shaped" to "also contributed to", it looks good. Indian culture is "diverse" even before religions from outside arrived. So - "Four of the world's major religions—Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism—originated here, while Zoroastrianism, Christianity and Islam arrived in the first millennium CE and also contributed to the region's diverse culture." (talk) 18:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Didn't the Jews arrive before the CE, the community is so old, that they aren't called Jews but Sons of Israel, Bene Israel.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Cochin Jews arrived in 6th century BCE. But i guess their contribution to Indian culture is so small. There are cultural elements in Central and Southern Kerala where their influence is felt though. Arjuncodename024 12:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps India provided a safe haven for the Jews is notable too. The place where there were no ghettos and pograms.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
If there is no objection to my suggestion, please add it on my behalf (talk) 14:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Have added "also helped shape" per RegentsPark's post of 2-25-11 (see archives) and per IPs request. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Well we have a notable emic source Swami Vivekananda who says that ...History accordingly turned gory with the coming of Islam to India...[1]Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Why all this talk about "golden age"? The term isn't on this page at all, at least currently. Also, it seems to me that this term "golden age" is fraught with problems and is probably best to be avoided. One person's golden age is another's dark age. Pfly (talk) 11:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Islam has definitely shaped modern India. So I think let's not get into that. 30% of India's population is Muslim. So let's not put anything that hurts anyone. India should be proud that it is one of the countries where Jews were treated with great respect. Tata is a zorastrian. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 23:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 :Not 30, but 13 percent.Madstat (talk) 14:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Regardless, Islam has been incredibly influential in India. But I am concerned about the factual inaccuracy that says that Islam arrived in the 1st century CE when in fact it wasn't even founded till the 7th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed change

Copied from discussion above:

Four of the world's major religions—Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism—originated here, while Zoroastrianism, Christianity and Islam arrived in the first millennium CE and are also a part of the region's diverse culture? --rgpk (comment) 14:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I support a change in the wording of the statement on religions and I vote for rgpk's version above. AshLin (talk) 15:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Nano image

The Tata Nano image has to be replaced. The kind of hoopla that it created when it came is not there any more. Tata is not able to sell large number of Nano's either. That image is there for a long time. So why not have the image of Mahindra Scorpio, that's the SUV that's sold successfully in India as well as abroad.Desertcharioteer (talk) 04:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the Nano image is definitely not representative of the Indian automobile industry, the initial hype notwithstanding. I don't think the Scorpio is representative of the industry either. The highlight of the Indian auto industry (per RS) is Maruti Suzuki and the 800/Alto segment in particular. —SpacemanSpiff 08:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
ISRO's space launch vehicles[1] that has launched satellites to Polar-synchronous, Geosynchronous orbits and payload to the moon.[2]
I suggest the image of India's space launch vehicles. One of the best success stories of India.Desertcharioteer (talk) 07:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

India is the world's largest, oldest and oldest continuing civilization

Kindly go through the Author's notes and the introduction page of the following book!! I am flabergasted as to why my edit was deleted!!!

Here is the link to the official Indian government website that says that India is the world's largest, oldest and oldest continuing civilization!!

Realhistorybuff (talk) 18:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Plenty of reasons have been given: issues with copyright, POV, but I'd like to go with using sources of variable quality and not representing them accurately. In this edit "Amazing Facts about India and Indians!". NRIOL. Retrieved 31 August 2011.  was given as the source for the statement "With a continuous history of over 10,000 years, India is the world's largest, oldest and oldest continuing civilization." NRIOL seems to be akin to a travel website and is certainly not a high-quality source.
Then there's the claim that "A 66 million year old fossil was found in India on November 8, 2007 and this indicates the possibility of India's history being much more ancient than currently estimated." The reference given (Handwerk, Brian. "Mystery Mammal Fossil Found in India". Retrieved 31 August 2011. ) is talking about prehistory so there's a clear failure to understand the source there.
For the statement that "India was the wealthiest civilization and possessed the most advanced economy throughout most of human history" you quoted a news article. The foundation of an article is its sources and so they must be good quality, especially in a Featured Article. Nev1 (talk) 18:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Also see WP:RS to understand our threshold for reliable sources. The superpower bit has been hashed out here quite often and consensus is to leave it out as it is undue --here, here. —SpacemanSpiff 18:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
The largest and oldest living civilization is dubious. The largest civilization would be the British Empire (total land area) or the Mongol Empire (contiguous area). In terms of worldwide influence, that would be the US and/or Europe particularly the UK. The oldest civilization is considered by most people to be Mesopotamia (now modern day Iraq), hence why it is termed the cradle of civilization or the Fertile Crescent. In terms of oldest continuing civilization, that is disputed. There's clear POV issues in the edits. Elockid (Talk) 20:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
That page "Interesting Facts about India" is amazing. The very first "fact" is "India never invaded any country in her last 100000 years of history." One hundred thousand years? Really? No invasions? Come on. Another fact claims that "detailed knowledge found in many ancient Indian texts." Genetics? Really? Another claim is that the English words "navigation" and "navy" are derived from Sanskrit words. Curiously, all the dictionaries I can find say they come from Latin. Etymology online says the Latin and the Sanskrit, and many other branches, come from Proto-Indo-European. Then there are odd things like the claim that the "world's first granite temple" is in Tamil Nadu, and was built 1004-1009 AD. So...before 1004 no one had ever built a temple out of granite? Um.. citation needed? Anyway, it amazes me, the kind of stuff one can find on pages. Boggling. This is from the federal government? Reads like boosterism. Pfly (talk) 06:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Here's some other ones that caught my eye. "Varanasi, also known as Benaras, was called "the Ancient City" when Lord Buddha visited it in 500 B.C., and is the oldest, continuously inhabited city in the world today". Damascus, Syria is the most commonly accepted city as the oldest continuously inhabited city in the world. Martial Arts were first created in India, and later spread to Asia by Buddhist missionaries. That one is just no. There is no one definite "fact" where martial arts came from. Elockid (Alternate) (Talk) 17:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

@plfy Sanskrit is the mother of all languages. It has been proven time and time again that Sanskrit was the first language to originate. In fact, the word "Navigation" DID originate from two Sanskrit words "Navi" and "Gaath".

@Elockid Your information regarding Damascus, Syria is not verifiable, and slightly comical (sorry if that was rude :-)).

And can someone please explain to me why some of the edits regarding India's history were deleted. I just went through some of the previous versions and it seems to me that everything was in order. The reference was good. The links provided at the beginning of this article are credible sources. I understand that this is a featured article, but I feel that the edit made by "realhistorybuff" was legit. The user seems to be blocked. Thabks :-)

Jackiepurr (talk) 20:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The oldest civilization(s) are usually said to be those of the Ancient Near East. It is there we have the oldest known examples of writing, agriculture, and other aspects of civilization (which is a somewhat vague term). The oldest known religious structure is Göbekli Tepe, in Turkey, about 11,000 years old. The idea that Indian civilization is the oldest is an exceptional claim, so requires exceptional sources. I'm not saying it is not true, just that the idea that the Near East is the oldest seems to have more and better sources, as far as I know. Also, "Sanskrit is the mother of all languages"? The "first language to originate"? That's extremely hard to believe. Tasmanians had no language until Sanskrit people came by (somehow)? Or is Sanskrit over 40,000 years old? Pfly (talk) 21:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
The mother of all languages is Sanskrit and the first language to originate? That is just pure POV and boosterism. Considering that the Out of Africa theory is the most accepted theory, what you're saying is that people did not speak a language until they started to arrive in India? That requires an outstanding amount of sourcing to the degree of worldwide conference. Or, are you suggesting that Sanskrit is in fact the world's first language which actually did not originate in India. The source regarding the information with Varanasi I think has already proven to be an a very unreliable source. Our inclusion for such material in Wikipedia is that the source must be reliable. Dictionaries such as even say it's reputed as the oldest city. UNESCO (go to Long description) or copied directly: Damascus is considered to be the oldest city as well as the oldest capital of the world. Under criterion III: Historical and archaeological sources testify to origins in the third millennium BC, and Damascus is widely known as among the oldest continually inhabited cities in the world and along with the previous description, this would make Damascus as the oldest continuously inhabited city in the world. Columbia Encyclopedia ( has a copy of the article). Since primary sources seems to be what you're going with, let's also use BBC. BBC reporting that Damascus claims to be the oldest continuously inhabited city in the world. Here's article 1 and article 2. Google searching "what is the oldest inhabited city in the world" shows a lot of Damascus results (haven't even found one Varanasi). Do I need further proof? Sorry, but we don't go with POV filled history here. Elockid (Talk) 23:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
(To Pfly and Elockid) The India page has a long history of drive-by appearances by trolls such as Realhistorybuff (talk · contribs) and Jackiepurr (talk · contribs), who materialize out of thin air and push various agendas frenetically for a while and then vanish or get banned. Its best not to pay them too much attention. There's not even a snowball's chance in hell that the garbage they're peddling will ever make it into the India page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, mainly I just wanted to write "Göbekli Tepe". It's fun to write. Göbekli Tepe. See? Pfly (talk) 06:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 :) Btw, there are Wikipedia pages List of cities by time of continuous habitation and List of largest cities throughout history. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


I'm asking permission from you folks to replace the rotation template with the Shakuntala image.

I saw the page. The Tagore portrait was showing. It doesn't evince "mystic India"—timeless, borderless. It is a rather nice headshot. Nothing more.

There's something about the colours, the gestures in that painting that warms the page. Warms it in a way that the plaster of recent statues, or parti-colored temples and ghats, headshots dour and colourless, cannot. They are particular places, merely certain faces.

I have nothing against Tagore or the other subjects, and nothing against rotation ... elsewhere. I am familiar with the fissiparous image wrangling in the archives and have no interest in resurrecting it. But we should do service for our readers by showing them a kindly enigmatic image, a sort of Mona Lisa's smile pertaining to India's own most ancient past. I'm commenting, years later, because I regret it not being there every time I purge the cache.

Regards. Saravask 01:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Delighted to welcome back to the India page, one of the members of the page's original Featured Article (FA) team, the principal author of the FA Rabindranath Tagore, and the creator of the Template:Indian image rotation. I'm happy to support Saravask's proposal.
PS Even if others don't agree on a single replacement, they might want to reduce the number of images in the rotation template. Since Saravask is here, this is also the time to ask any questions about the template (which I seem to remember some people had a few months ago.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I think the Shakuntala image would be a wonderful addition (if I remember correctly this was discussed before too). However, I also believe that the rotation serves a valid purpose -- I just think that the pics we have in the rotation are not the most representative. If we can reselect the images that would be best IMO. —SpacemanSpiff 05:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Well how if then take it as a friendly suggestion. As I've said I've no stomach for rebarbative pic tussling. Gawdy or not, images should compose an equivalence class. Headshot was the odd one out ... Saravask 00:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
If Chamberlain were alive, India page would be his favorite... Not just this issue. Every language is "Official". Every regional tongue is "Classical". Every festival is "notable". Every template is "informative". Every freedom-struggle leader is "mention-able". — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Does IPL symbolise sports in India?

I cannot help but notice that a match from IPL is used to symbolise sports in India which I feel is incorrect. I tried changing the picture, but was asked to get consensus. I agree that it has been very famous, but i feel File:Hockey india.jpg or File:2011 World Cup Champions.jpg would be a better option (the latter has copyright concerns though). Suraj T 04:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Since I have got no opposition from the community, I'll proceed to change the image myself. Thanks. Suraj T 04:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Er, waiting one/two days for this isn't sufficient, please wait at least a week or so for such matters. The hockey image is a bad addition for various reasons: the game is the national sport, but it is not representative of sport in India; the image is a posed image, not something descriptive. On the contrary cricket is representative of sports in India, the image is also of "play"; in addition the IPL is also representative of India's monetary power within the game. We can update it to an international game, but I haven't seen any good quality images for any games so far. —SpacemanSpiff 04:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree the "play" kind of image would be better. What about File:2011 World Cup Champions.jpg? Suraj T 05:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
General practice (there are exceptions of course) is that FAs shouldn't have non-free images. The world cup image also fails WP:NFCC #8 and #1. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 05:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Just uploaded File:Australia vs India 2004.jpg. Any suggestions? Suraj T 05:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I think this image already exists at Commons (and as general practice for Flickr images, it's better you upload on Commons as the flickreview process there is good enough for us to be able to retain the image even if the flickr user changes the license). However, this image is not in India, it's at the MCG. The key point we should note is that it's about India and not Indians. If you look at the image -- what shows most is the magnitude of the stadium and the number of spectators, something that can not be associated with India in this case. A cricket match in India would be better than a cricket match played by India. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 05:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Ah! now I realize where I went wrong. Though I'm not entirely satisfied with it, I agree the present image is the only one that can be there. Also tagged File:Australia vs India 2004.jpg for deletion. Thanks and sorry for wasting your time. Suraj T 06:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
It's not the only one, it's the only one that we have been able to find so far -- especially because many of our stadiums don't allow cameras (just the whim of the match coordinator that day) and so on. I've been searching for cricket match images for over two years now, and I know it's very difficult to get them. These kind of discussions are always productive, so there's no time wasted, just that we can't get to them soon enough:) cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 06:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
That's exactly what I meant, because I searched all over for a free image and couldn't get one better than the one that's present in the article. And I jumped the gun too soon. Thanks for your patient response. Suraj T 12:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I will Oppose, as hockey is not a good choice, and the second pic is a non free one. IPL is a good way to represent cricket in India. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 10:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Good BBC documentary about India by noted historian Michael Wood

India got smaller

India got 40km² (15,4 sqaure miles) smaller. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

See also section

I see an ever expanding drop down list of portals in this section, is it necessary? I don't think we need anything except the India portal link out there. This is a summary style article and even in the case of these kind of links we should be following a "less is more" approach IMO. Right now I see Geography, Asia, SAARC, India and a multitude of cities (the Commonwealth realm having been removed). The individual city portal links are better served in the respective city and probably state articles, but not here. I'm also not sure about having the rest -- especially Geography, Asia etc out here. Why only geography, why not history and so on. While it can probably be made a hidden list (can it?) and we can get rid of the white-space, I'm curious to see if anyone sees the need for these portal links out here. —SpacemanSpiff 17:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Unnecessary, serve no special purpose. — Bill william comptonTalk 17:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Buaidh is on a mission to make every country See also section the same. I suggest this be brought up more centrally, although I agree in principle. Let's get rid of all the cities at least, god forbid we have portals for every city in India. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree. There will only be more portals down the road and the list will soon become unmanageable (if it isn't already). --rgpk (comment) 17:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Too much is too bad, they say. Agree with removing the unnecessary stuff. Lynch7 17:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis, I don't know about the other articles, but I'm guessing those that edit country articles more regularly can take it up at VPP or another suitable location. @others, it appears that there's some agreement building on removing "unnecessary" portal links, so that we don't have to ask this question later, would you respond with what you think should stay? IMO the India portal is the only relevant link. —SpacemanSpiff 18:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Agree with keeping out all but the India portal. I used to regularly cull the redundant footer junk, but nobody else seemed to mind it, so it all came back after I stopped checking. What a ridiculous monomania, adding this ballast that nobody could be bothered to use—it would be wonderful if these folks learned to source or copyedit or do anything else that was less trivially tiresome and time-wasting. Saravask 01:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, now I've just noticed this, the {{satop}} template adds those see also links, the trouble is those links are already included at the bottom of the page in the templates, but more importantly those three links are force-fit in here and one of them is a redirect to the other! —SpacemanSpiff 20:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Got rid of satop. It's not a good idea to blindly add links to a see also section (and, if I read WP:SEEALSO correctly, this is not in compliance with MOS anyway). --rgpk (comment) 20:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I think it's in compliance (MOS specifically suggests any portal/book links) but it's also upto editorial judgment, the template anyway was of no value IMO. I don't mind a link to one of these many indexes and the book, but it doesn't make sense to keep randomly add stuff just because it exists. —SpacemanSpiff 21:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Gone? Good. Saravask 01:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Very poorly written article. Does great injustice to what is arguably the greatest civilization in human history!

Edit request from Manasrout, 19 September 2011

I want to add this Image under link:
Also I want ot add Puri Jagannath temple Image under link:

Description About First Image link: It is the site of the 13th-century Sun Temple (also known as the Black Pagoda), built in black granite by King Narasimhadeva-I (AD 1236-1264) of the Eastern Ganga Dynasty. The temple is a World Heritage Site. It takes the form of the chariot of Surya (Arka), the sun god, and is heavily decorated with stone carving.

Description About First Image link: The name Jagannath (Lord of the Universe) is a combination of the Sanskrit words Jagat (Universe) and Nath (Lord of).The temple is an important pilgrimage destination for many Hindu traditions, particularly worshippers of Krishna and Vishnu, and part of the Char Dham pilgrimages that a Hindu has to be visited in one's lifetime

I want to add those above point under "Medieval India"

Manasrout (talk) 10:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Not done, neither of those images are on Wikipedia. —SpacemanSpiff 10:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


Where is Category:Articles with Hindi language external links. What is "Chang 1967"? There are others. Using {{Sfn}} would make maintenance easier and code cleaner. Saravask 04:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I was trying to figure that one myself, it's likely transcluded from some template as the cat hasn't yet been created, I'll take a deeper look at the other articles and figure it out. As for the referencing, I was considering switching it over to {{harvnb}} before, but if you're replacing with {{Sfn}}, I won't do that. Also, any particular reason we need the Obama image in the politics section? I'm not sure it adds much value, but I agree that image quality wise it's better. —SpacemanSpiff 07:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I think {{Hi icon}} is the culprit.—SpacemanSpiff 07:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
[EC] Good to see you found it. Can it be fixed? I just now checked {{Lang}} and its wrappers, and doesn't look like that's it. As for {{Sfn}}, I don't think I have the patience to do more than a few replacements at a time; I wish someone knew whether there was a Perl script or something available to do it automatically. When I've tried simple regex formulae in the editing window (on other articles), it just creates a huge mess with many broken refs only tediously fixed. Else, perhaps AWB does it; I don't know, as I'm working off of OS X, which prevents me from trying it. As for Obama, I wouldn't mind it moving to "Foreign relations ..." or being removed altogether, but the previous image was so awful: not an emblematic building, an unappealing front-on shot, and wretchedly low-res to boot. Again, feel free to revert any changes if they need more discussion here. Thanks. Saravask 07:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Also, for the Obama-Parliament image, it's good for readers to see what our (according to Anna, criminal) MPs look like. It's IMO an interesting interior shot of a key address. There are so many other dour and unlively external building shots: BSE, Hindu temple, Taj, presidential palace, ... Saravask
I've fixed all the harvnbs, for Kulke I spotchecked a couple with my 2004 copy and page names weren't different (Fowler had referred both 2002 and 2004 eds) so I changed everything to 2004, if there's anything different he can change the page nos. Only think I'm not sure about is the Chang book, so I've left that as is. Also, it doesn't look like the culprit is {{Hi icon}} for the category -- it's a template for sure, but I can't seem to find which one. —SpacemanSpiff 09:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
The culprit is {{Language icon|hi|Hindi}}--regentspark (comment) 09:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I figured this one out: If you use the {{native name}} with |icon=no then the cat doesn't get included. However, if you don't set that, then {{Hi icon}} is included. Now that has the Category:Articles with Standard Hindi external links added based on the template front end, but based on some other code, it also adds Category:Articles with Hindi language external links. Saravsk. Since you're familiar with templates, can you fix this? I don't think there's an issue in moving the Standard Hindi cat to the Hindi language title and keeping this hidden. We don't need both anyway, and anyway some of these links aren't going to be in Standard Hindi anyway. But the other issue is -- the Language template we are using is for internal text, why should it populate a category for external links? Based on this argument alone, the article doesn't belong in the hidden category either. —SpacemanSpiff 09:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Sadly I've forgotten almost everything I knew about WP templates; brain is turning to mush looking at the code ... I'll see what I can do (probably not much). I can ask around.
  • I took the "Stein 2001" refs to be "Stein 2008". Should "Robb 2002" be "Robb 2001"? Since you've mentioned that you guys have used multiple editions of the same book, and I don't have access to any of them, it's good to confirm.
  • I also just solved the mystery of the long-lost Chang, via temporal binary search algorithm lifted from an (as of yet useless) nonlinear optimization course. A lot of revert-warring was going on back then, so must have got lost in the ensuing melee.
  • Also great to see that the erstwhile "rgpk" has scooped my singularly innovative e.e. cummings-style sig; so back to staid majescule for me. Enjoy. (J/K) Saravask 03:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

[UI] Okay, I've asked Gadget850 (talk · contribs). Hope he has time to drop by here and fixed the {{native name}} issue pointed out by SpacemanSpiff. Saravask 04:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't have my head in this, but here is what I see:
I don't understand why the categories exist, but that should be discussed on the template talk. I don't understand the difference between Hindi and Standard Hindi.
There are two ways to fix the redlink category:
Additionally: Someone needs to install User:Ucucha/HarvErrors so you can see the Harvard errors. For example, there is an in-text cite to Achaya1994 that does not exist in the references.
---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 10:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I'll walk over to that part of town and comment on these cats, if nothing the names ought to be changed because having a Hindi transliteration does not mean that there are external links. Thanks for the Harverrors script link!
I've fixed the more obvious errors (e.g. Stein 1998 v 2008 -- it's the same book/edition, just a reprint, so pages don't change, typos etc), there are still a few that need fixing. —SpacemanSpiff 11:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

About North and north west official border

India borders Afghanistan on north west officially and also China on north. But curiously no reference to this information. Is there some kind of consensus on not including disputed issues here? Can somebody please explain this? Thanks. deep (talk) 08:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

China is mentioned in the first paragraph. India only borders Afghanistan via Pakistan-administered Kashmir, or "Pakistan-occupied Kashmir". Whatever you call it, the border with Afghanistan is beyond the administration and control of India. There are a number of mentions of the Kashmir conflict. The dispute is included here. Pfly (talk) 09:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
India shares boundary with China in northeast(as has been mentioned in first paragraph) and in the north along Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh (which is undisputed) and Jammu & Kashmir. The distinctness of north front and northeast front should have been mentioned. As for Afghanistan, which India borders through Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, even if the border is beyond administrative control of India, the official claim is still there. deep (talk) 11:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
After searching archive, i could see that lot of discussion has already taken place about Afghanistan issue. And it appears that the wording as it appears now was accepted along with footnotes mentioning disputes[3] . In current version wording is still intact but footnotes have disappeared. deep (talk) 12:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


As towns grew,villages became less isolated. in the 9th century AD,South Indian kingdoms shared in the prosperity from trade between the Arabs and East Asia.Chinese goods were brought to Indian ports before being transferred to ships going to Europe. Textiles.jewellery and ivory were among the goods exported. Arabs horses were imported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Education? Infrastructure?

Shouldn't there be a section called Education? And also one for Infrastructure? I didn't even see sub-sections regarding the matters. How can this be a Featured article In Wikipedia Without such important sections? - Composemi (talk) 06:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Image Changes

I have noticed that User:Saravask has been making huge image changes without any discussion and consensus.

PLease discuss image changes here before implementing! Nikkul (talk) 16:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

That's not true. Saravask was discussing things here. See discussion upstairs. If you have any specific complaints, please list them here; I'm sure he'll respond to them. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


I think that the definition of indian economy before 1991 as "socialist" is biased by the American point of view of the quoted author. In fact India was a classic example of mixed economy: the majority of entreprises still were private, like the giants Tata and Birla. Beside this big private sector there was a massive state intervention and regulation. So, the correct definition is "mixed economy": don't you agree? Lele giannoni (talk) 16:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

You may be right. Do you have a good source that states this clearly? Part of the problem is that the Indian constitution was amended (sometime in the 70s, I think) to state that India is a sovereign secular socialist republic. Or words to that effect, but with "socialist" definitely in. Also, the Wikipedia page Mixed economy doesn't specifically have India as an example. (Or, maybe, it does and in my hurry I missed it.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Changes in the lead

Hi Saravask, While I like many of the changes you made to the lead, I have some questions as well. I waited until now to let your edits settle a bit. Here are the two versions of the lead.

The original version:

India Listeni/ˈɪndiə/, officially the Republic of India (Hindi: भारत गणराज्य Bhārat Gaṇarājya; see also official names of India), is a country in South Asia. It is the seventh-largest country by geographical area, the second-most populous country with over 1.2 billion people, and the most populous democracy in the world. Bounded by the Indian Ocean on the south, the Arabian Sea on the southwest, and the Bay of Bengal on the southeast, it shares land borders with Pakistan to the west; Bhutan, the People's Republic of China and Nepal to the northeast; and Bangladesh and Burma to the east. In the Indian Ocean, India is in the vicinity of Sri Lanka and the Maldives; in addition, India's Andaman and Nicobar Islands share a maritime border with Thailand and Indonesia.

Home to the ancient Indus Valley Civilization and a region of historic trade routes and vast empires, the Indian subcontinent was identified with its commercial and cultural wealth for much of its long history.[4] Four of the world's major religions—Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism—originated here, whereas Zoroastrianism, Christianity and Islam arrived in the 1st millennium CE and also helped shape the region's diverse culture. Gradually annexed and administered by the British East India Company from the early 18th century and administered directly by the United Kingdom from the mid-19th century, India became an independent nation in 1947 after a struggle for independence which was marked by non-violent resistance and led by Mahatma Gandhi.

The Indian economy is the world's tenth-largest economy by nominal GDP and fourth largest economy by purchasing power parity (PPP). Following market-based economic reforms in 1991, India has become one of the fastest growing major economies, and is considered a newly industrialized country; however, it continues to face the challenges of poverty, illiteracy, corruption and inadequate public health. A nuclear weapons state and a regional power, it has the third-largest standing army in the world and ranks tenth in military expenditure among nations.

India is a federal constitutional republic governed under a parliamentary system consisting of 28 states and 7 union territories. It is one of the 5 BRICS nations. India is a pluralistic, multilingual, and multiethnic society. It is also home to a diversity of wildlife in a variety of protected habitats.

and your version:

India Listeni/ˈɪndiə/, officially the Republic of India (Hindi: भारत गणराज्य, Bhārat Gaṇarājya; see also the official names of India), is a country in South Asia comprising a mainland on the Indian subcontinent, the Lakshadweep and Andaman and Nicobar Islands, and several other islands in the Indian Ocean. Bounded by the Arabian Sea on the southwest and the Bay of Bengal on the southeast, it shares land borders with Pakistan to the west; the People's Republic of China, Nepal, and Bhutan to the northeast; and Burma and Bangladesh to the east. In the Indian Ocean, India is in the vicinity of Sri Lanka and the Maldives; via the Andaman and Nicobar Islands it shares a maritime border with Thailand and Indonesia. With 2.3% of Earth's land surface, India is the seventh-largest country by geographical area. With over 1.2 billion citizens, it is the second-most populous country and the world's most populous democracy.

Home to the ancient Indus Valley Civilization and host to historic trade routes and vast empires, the Indian subcontinent was identified with its fabled commercial and cultural wealth for much of its long history.[5] It birthed the four world religions of Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism, and was further culturally diversified by the 1st-millennium CE arrival of Zoroastrianism, Christianity, and Islam.[6] Gradually annexed and brought under the administration of the British East India Company from the early 18th century and governed directly by the United Kingdom from the mid-19th century, India became an independent nation in 1947 after a generational struggle ended with a final campaign of non-violent resistance led by Mahatma Gandhi.

India is a federal constitutional republic governed under a parliamentary system; it comprises 28 states and 7 union territories. It is a pluralistic, multilingual, and multiethnic society that also hosts a diversity of wildlife in a variety of protected habitats. It is a nuclear weapons state and a regional power that has the world's third-largest standing army and ranks tenth in military expenditure among nations. The Indian economy is the world's ninth-largest economy by nominal GDP and fourth-largest economy by purchasing power parity, or PPP.[7] Market-based economic reforms in 1991 allowed India to become a newly industrialised country and one of the world's fastest-growing major economies; as such, it is one of the five BRICS nations. Yet it confronts mass poverty, illiteracy, corruption, and inadequate public health.

  1. First paragraph:
    1. I think the mention of islands in the first sentence is an overkill and likely distracts the new reader (for whom the lead is written). Alaska alone has ten (possibly more) islands that are larger in area than anything India has (and so is Long Island). In other words, what India has is really quite insignificant when it comes to islands, and they are best mentioned somewhere else.
    2. I like the other changes in the first paragraph.
  2. Second paragraph:
    1. "fabled" is redundant in the sentence as it now stands; the act of "being identified with" is what makes the wealth fabled. You could, however, say, "India was fabled for its commercial and cultural wealth for much of its long history."
    2. "It birthed" imbues the land with purpose, which only biological entities usually have. However, if you say, "Four world religions were born here," the (unstated) causative agents of the birth are the founders and proponents of the religion.
    3. The first sentence goes from active in first clause to passive in second. (Not a big deal though.)
    4. "further culturally diversified" is a bit of a mouthful (for the lead, in my opinion).
    5. I've never heard the Indian Independence movement being described as a "generational struggle" (which to be fair is a modern expression, and likely would not have been used at the time). The movement began in the early 1880s with the opposition to the Ilbert Bill and the founding of the Indian National Congress; its motivations and directions had been developing for some two decades before that. It ended in 1947. That makes at least 60 years and two, perhaps more, generations. The early leaders, such as Dadabhai Naoroji, Pherozeshah Mehta, Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, Gopal Krishna Gokhale were all gone by the early 20th century. The more "youthful" leaders such as Nehru had not been born until the end of the 19th.
    6. "final campaign of non-violence resistance" That too is slightly problematic from my point of view. Gandhi began his first campaigns (Kheda, Champaran, Ahemdabad) around 1916; his non-cooperation movement of the 1920s was another campaign; the more election-oriented approach of the 1930s another one; and the final "Quit India movement" the final one. I would use "campaign" for those.
  3. Third paragraph
    1. I like many of the changes: for example, listing things in keeping with their appearance in the main article.
    2. However, I would still separate the two sentences: "India is a pluralistic, multilingual, and multiethnic society. It is also home to a diversity of wildlife in a variety of protected habitats." into a final fourth paragraph. The reason for this is that, your version seems to end in a longish and somewhat uninviting list (for the new reader). Separating the living inhabitants of India (great and small), who among themselves have wrought something admirable, into a separate paragraph, makes the ending more inviting. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

My comments:

  1. I think the original first para read much better. In particular, I think the second sentence, which has been moved to the end of the para, captures the essence of India much better than the detail about mainland and islands. Also, the "in addition .... maritime border" construction is much better than the "via the" construction (via, typically, signifies movement or travel while this is a static association).
  2. In the second para, I would much rather not see words such as 'fabled'. My inclination has always been that, as a summary article, we should stick to a 'just the facts' sort of approach. The word 'birthed' is improperly used. The religion sentence is also more natural in the original. The EIC and British rule sentence is, however, better in the new version.
  3. I'm ok with most of the last para (or last two in the original). However, I do have a preference for placing the 'economy' stuff ahead of the rest because that is a salient aspect of India today. The last sentence, "Yet it confronts ...." is poorly designed in the new version and read much better in the original (partly because these are challenges faced by the nation and partly because the word 'mass' fits oddly with the rest of the challenges).
  4. All in all, I'd say let's just go back with the lead that was carefully choreographed and on which we achieved consensus with great difficulty in the first place. --regentspark (comment) 18:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
This is okay. I was looking at the Australia lead for guidance (esp first sentence); also attempted to "sex up" the wording while abiding by historicity, WP policies, etc. AS I told SPacemanSpiff elsewhere, I know precious little about Indian history compared to, say, German or Russian or French. Not here to make India look like all that. Didn't mean to steamroll measured consensus. Thanks for pointing out my mistakes. More comments later ... Saravask 19:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Cheapest tablet PC in the world

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: India has announced that it has succeeded to produce the cheapest tablet PC in the world that students will buy at price of 35 dollars to expand digital acces to the internet in the Asian giant. The government says that the computer Aakash, which means the sky, at first be available in a pilot series of 100,000 pieces, so that in the coming months, this figure increased to millions. (talk) 01:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I think this should be included when section named "Science and Technology" is to be made/created in main article. I however find it funny that no section exists in India's article where many other countries have like China and others do. A suggestion on how to build up this section of 'science and technology' is given somewhere below in this articles discussion.
Good suggestions, and in due course we'll get to them. This page is trying to sort out appropriate images, and they will likely keep us busy in the short term. You could add the news about the cheapest tablet to Science and technology in India page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Culture Image Rotation Removed With No Discussion?

Can someone please tell me where is the discussion and consensus that was held to eliminate the Culture Image Rotation?

The culture image rotation allowed for a variety of images from dance, art, cuisine, architecture, and society to be shown from North, South, West and Eastern India.

The images selected were agreed upon by more than 25 different users. How can someone just remove it with no discussion? Nikkul (talk) 03:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Nikkul -- you are not the final decision maker on images, please stop reverting to your preferred ones. Your behavior across multiple articles is very disruptive as you've been told by many many editors before. —SpacemanSpiff 04:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I never said I was the final decision maker. Please show me where the discussion and consensus was to stop the Culture Image Rotation. Nikkul (talk) 06:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
There is no appetite, Nikkul, for your glossy, anonymous, vacuous, and airbrushed images on this page. The India article is not a tourist brochure. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
But where is the discussion to remove the Culture Image Rotation? The culture image rotation was agreed upon by almost 25 users. Surely there must have been a discussion and consensus before such a dramatic change was made. Nikkul (talk) 19:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


Fowler is worried about the lack of subaltern images. I agree. Saravask 05:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

A discussion about demographics images was already held and the consensus was to have a demographic map in the demographics section since it is impossible to show the faces of all types of Indians in one image. Nikkul (talk) 19:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
That was long time ago. There is no reason why there can't be images in addition to the map. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
+1 to Fowler&Fowler's suggestion. We need a representative set of images. India is not uniformly picturesque as the article images seem to suggest. AshLin (talk) 06:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no one image that shows the different types of people of India. There was a long discussion about this before and the consensus was that it's impossible to show India's different types of people in one image (North India, South India, West Indian, Eastern Indian, tribals, lower caste, upper caste, Hindu, Muslim, CHristian, Sikh, Jewish, rich, poor)... all these aspects of India can not be shown in one image. It's better to just have a map. Nikkul (talk) 02:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler's images

Here are some images of people that I found in the WikiCommons category "People from India." The captions were added quickly, whatever came to me. They are not meant to suggest final captions, pass or fail. Will add more images. These are not pictures of the "underbelly," just pictures of ordinary Indians matter-of-factly (even proudly) doing the things they do. The underbelly part is trickier, and I'm not sure I found anything in the Commons collection that would pass muster.

A. People from Uttarakhand
1. Garhwal, beautiful picture, showing children in woollen handmedowns with their grandmother. What pride and dignity. 
2. A woman in Uttarakhand sharpening her harvesting sickles, holding the whetting metal between her toes, showing effortless skill, the vacuum flask, which might be the photographer's, a reminder of the timelessness of her technology. 
3. A Yoga instructor in Rishikesh sitting on a bench with a bag of groceries. Love his hands. 
4. Kumaon, a boatman on the Nainital Lake, with a superbly bronzed face, and faraway look. 
B. People from Bihar
1. The stoicism of the afflicted in the Kosi flood of 2008. 
2. A little wearily, a man watches the on-going construction of his house in Chandesh, Bihar
3. Unselfconsciously showing what it takes to make the ubiquitous fuel of rural India. 
4. How many hands does it take to pull off a man's first hair cut
C. People from Madhya Pradesh
1. A school in Katni, MP. 
2. A Bhil mother with child and uninhibited smile. 
3. Dual career couples have been around for a long time. At least ever since pottery was invented. 
4. Children in Chambal eating puri and kheer, and displaying poise unseen at the tables of the well-heeled. 
D. People from Tamil Nadu
1. When hair shines like silk, flowers are optional. 
2. Tree climber with equipment. 
3. A newly married couple. 
4. Man driving bullocks, superb examples of the Zebu
E. People from Karnataka
1. Block printer serenely creating symmetry, Halasur Village, Karnataka
2. Riding their proud camels past anonymous shop window, Bangalore
3. Traditional hard hat on traditional scaffolding, Bangalore. 
4. Woman draped in silk sari with brocade work, Mysore city. 
F. People from Orissa
1. The tattoos, the jewellery, the unworked confidence. A Wikipedia Featured Picture. 
2. Radiant school-children, every last one smiling. 
3. Women waiting for something (what?) one chilly morning in Deogarh. 
4. Women's work is never done: carrying hay (jute?) in Puri
G. People from Uttar Pradesh
1. The SelaQui International School in Uttar Pradesh
2. A shopkeeper in Lucknow models a sari for a customer. 
3. Women riding a motorcycle through a village in Western UP as the winter evening fog rolls in. 
4. Just another day in Agra
H. People from West Bengal
1. The mammals of New Digha, great and small, waiting for tea and snacks. 
2. A day at the races. 
3. The beachcombers of Udaipur Sea Beach, West Bengal 
4. Ploughing on the other hand is work. 

I'm tired now and have to stop. Sorry, many states have been left out. If you'd like to add pictures, please go to the WikiCommons "Category:People of India by state" and pick your state and pictures. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

PS I've now gone through all the subfolders in WikiCommons collection "Category:People from India," although I didn't always look at the sub-sub-... folders. I've tried to keep in mind Saravask's detailed and excellent remarks and admonitions (thank you for them) and Pfly's superb comments. Here is a final four, Group I, from India:
I. People from India
1. Sharing in the maternal bounty, Rajasthan
2. Parcheesi, the national game of India, being played at the crossroads, Pushkar, Rajasthan. 
3. Fishmonger in Pondicherry, Tamil Nadu
4. Female tourists from North-East India, in sarongs and shawls, at the Taj Mahal. One of my own pictures. 
I. People from India (continued)
5. The dabbawala in Mumbai. Pondering the placement of the 1:25 PM delivery. 
6. Granite sculptor in Goa
7. Mir Alam Mandi, a vegetable market in Hyderabad. (Two blokes are posing, but the rest couldn't care less.) 
8. Bananas for sale, Trivandrum, Kerala

I'm done. Thanks Saravask for critical insights. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem with having pictures of people whose picture might have been taken without their approval and broadcast onto one of the most popular pages on Wikipedia. Nikkul (talk) 01:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC) {{Personality rights}}

Personality rights warning

This work contains material which may portray one or more identifiable persons alive or deceased recently. The use of images of living or recently deceased individuals is, in some jurisdictions, restricted by laws pertaining to personality rights, independent from their copyright status. Before using this content, please ensure that you have the right to use it under the laws which apply in the circumstances of your intended use. You are solely responsible for ensuring that you do not infringe someone else's personality rights. See our general disclaimer.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikkul (talkcontribs)

Nikkul, the specific content requirements for India say:

  • Taking a picture of a person in a public space: Does not require consent
  • Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: Does not require consent (with exceptions)
  • Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent (as per above)

In general you are free to take pictures for private use of other people in public areas under the Constitution of India (CoI) article 19, however publishing a photo in a manner that might be "embarrassing, mentally traumatic" or causing "a sense of insecurity about [depicted persons] activities" is illegal under the CoI article 21. (See: "Protection of celebrity rights - The Problems and the Solutions" (PDF). Journal of Intellectual Property Rights 11: 415–423. 2006-11. Retrieved 2011-09-01.  Check date values in: |date= (help); |coauthors= requires |author= (help))

Most of these pictures have been taken in public places. Please remember that I have not (with two exceptions, both public scenes) added my own pictures, but simply picked ones that are already in the WikiCommons collection. Interestingly, a recent Wikipedia Featured Picture of the Day File:Kutia kondh woman 3.jpg, labeled F1 below, was indeed taken in a private setting, and even carries the "personality rights" template. If "personality rights" worries don't prevent such a picture from being seen by millions, they shouldn't prevent my chosen pictures from being added to the India page.

Finally, as someone who a few years ago was persistently promoting the image File:Indiadem.jpg on this page, you should know better than to profess concern about "privacy rights." This picture was not only not public, but, its WikiCommons and Flikr pages both came with this vignette: "The same lady as in the earlier post. I asked if she could lift her veil. She answered that her father-in-law forbade it. Her friends teased her calling her 'Aishwarya Rai' ;) and I joined in the fun too. She obliged and the smiles were all around." If you don't think she was embarrassed, let alone traumatized, why this belated worry about others that show unrepentant calm or glee on their faces and have no fathers-in-law in sight? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Nikkul's remarks

These images do not show all aspects of India's demographics! There is no one image that can show all different type of people in India. That is exactly why it was decided by a LARGE number of people to just keep a map/infographic. Nikkul (talk) 01:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Here are the problems I have with these images:

  • None of these pictures show anything relating to India's economy ... women standing in line? man on a boat? woman staring at ground? married couple?
  • One image can not represent all Indians. ...North Indian, South Indian, Eastern Indian, West Indian, Hindu, Muslim, Upper Cast, Lower Caste, Tribals, can you show all of these things in one image?
  • Bad Quality- The subjects seem like they are not ready for the picture...guy staring at the ground, girls looking away...I don't see how these are good quality pics
  • There is already an img in Economy section with man and 2 oxen...this shows the reality of India far better than these ridiculous images above

Nikkul (talk) 01:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


  • H4 No. Over-exposed blown-out sky; washed-out verges. Saravask 13:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Looking at it some more, yea, the sky is not great. At first I thought it had a nice misty dawn thing going, but looking more closely I mainly see the JPG artifacts. Pfly (talk) 05:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

RegentsPark's comments and uploads

I uploaded a couple of school pictures from Orissa. Feel free to use them.

Children at lunch in Orissa.png
Orissa school.JPG
Orissa school children.png

. --regentspark (comment) 13:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Added another one where the kids are not looking directly at the camera. Admittedly, I'm no photographer (and have some equally bad ones from village schools in Tanzania to prove it!) but I like the smiling one better. The kids were actually laughing at something the teacher said and the camera just happened to be in the front. Also, the school room shows its decrepit condition more in the new image.
    Orissa village school children.png
    . --regentspark (comment) 19:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
RegentsPark's choices

A1, C3, C4, D3, E3, F1, F2 (biased!), G2, G4 (a bit stereotypical though), H4, I2, I5, I8. --regentspark (comment) 19:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Pfly's remarks

From a purely photographic aesthetic point of view, I like F3 and H4 the best. ...though if the point is to show people, perhaps H4 is less than ideal, as you can't see the man's face. Pfly (talk) 03:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
A question. People are talking about rotating images. What does that mean exactly? Pfly (talk) 05:47, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
See India#Biodiversity. Saravask 06:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Ah ha, thanks. I hadn't seen that trick before. Pfly (talk) 06:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler's responses

Thanks everyone, especially Saravask, for your comments. The captions I wrote, in a hurry, in part to draw in the reader, may have actually been a distraction, for they were often inaccurate, but more importantly they didn't always highlight what was important in the image. But, anyway, what's done is done.

The images: All in all, I guess I'm more accepting of image quality inadequacies if the picture conveys something new or special. That, personally for me, was true for pretty much all the pictures I picked. (The issue of whether a picture has relevance for an article section is different of course, and, it's true, I didn't pay much attention to that, except at the very end.) Here are some examples of poor image, but great affect.

  • The Nainital boatman (A4). He might be blending in with his background or his jacket, but for me the picture is as much about his appearance. The three layers of clothing, the big wrist watch, the boots with nice tread, the folding umbrella. He is no cowering Nainital boatman of a generation ago, when people in the Kumaon were much poorer.
  • The Kosi flood (B1) too has obvious image issues (pretty bad really), but for me all that is outweighed by the stoic look on the faces, even on that of the children, in the face of the great anxiety they must have been experiencing.
  • The three lines in girls school (C1): Again, the sky is bleached, but for me the clincher was the three runner rugs (improvised?), that the girls are standing on barefooted. That Zen-like visual order in India was something new for me.
  • Man driving bullock cart (D4): True its over-cropped, (and I didn't mean "killer" in the sense of dangerous, only in the sense of "killer eyesight" or "killer recipe"), but what is visible of the bulls, the horns and heads, is superbly healthy and vital, a contrast to the tired, overworked animals you see on the Indian street.

And, so it goes ... I tend to agree with Saravask and Pfly that we should set the image quality bar high, but perhaps we can make some exceptions here and there if the image content is exceptional. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I don't see how any of these images are encyclopedic? Wikipedia is not a tourist brochure. Wikipedia is not an art/photography exhibit. Images need to relate to the content they describe. None of these images relate to India's economy. Nikkul (talk) 01:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment from Qwyrxian

Fowler&Fowler asked me on my talk page to comment here. This is not an article I've edited before, but taking a fast-paced trip through the page to look at the images, I agree with the idea that it looks most lifeless. Currently in the article, only 5 of the articles contain people; 2 include them only as tiny barely discernible figures (the Parliament and cricket pictures), 2 of the others are politicians (Gandhi and the G8 shot), and only one is of a "normal" person (the farming picture). For a country with such diversity of people and life, it seems like more pictures of real Indians living their lives might be good. Obviously, the concern is where to put them, as the article already has quite a few pictures. Generally, I'm not a fan of galleries, but in some special cases I can live with them. I could handle a well-selected gallery (maybe 4-5 pictures--that is, one line only) at the bottom of the Demographics section. Of course, this won't represent everyone...but I don't think 100 pictures could come close to capturing a small part of Indian's socio-cultural diversity. Looking at Fowler's options so far, I like (and this is half esthetic and half the idea of trying to capture shots of people really "living"), I like A2, B3, C3, D3, E1, F4, G2, G3, H4, I2, and I5. One thing that should be done is to make sure that we don't select a full set of pictures that give the impression that India is entirely rural/farming; it would be good to add some more urban/"modern" pictures as well. I hope this helps. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment from Ravichandar84

Most of the photos, I observe, are of men and women busy in their day-to-day life activities. I feel that it would have been better if we had more pictures of people involved in traditional arts like a Keralite in a Kathakali performance, etc.

Response by Nikkul: I agree. These pics above don't show anything economic or demographic (women standing in line?, man staring at the ground?)...I do not like any of them. Nikkul (talk) 01:51, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Ravichander's choices:

In addition, Ravichander84 nominates the following images:

Children from Bomdila, Arunachal Pradesh (the picture needs to be renamed and moved to Commons, though) 
A Sikh farmer from the Punjab 

Additionally, I feel, it might be good if we had a picture from the extreme north of India (I mean, the Punjab and Jammu and Kashmir). Also, a photograph from any one of the Seven Sisters would do.-RaviMy Tea Kadai 04:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Response from Fowler&fowler: Ravichander84, the way I see it, the Children from Bomdila image is too low-res. Saravask has asked us to pick images that are at least 1K x 1K pixels. The Sikh farmer image has high enough resolution, but it's sky is bleached out. So, it would make the cut either in image quality. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Redtigerxyz's query: Comments requested

  1. Is the proposal to have a collage or changing random pictures or 1/2 permanent pictures? Depending upon the answer of this fundamental query, I reserve my comments. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I don't know what precisely Saravask has in mind, but since we had rotating pictures earlier, its probably best to make your comments with that end in mind. If nothing else, it will help in making a short list. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
PS Of course, Saravask may reply as well, and I will then defer to him. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Animeshkulkarni

Comments on posted pics-

  • Good: A3, C3, D3, D4, E1, E4, F1, I1, I5, I6.
  • Oh no!: G4 - Reason: Non-Indians have a notion (or atleast had in past) that Indians use elephants for daily trnsportation. Like commuting from home to work-place. They leave their homes in Thane, feed their elephants with bananas & start on the ride to their office at CST. I think this image will just strengthen their doubt.
  • Ok ok types: Rest all.


  • For repesenting people of India in one snap, one can try & catch hold of a pic showing kids in traditional dresses ready for some fancy competition. (Dont ask me how to get it. You people know more than me.)
  • A snapshot from old Mile Sur Mera Tumhara video could also show a lots of variety in costumes.
  • A pic representing technologically advanced Indian society should be added. Refrain adding a stallite launch. That doesnt represent general masses.
  • A film poster! Mother India.

-Animeshkulkarni (talk) 12:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I guess we are discussing about preparing a set of images for the demographics section. A satellite launch or a film poster of Mother India would more appropriately fit in Technology in India or Media in India, respectively.-RaviMy Tea Kadai 02:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Those were extra suggestion for the India article in general. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 07:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis comments

There's a good point about current images. I was looking at the map in Demographics and realised that the densely populated area I was staring at was Bangladesh, so perhaps that's not the best image for this page. There's little I can add to Saravask's immense breakdown, and I agree with his dislike of posed photos. A pose loses the story the photo may otherwise have had. The photos Saravask chose are all good, although I'm quite partial to A4, B3, and C4 despite their being on Saravask's naughty list (and despite C4 looking into camera, it looks caught in the moment rather than posed), which I feel are all very interesting shots in their own ways. A rotation in demographics could be a quite good idea. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Bill william compton's comments

Few images I'd like to see in Economy section are D4, F4, H4, I6, I8. D4, F4 and H4 are directly or indirectly related to agriculture—to depict that India is an 'agriculture major economy', and this sector is still experiencing stagnation with a low average annual growth.


We've very high quality images of tribes of Arunachal Pradesh, and of course with great EV. This region of India (North-East) is usually neglected by Indian government; at least we can balance our Demographics section by including one or two images from there. — Bill william comptonTalk 14:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

J. People from North East India
1. Apatani tribal women (a featured picture and my favorite) 
2. A Mishmi couple 
3. Dancers from Tutsa sub tribe of Tangsa of Changlang district 
4. Lion dance of Monpa people 
Response to Bill william compton: The Apatani image was indeed a fixed (i.e. non-rotating) image on the India page for some two or three years. It was ultimately removed by an opposition led primarily by user:Nikkul who was dead set against it. The other images don't pass Saravask's image quality recommendations: they are not high-res enough. Also, I'm concerned that they are pictures of people dressed in "tribal" costumes for the benefit of tourists. It gives the wrong impression that people in the north east commonly wear these clothes. The last picture doesn't really show people, except in an unrecognizable conglomeration. It would be more appropriate for culture if it didn't have the image quality issues. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

AshLin's comments

Due to limited access/broken connectivity, I'll just say I agree that we need more people oriented images and not just shiny ad-like images. India is NOT shining everywhere. When I get my connectivity back, I would be able to participate more fully in specifics. AshLin (talk) 17:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Image Changes

Can we please discuss image changes before making them on the main page? I have noticed a lot of image edits without discussion from User:Saravask and others made without any sort of discussion whatsoever. I know we have all made our mistakes, but from now on can we please try to discuss image changes before making them on the main page? Nikkul (talk) 20:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, Nikkul. I find that a couple of days ago, you had yourself changed an image of Kedar Range with one of generic Himalayas with an edit summary "added better pic showing actual mountains" which was reverted by Fowler&Fowler. FYI the image change was suggested by me in this thread to replace the very one you added once again. In this I see shades of WP:OWN since this image was uploaded by you from Flickr. The Kedar range is a better image of a mountain than India_north.jpg, aside from a more relevant context, so your caption is also misleading. Anyway, I assume you have learnt better. I support your reminder to discuss things before making changes to an FA, however well-intentioned. AshLin (talk) 06:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment: I reverted the image to the ORIGINAL one that was there before someone unilaterally changed it to the current image. Yes that image was brought to Wikipedia by me (like hundreds of others I have brought), but the reason I changed it was because I was reverting to the original image. The original image was discussed long time back and agreed upon by many editors. Someone changed that image to their own without discussing. That image is not photographed by me, and I don't care who brings it to Wikipedia. All I care about is that images that are added to this page look decent and are added with consensus. Nikkul (talk) 01:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
The current image was not unilaterally placed but after discussion and consensus. Kindly read the link I provided. The current image which replaced by your earlier choice has better encyclopaedic value and was after a consensus on this talk page. AshLin (talk) 17:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Not to worry. We are not looking to unilaterally changing anything. I'm sure there'll be plenty discussion. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Demographic map

Sorry, I didn't realize that the demographics map has been changed. I don't remember the old map very well, but it was clearly about population density, and had a scale bar (with units) etc that told you what a shade of color meant. The new map seems to be a railway connectivity map, which is a little confusing. But, mainly there is no color scale bar. We come away knowing that the Gangetic plain is more populated, but that is about all. If there were issues with the old map, I'm sure it could be improved. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I liked the old population map better. Nikkul (talk) 01:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
OK, great, thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── See this and this. Irreparably flawed polygon bounds, invalid source code, outdated. Planemad (talk · contribs) has hex colour–pop density pairs—ask him and build a legend; else wait a few weeks. Saravask 06:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Unused references

Removed to here. Saravask 05:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)




  • Vilanilam, J. V. (1 November 2005), Mass Communication in India: A Sociological Perspective, SAGE, ISBN 978-0761933724 
Thanks for removing the uncited references. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
No problem. Saravask 10:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


  • Economy Image Change to Cow Milking- NO! This looks ridiculous! At least the paddy image shows shows agriculture.
  • Dabbawallah staring at the Ground- This also looks terrible. Dabbawallas contribute a tiny amt to the Indian economy- WP:Relevant
  • Children sitting on the ground- No. This is not encyclopedic
  • Taj Mahal image blocked by people- The original image is a FEATURED Image! It is MUCH better than your proposal.
  • Old Men playing Unknown Game- Cricket is the biggest craze in India. There is NO reason not to keep the current cricket image. Nikkul (talk) 05:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Although I had initially opposed the idea of rotation as suggested by Saravask 3 and 1/2 years ago, I am now more sympathetic to it. I feel that the economy section can have two rotating images in each location rather than just the one. However, I don't support having too many images in a rotation template: the reader doesn't see them often enough for visual impact.
As for the changes suggested by Saravask, (a) the Man and calf sharing milk is an good addition to the paddy fields with wind turbines image as representatives of the economy of rural India. Similarly, (b) the dabbawalla image is an excellent addition to a rotating template on the urban economy; the dabbawalla, after all, is an urban phenomenon. It should be complemented with an image of the modern Indian economy. While the Stock Exchange image is sort of half OK, I think a good image of something explicit in the software or industrial sector would be a better replacement for it in a second Economy rotation template. (c) I support the inclusion of the children eating kheer image in the demography section. While the image may not be geographically representative of the people of India (which image is?), it is representative of a major feature of India's demography: that a large proportion of its people are young, even youngsters, and, of those, a majority are poor, but now receiving an education (and free school lunches). (e) I support the replacement of the current image of the Taj Mahal for reasons I have given in the section below. (f) I also support the inclusion of the men playing parcheesi image along with the cricket image in a rotating template of two (again for reasons I have given in the section below). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I've few concerns. Bombay Stock Exchange is like backbone of Indian economy, replacing it with dabbawala doesn't seem a wise decision. I don't understand how "Children eating kheer and puri" represents Indian demography; for this we can have a rotation template containing images like Sikh farmer, Kondh tribal woman, etc. I'm not against of Joueursindienspushkar but it wouldn't be appropriate in article as at present "Sport" section doesn't say anything about traditional Indian sports/games. — Bill william comptonTalk 14:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive Image Changes-- Removing featured images without discussion or consensus.

Wikipedia policy states that major changes must be first discussed and agreed upon on the Talk page BEFORE they are implemented on the main page. User: Saravask has been adding images as he pleases without any discussion or consensus.

I left a message for him on User:Saravask Talk page asking him to stop unilateral edits, I also made a section here asking people to discuss image changes first. But he has continued to add images the way he feels.

  • Here He changed a FEATURED Taj Mahal image to another one with NO DISCUSSION whatsoever!
  • Here He changed the Biodiversity Image Rotation (which had multiple pics that had been agreed upon by 20+ users) to just 2 images with no discussion.
  • Here he replaced an image in the Government section with an image of the interior of the parliament WITHOUT any discussion!
  • Here he changed an economy image also without any discussion.
  • Here he added an Environment image with no discussion or consensus.
  • Here he changed a Defense image with no discussion on talk.
  • Here he has added his own images of BSE without waiting for consensus on the Talk page.

These edits above are extremely disruptive. Wikipedia's policy is to discuss major changes before. User;Saravask has started an edit war by adding his images directly with no discussion. We need to stop such disruptive behavior. Whenever I have reverted these undiscussed edits, User:Fowler&fowler reverts them back. Nikkul (talk) 04:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I have been a regular visitor of the India page and the image changes were unwarranted. The image-war is a pointless waste of time. As per WP:Consensus changes should be made after reaching a consensus and not the other way 'round.

PS: The previous Taj Mahal image was awesome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 08:30 17 October 2011

We can't have one rule for Nikkul and another for Saravask. Would Saravask please comment on this aspect? AshLin (talk) 09:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
As someone who has edited this page for five years, this is how I see the images problem. A Featured Article (FA) is vetted by the Wikipedia community initially in its Featured Article Candidacy and then, if it aims for longevity, in Featured Article reviews. A featured article candidate, in turn, is judged by the WP:FA Criteria. Among these are 1(a) FA is well-written, 1(b) FA neglects no major facts or details, 1(c) claims in an FA are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources, 1(d) FA represents views fairly and without bias. The Featured Article Criteria, however, say precious little about the images accompanying the text; the third criterion merely says: 3. Media. It has images and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status. Over the years various people have tried to make Wikipedia-wide improvements to the image policy, but with little success so far here, i.e. in relation to images in Featured Articles.
Deciding which images are appropriate for this featured article is an issue that has dogged this article for all five years that I've worked on it. In the days when user:Nichalp watched over the article, he largely averted dealing with the issue by restricting images in a Featured Article to Featured Pictures; however, since Featured Pictures tend to be visually aesthetic, they often feature people or natural scenery or people in natural scenery. In other words, Nichalp's approach certainly addressed the image equivalent of criterion 1(a) above, but not of 1(b), 1(c), and 1(d). To address the issue of 1(b), Saravask, some 3 and 1/2 years ago, single-handedly both suggested the idea of rotation and himself designed (i.e. programmed) the rotation template. Once the rotation template was ready, a number of people submitted various candidates and decisions were made.
Problems 1(c) and 1(d), however, have remained. Pictures, by accompanying texts, make certain claims too. If nothing else, they purportedly support the claims in the text. While we can't exactly produce reliable sources (a la 1(c)) for an image, we can, as a community, do our best to make sure that the pictures are a generally accurate description of the scene they represent. Similarly, the images version of 1(d) would suggest that images be a fair description of reality they represent. A digitally altered (airbrushed) image is a violation of 1(c); a pure pristine unpeopled image of the Taj Mahal is a violation of 1(d), for, if you have lately been to the Taj Mahal, as I had the privilege of doing some time ago, you will realize that it is impossible to see it now without a vast throng of attendant people (to which you are yourself contributing of course).
I believe it is the issues in 1(c) and 1(d) that Saravask is trying to address in his latest effort on this page. The current cricket image File:IPL T20 Chennai vs Kolkata.JPG is a fine image, but it is hardly representative of "sport" as it is enjoyed the vast multitude of India's people; playing cricket in a village field or a city street, or watching cricket on television, might be more representative in that regard. The image of the men playing parcheesi, File:Joueursindienspushkar.jpg is meant to address the latter issue. It shouldn't, in my view, replace the cricket image, but rather be added to a cricket image in a rotating template.
We should certainly proceed by consensus, but be also aware that over the years, people have added digitally enhanced images of one view of India or images that highlight only the shining urban India. Those images will need to be balanced. That is what Saravask is aiming to do. He may have hurried things along a bit, but he has the best intentions and, behind him, a superb history of contributing to this page. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment- This is not about the images. This is about the fact that User:Saravask keeps adding his own images with no discussion. Nikkul (talk) 03:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm personally uneasy when I see wholesale changes to a contentious article and suggest that going slow may not be a bad thing. Better to build consensus on the talk page because that will increase the staying power of the chosen images. --regentspark (comment) 14:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Changing images unilaterally is highly disruptive and disrespectful to the Wikipedia process. Nikkul (talk) 14:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't go that far because Saravask is acting in good faith to improve the article and the images clearly need changing. But, in a contentious article, it is better to seek consensus before making changes. --regentspark (comment) 15:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Nikkul is over-exaggerating the case; it is not highly disruptive, he is not assuming good faith when he so proclaims. AGF the matter needs to be discussed here and Saravask asked to discuss each of his image changes including those recently made. Let us justify them by consensus or overturn his edits. AshLin (talk) 15:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Nikkul, I can't speak for others, but I am myself perfectly capable of reading your posts without the boldfacing. If you need to emphasize something, please consider italicizing it instead. I tend to get headaches with too much boldfacing and tend to avoid reading boldfaced content. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

That's funny because whenever I try to revert User:Saravasks's undiscussed changes, you revert them back with no explanation. Obviously, the boldfacing is necessary. Nikkul (talk) 03:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. Saravask 13:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Images issue: let's slow down

I'm afraid that we're getting ahead of ourselves and we need to slow down. Let us consider one section at a time, and start with "Demographics." Let us go back to considering the images upstairs (as representatives of Demographics only) and hearing all opinions on them. Let us put off even suggestions of changes to the other sections until we've sorted out demography. I don't know if Saravask has actually changed any images yet, but if he has, I'd request him to change them back to the originals until we've sorted out the demography image(s). (This of course doesn't apply to the Himalayas image submitted by AshLin which already has consensus.) Fowler&fowler«Talk»

Makes sense to me. The many images posted above and lengthy threads has been too much for me to get through and offer help or ideas. If it was done in smaller bits I might be able to keep up. This page is by far the busiest I routinely watch. Average of about 20,000-30,000 views a day. Over 2,400 editors watching. Wow. Pfly (talk) 17:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm all for 'slow' (my spouse will say that the word defines me!). I think Saravask has brought some important points about photographic quality into the discussion and this is a good time to pick images. But it is probably better to do it in a manageable way, one section at a time. Fowler, do you want to take the lead in laying out the choices? Something along the lines of "current image" "alternative image(s)" for demographics would seem to the the way to go. --regentspark (comment) 17:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Sure, will do. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Please do not add your image proposals onto the main page until consensus is achieved. Nikkul (talk) 03:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]. Saravask 13:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Rotation vs. slide show

Is it possible to have a slide show (of the kind found in most newspaper web sites today) instead of a rotation? This would give a reader more control, and also immediate access to all images. I would much rather have a slide show in each section than a rotation template. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

{{Styletips}} is a purge-based text slideshow easily adapted for pictures. Gadget850 (talk · contribs) may know—or know someone who knows—how to implement a purge-free slideshow. Saravask 05:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I did read the two threads. The first discussion seemed inconclusive. The other, 2009, discussion was about random images appearing on a Wikipedia page from a collection of College Alumni photos and there were concerns both about the instability of the page and the unworthiness of the exercise. Here, all the images are present on the page at all times; nothing changes from day to day. It is just a different version of "Gallery," which doesn't take as much room and allows the reader to view the images one by one in the same (one picture) image space. In the Einsteinian view of things, space has been converted into time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Just noticed the October 2011 Coding Challenge banner. One involves implementing a "Wikipedia Slideshow" via HTML5. Guess that answers the question of currently available purge-free solutions. Saravask 05:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Gandhi-Nehru image replacement

Proposal 1: Nehru gandhi.jpg replaces Nehru Gandhi 1937.jpg.

Proposal 2: Nehruwithgandhi1942.jpg replaces Nehru Gandhi 1937.jpg. Saravask 14:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The first one, File:Nehru gandhi.jpg, is much better, I think. Pfly (talk) 09:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
First one is better quality, but the second seems to have more historical significance. Is the first at any particularly important event? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, the first has better quality, but, sadly, has been overused in the media over the years. Well, the only big thing that happened in 1937 was the Congress's victory in the first provincial elections in India, ... but with those two blokes, in those heady days, every year, and every event therein, was historic. There is a picture of the two taken just before the launching of the Quit India Movement; that truly is iconic, ... but Time magazine or Life has a copyright on it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The first image was a "print of Nehru with Gandhi at the AICC meeting in Bombay, July 1946". The INC was founded in 1885, not 1937. So (in my non-specialist opinion) neither ranks above the other in terms of significance. That seems to agree with what Fowler says. As for overuse, we need to focus on the image adding maximal EV to the caption and accompanying text, not on what other media have/are done/doing. That's best done through a clear, evocative shot—regardless of how frequently others use it. That's my take. Sad about the Time/Life shot. Saravask 13:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

 :) Having uploaded the picture File:1st INC1885.jpg, I know about 1885. I meant the Congress participated in elections (to provincial assemblies) for the first time in its history (and won handily) in 1937. Many historians regard it as pivotal in turning the tide of British public opinion against continuing British presence in India, and ultimately in India achieving its independent. The other, more iconic, image taken on the eve of the Quit India resolution in 1942, it turns out, is on Wikipedia: File:Nehruwithgandhi1942.jpg, but not very high res. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Support change to File:Nehru gandhi.jpgRedtigerxyz Talk 15:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
+1 to File:Nehru gandhi.jpg. AshLin (talk)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Fowler, the 1885/1937 comment was directed at Chipmunkdavis, who asked about the notability of the replacement in "proposal 1". I've added your 1942 image as "proposal 2". If it indeed was shot on the literal eve of the 1942 resolution, then its caption could be made far more compelling than the current one, as in "JN, who became ..., and MG, who led ..., on the eve of their 1942 Quit India resolution." Still, I'd say the beautiful smiles in "proposal 1" are distinctive, even if overused. I'm not certain which one is better, and whether they ought to even be rotated. I'd support either and will go with consensus. Saravask 14:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

No, no, I wasn't suggesting using this Quit India copy. It is obviously too low-res. Its sourcing/permission, moreover, is circular, a possible feint around a copyright (Time/Life?). If someone had a hi-res public domain copy, it would be different. Yeah, I vote for the smiling duo. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Alright, if there isn't a significant historical difference one is clearly better quality. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 20:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Taj Mahal image replacement

Proposal 1: Taj Mahal, Agra, India edit2.jpg replaces Taj Mahal in March 2004.jpg.

Proposal 2: GroupFromNorthEastIndiaAtTaj.jpg replaces Taj Mahal in March 2004.jpg. The current image has blown highlights from over-exposure. Saravask 06:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The second one has blown highlights. Pfly (talk) 09:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Agree. First one also has a better angle I think, in regards to the hedges(?) covering the bottom. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Yup. The first is a year old, the second six, and showing its age. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Support change. --Redtigerxyz Talk 15:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Support change to image:Taj Mahal, Agra, India edit2.jpg due to better quality, better angle, more natural feel and larger image size. AshLin (talk) 07:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Disagree: The image displayed on this page would be thumb size. & then having clouds & hedges in that will leave a short view of the actual subject. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 07:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Do Redtigerxyz and others want Taj Mahal, Agra, India edit2.jpg to be cropped at WP:GL/PHOTO? Or should the landscaping context kept? IMO landscaping enhances its EV, and users are always free to click the image to see all details, including the gardens. Saravask 14:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
"The way it is" is just fine. It looks nice in the Taj Mahal lead. But if the proposal to have smaller px image (when cropping may be needed), the current one is fine then. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I propose that we not spend too much time on the Taj at this stage. They are both conventional images, but in Mughal aesthetics, the reflecting pool is an integral part of the image, and the lopped-off pool of the second image, likely, discordant. Let's stick with the original image for now. I'm ready to see other historical buildings there, a rotation, perhaps, with other World Heritage sites: Hampi, Qutub Minar, Bodh Gaya, and so forth. We could spend more time on this when we get to culture section images. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Fowler, can we not walk and chew gum at the same time? :-D This was meant to be an incremental, interim replacement of a blown image. A compromise meant to pass or fail through a quick up-or-down vote. I'd support a future (and likely far more controversial and acrimonious) sweepingly voluminous and time-consuming proposal (like the "Demographics" debate above) to replace this Taj with a rotation. And I'd prefer using I4 instead of "proposal 1"—again, I love the unconventionally beautiful human element and soft lighting. But, having read comments by Nikkul and others (and having seen his Taj-related edits, where he firmly opposes replacing it with anything else, even a rotation), I understand that my first choice (I4 alone or your rotation) is not likely to happen in a reasonable time frame. Hence this proposed short-term compromise: let's keep the conventional vanilla Taj, but lose the glare and blown highlights and gain resolution and pistaq detail. The slightly clipped pool is a matter of weighing a trade-off: are a few more stone slabs (of which there are plenty more remaining in the image) worth losing much of the pistaq and dome detail to glare and over-exposure? IMO, no. The EV is contributed mostly by details involving the Taj proper, not so much having a full pool or a comprehensive view of the gardens. It's a matter of pragmatics. Saravask 05:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
That's fine. I vote for the lopped off blasphemic image.  :) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
LOL. BTW, the pool in the current Taj is also clipped, making it just as sinful by your standards. And I4 is exuberantly idolatrous—you can hardly even see the pool; it's hidden by all those unveiled women! Here on WP, blasphemous images apparently come in threes ... Saravask 14:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I was in a hurry yesterday, but something was bothering me about your Taj picture (the blasphemy aside). The vanishing point (where the lines of perspective meet) is too low in the picture. That creates the lopped off effect more that actual length of pool. The other two don't have that problem. The same problem can occur when the entire reflecting pool is visible, as in this Flickr picture whose vanishing point is too high. My female tourist picture, File:GroupFromNorthEastIndiaAtTaj.jpg, has vanishing point offset to the left, but then it is not a classically symmetric picture; even so, I had considered cropping it on the right, and still could. I suspect that picture works in part because the tourists appear to be walking towards that vanishing point, an effect not evident in this Flickr picture, whose vanishing point is centered but whose humans are dispersed. I do understand that famous photographers can throw such Renaissance caution to the wind, but ... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Rule of thirds? A top crop could raise the VP. We can ask for a cropped version—with the VP raised to lie a third of the way up—at WP:GL/PHOTO if you want. Again, if we go by instant-runoff voting here, my first choice is for "proposal 2", second for "1". But I will go with consensus either way. When we get to the "Culture" rotation discussion, I'll be supporting your "proposal 2" Taj to go into it. I didn't propose it in the first place because, given Nikkul's comments, I didn't think such an unconventional and heavily peopled image would consensually prevail. Saravask 14:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, maybe that's what it was, and, yes, the VP raised third of the way up would be great. You have my vote for proposal 1 (and even more so in a cropped version). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
"Proposal 1" in all its "thumb-size" glory.
"Proposal 1" before cropping.
  • Support proposal 1 looks better. Definitely a no for proposal 2.  Abhishek  Talk 17:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Abhishek, Fowler. Just before I saw your comments, I switched the article over to a cropped edit done by Jbarta (talk · contribs) at WP:GL per request. I know Redtigerxyz said he preferred the original to any cropped version of "proposal 1". If he thinks we need to discuss the cropping issue more, I'm game for a revert. Fowler, please see Abhishek and Nikkul's comment—like I said, that's why I didn't feel "proposal 2", my favourite, would fly. We'll see what happens when we get to the "Culture" discussions. BTW, I proposed that you alone close the "Demographics" vote without interference, and am wondering if you are up to it and if others agree with the idea. Saravask 17:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
It is hard to tell sometimes whether a thread like this is ongoing or resolved. I see that "proposal 1" is on the page now, so perhaps it's a done deal. Still, in response to the idea that thumbnail size view would not show the main subject well enough, I thought I'd add a the thumb-sized version here, which to my eyes looks just fine. It is currently on the main page now, so perhaps this is unnecessary and redundant. But, like I said, it is hard to tell if the issue is resolved or not. As for "proposal 2", well it might be nice to see people, but not like that. Pfly (talk) 10:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, I just realized the photo was cropped, so here's the earlier uncropped photo in thumb-size too. I prefer the new cropped one. Sorry if I'm cluttering things up. Pfly (talk) 10:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Farmer image replacement

Proposal 1: Ploughing with cattle in West Bengal.jpg replaces Paddy and farmer and wind turbines in India.jpg. The current image (uploaded by me) is 862 × 1,296, dingy, and non-crisp. The replacement has a partly blown sky, but was supported by several editors above. Hence I am willing to support it. Saravask 14:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. The replacement does not have the wind power. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Suport. Since when has wind power been used in Indian farming? Had the power from those turbines been going to the farmer, he'd be using an electric tractor. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Proposed image shows the ass of the cows and people... current image shows the front angle (looks a lot better) and the windmill shows the power generation (also important in economy) Nikkul (talk) 19:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Support: The image is about farming and not power generation.  Abhishek  Talk 20:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I still dont think the image showing the angle of the cow's ass is better than the current image in which you can actually see the animals and field. Nikkul (talk) 20:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Why are you so worried about asses? Bring out a better reasoning for your oppose.  Abhishek  Talk 03:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Nikkul's comment is pretty funny, LOL. I couldn't find anything as high-res and good-looking as Fowler's image that also had solar/wind power. This blurry image was the best I saw. If Nikkul could search Flickr and find a suitably licensed dual-use farming/energy image at least as detailed, beautiful, and high-EV as Fowler's, I don't think anyone would complain. Saravask 05:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

To Fowler: "electric tractor"? Wow—that would be some loooong extension cord! Saravask 05:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
So, twentieth century. I'm talking rechargeable. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I just noticed Nikkul's comment. Don't like the cow's (it's a bull, btw) ass? Well now you know what the farmer has to see 24/7. The almost blown hamstring, besides, shows what work it takes. Quite different from the Symphony of the Bulls that the other farmer is merrily conducting below the wind mills. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
"Symphony of the Bulls?" Both pics show the same thing (a farmer plowing a field. The original pic shows a much better angle! No need to change. Nikkul (talk) 21:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support: Bulls and farmer are much clearer in proposed image. Perspective in original is all wonky. --regentspark (comment) 21:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
That's not really a farmer, you know. He's actually a disguised researcher who is studying the contribution of bovine methane to global climate change. That and testing DARPA's new-fangled invisible flatus-collection sacks. And the "maestro" in the current image, likewise disguised to facilitate his work, is investigating whether South Asian cow-song really is—as is routinely held among members of the 21st-century equivalent of the Republic of Letters—melodically more complex that modern pop music ... Saravask 14:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 :). More seriously, I did learn something from the second image: that even fields ankle (knee?) deep in water have to be plowed before planting (of rice?). This may sound stupid, but it never occurred to me that inundated soil needed to be turned over. :) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. It is a yucky business. I saw labourers (and their children, alas) doing it while working for relatives in KN. Yet they do it—and with unmatched dignity too. Saravask 17:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support – ameliorate illustration of agriculture in India. — Bill william comptonTalk 04:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Saravask's previous image seems to be more encyclopaedic but I agree with Fowler's comment about wind power being irrelevant to Indian agriculture. New image (with backsides ;)) preferred. AshLin (talk) 07:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Stock exchange image replacement

Proposal 1: Bombay Stock Exchange 3.jpg replaces Phiroze Jeejeebhoy Towers Bombay Stock Exchange.jpg. The current image (uploaded by me) lacks a stock ticker and ICICI Bank advert, emblematic of India's formal economy and urban middle and upper classes. Saravask 14:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Abstain. Both on my indifference curve. Unremarkable building emblematic of India's financial sector. We need a rotation here showcasing the other sectors. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Proposed image is lopsided and a bad angle and only shows a part of the main tower. Nikkul (talk) 19:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Support the change, as the first has a bit more life to it. I do agree with Fowler though that either way it's unremarkable. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I agree with Fowler that the BSE ought to be replaced by a rotation. This proposal was merely meant as an interim stop-gap meant to last until the stalled "Demographics" mess above finally concludes and we can at last move on to "Culture" discussions. It wasn't meant to be seen as the final and irrevocable solution. But at least three users seem to want the BSE to stay, making prospects of a rotation supplanting the BSE iffy perhaps. Again, this was intended as a short-term compromise meant to effect an incremental improvement, rather than forever pre-empting a future effort at gunning for the whole hog and replacing BSE with a representative rotation. We may get to such a controversial discussion later—whether next week or next year. Saravask 05:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, OK, I vote for the change.  :) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
+1 for image1 as it shows a stock market, vs image2 could be just another building. AshLin (talk) 12:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 21 October 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Amitsingh5827 (talk) 09:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Enough for today. I will share some more soon.

I'm sorry, but these requests are very vague, they're massive changes, and they don't have appropriate inline references. Please could you make specific clear requests - maybe just small ones - like "Change THIS to THAT" with a specific reference? Otherwise, it is very difficult to integrate your suggestions. In addition, please see WP:NPOV and WP:TONE - some of the language is not appropriate for an Encyclopaedia. So...I'm sorry, I cannot make the wholesale changes you've asked for at this time. Could you please re-request with a shorter, clearer, more direct/referenced change? Thank you.  Chzz  ►  07:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


The introductory paragraph still states that India is the tenth largest economy but hasn't it now become the ninth largest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Cricket image replacement

  • New 1: Street Cricket, Uttar Pradesh, India.jpg and/or
  • New 2: Beach Cricket Mamallapuram Tamil Nadu India.jpg and/or
  • New 3: Street Cricket Batter India.jpg and/or
  • New 4: 25px and/or
  • New 5: 25px replaces
  • Old 1: IPL T20 Chennai vs Kolkata.JPG.

I support any consensus combination of the proposed warm, soulful, non-generic, vibrant, and distinctly Indian scenes over the current stale, unrepresentative, hackneyed, and low-EV image, with its micro-sized players lost in a wash of gaudy green grass and blue adverts. AshLin's images are "New 2 .. 5". Saravask 15:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Support Nice picture. New 1, and really all images except the one with a beefy overpaid cricketer striking the ball towards another while thousands of large bottomed cricket fans wave organizer-supplied flags in a pitiable effort to look spontaneous. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Oppose: Watching cricket is the craze in India. The current image definitely looks a lot better. Nikkul (talk) 03:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Proposed image doesn't represent the game of cricket. "A batsman is preparing to take the shot, and what this guy is doing in front of wicket? definitely this is not a position of keeper, and this is not even a wicket". I've never seen such a poor form of cricket. Whilst another image shows a batsman with proper clothing and equipment, wicket-keeper in position, fielder at short leg, etc—a better way of showing readers that how cricket is actually played in India, on Indian venue. — Bill william comptonTalk 04:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
  • This is the "India" page. A page that, if it is to have one iota of encyclopedic credibility, must unflinchingly exhibit ordinary Indian life as it is, "proper clothing and equipment" or no. Our job is *not* to doctor and skew the topical coverage, image selection, and even the images themselves so that a biased, boosterish, airbrushed, and POV picture of India—a picture in which all Indian cricket is played by a few hundred professionals in urban multi-crore stadia—forms in the reader's mind.
  • This is *not* a cricket tutorial or the "Cricket" page, which itself has an Indian street cricket scene. Your bizarre hair-splitting about not "represent[ing] the game of cricket" belongs there, not here. The vast majority of Indian games are played in the "street cricket" fashion. Any of the replacements in thumbnail, with their relatively close-up focus on ordinary players having fun, better illustrates average Indians attempting sport than the diminutive and unrepresentative professionals in the current image. The current image is a all but a garish blaze of grass and glossy blue polypropylene adverts, given how small the jaded players are.
  • You (BWC) also claimed above that pachisi "wouldn't be appropriate in article as at present "Sport" section doesn't say anything about traditional Indian sports/games" [sic]. This tells me you never even bothered to read the "India#Sport" section, the entire first half of whose first (of two) paragraph deals with "traditional Indian sports/games". You are hence posting irresponsible and misinformed opinions, aside from your astoundingly mediocre self-noms of low-res images—replete with cartoon borders and garish watermarks.
  • I really do not care as much about *this* replacement—all of the arrestingly horrible doctored schlock that Nikkul and others have sans discussion and with arrantly hypocritical unilateralism tacked onto this page (the unrepresentative Nano, the hacked-up BSE, the chintzy and grainy trans-Himalaya image) has thankfully all been tossed out now. Nevertheless, I ask that you be more diligent in your comments and not just post things willy-nilly. Saravask 07:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm not an expert on blown highlights and all that stuff. Feel free to trash one or all suggestions. AshLin (talk) 08:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
That 2nd one is striking. They are obviously playing cricket--obvious even to me, and I barely know anything about cricket--and it's also obviously some Indians using some delightfully homemade equipment. I'm not necessarily saying it should replace the glitzy photo of professional cricket, just that I found it quite striking. Pfly (talk) 10:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Let me just say, since the order of comments in this thread has changed. I am talking about File:Street Cricket Batter India.jpg. I note that no one else that favored that one, but as someone from a part of the world that is not very familiar with cricket, that photo is clearly cricket, while most of the others are less clear on what game is being played. Pfly (talk) 09:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
FYI Saravask, I've never advocated use of "biased, boosterish, airbrushed, and POV" pictures. My opposition was based on the representation of cricket, it has nothing to do with "street" or "professional". And, I admit that I should have been more specific, there wasn't anything about pachisi at that time. Support the first and third images suggested by AshLin. — Bill william comptonTalk 12:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Again, we are not here to effect "representation of cricket", as if we are ICC-appointed umpires adjudicating over these children. We're here to show how the *average* Indian plays sport, including street cricket. Any of the proposed scenes IMO do an much better job of showing typical positioning, typical street game rules, etc. than the current image. As Tony1 pointed out in a comment in one of the archives, India is an entirely different sort of country than Australia or Canada, whose pages *can* sport exclusively pro players, sky-scrapers, etc without risking bias so much. They are predominantly urban countries. Not India and its 600,000 villages and its overwhelmingly dominant rural life and street sport.
  • My point in the pachisi was that you've already posted patently incorrect claims—by claiming that "India#Sport" section doesn't discuss indigenous Indian sports, when in fact it does—martial arts, chess, gilli-danda, and many others. I'm asking you to be more responsible in your comments. I don't care if you oppose or not, just that what you post is carefully considered and doesn't contain falsehoods, done inadvertently out of carelessness or not. Saravask 15:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Vote tally on 27 October 2011:

Simplified Demographics Proposal

We currently don't have any pictures in demographics.

We need to decide two questions here.

  • 1. Do we want one fixed image or a set of rotating images and, if the latter, how many?
  • 2. Which images do we want?

Sorry, but we have renumber them (starting with K). I have also taken the liberty of including many Wikipedia Featured images, which I hadn't before. The candidates are:

K. Candidate images for Demographics.
K1. A boatman from Kumaon, Uttarakhand, on the Nainital Lake. 
K4. Children in Chambal, Madhya Pradesh, eating puri and kheer at school. 
K. Candidate images for Demographics (cont.)
K5. A Kondh woman from Orissa. (WP:Featured Picture
K6 Women waiting for something one chilly morning in Deogarh, Orissa. 
K7. Women in a Gond adivasi village in Madhya Pradesh (WP:Featured Picture). 
K8. Apatani women, Ziro, Arunachal Pradesh, India. Photograph taken during a wedding celebration in the Hija village at Ziro.(WP:Featured Picture
K. Candidate images for Demographics (cont.)
K9. A young Bondo woman from Chattisgarh on her way to the weekly local market. (WP:Featured Picture
K10. A Nishi tribesman from Arunachal Pradesh wearing traditional headdress with hornbill beak. (WP:Featured Picture
K11. A young Muslim woman from the Thar desert, near Jaisalmer, Rajasthan. (WP:Featured Picture
K12. Sikh pilgrim after ritual bath at the Harmandir Sahib (Golden Temple) in Amritsar, India. (WP:Featured Picture and Wikipedia picture of the year 2009.) 

In light of remarks by Redtigerxyz and AshLin, I'm adding 24 more images here. Ever state and religion in India is now represented with the exception of Andaman Islanders and Indian Jews, both, sadly, dying communities. Here are the rest:

K. Candidate images for Demographics.
K13. A Jain family praying at Shravanabelagola, Karnataka
K14. A man in Old Cochin, Kochi, Kerala
K15.. Two farm workers sorting egg plants in Sejwat village, Gujarat
K16. School students in Science City Kolkata
K. Candidate images for Demographics.
K17. A young woman in Mahabalipuram, Tamil Nadu
K18. Girl students in Mumbai, Maharashtra
K19. A man selling handicrafts in Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh
K20. A girl from Darp Village near Pelling, Sikkim
K. Candidate images for Demographics.
K21. Buddhist monks at Hemis Gompa, Ladakh
K22. Muslim girls in hijab in Kargil, Jammu and Kashmir 
K23. A Khasi woman from Meghalaya
K24. Bodo children in Assam
K. Candidate images for Demographics.
K25. Yimchunger Naga woman at the morung of Kutur village, Nagaland 
K26. A Biate family of Mizoram in traditional dress. 
K27. A coal miner from Bachra, Jharkhand 
K28. A tea shop owner in Dharamsala, Himachal Pradesh
K. Candidate images for Demographics.
K29. A girl playing a drum at the Gurgaon railway station, Haryana 
K30. A boy in Bihar receiving his first hair cut. 
K31. School children of Longa Koireng, Manipur
K32. Children in Tripura prepare for a traditional dance. 
K. Candidate images for Demographics.
K33. A Goan mother watching a soccer game at Agonda beach, Goa
K34. An Indian Catholic girl's first communion. 
K35. A Parsi gentleman in Calcutta, West Bengal
K36. A street cobbler in Delhi

New Image Proposals

K. Candidate images for Demographics.
K40. A woman in Andhra Pradesh
K42. Buddhist monks in training 
K41. Old lady in Sikkim 
K43. A literacy program for women. 

K. Candidate images for Demographics.
K44. A traditional Indian wedding. 
K45. Manipuri Dancers 
K46. A Bihu man. Shows India's minorities. 
K47. Sumi woman in Zunheboto district, Nagaland. 

Voting #1 (first with 12 images, then with 40; now abandoned for Voting #2)

Instructions: It is probably best to answer here only in the format:

  • [[user:your user name]]
    • 1 Your choice between "Fixed" and "Rotation." In the latter case: Number of pictures you would like in the rotation (Example: Rotation; 7 pictures)
    • 2 Your choice(s) (Example: K1, K3, K4, K7, K9, etc.) Your Wiki Signature.

There is a separate section for discussion below. Regards Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

  • user:RegentsPark
    • Rotation, 7
    • Wow! So hard to choose, these are all amazing pictures. My choices (in order): K12, K3, K5, K7, K8, K9, K10. For this section, I prefer the pictures that show a specific demographic/ethnic group rather than generic people. --regentspark (comment) 20:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  • User:AshLin
    • Rotation, 8 7 (preferably with slide-show capability).
    • Random order but with improved captions (preferable with hyperlinks which lead onto interesting stuff). Too few images to choose eight images from. Will go alongwith community. AshLin (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
  • User:Saravask
    • Rotation, 9.
    • Descending (ranked by quality only): K12, K36, K15, K28, K30, K13, K9, K7, K3. Saravask 13:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
  • User:Pfly
    • I have no opinion about rotation vs fixed, and am about to go to bed, so will keep this simple for now. It occurs to me that images on Wikipedia are first seen as thumbnails and then, if one wants to see more, larger. With that in mind, as well as the idea that these pictures are supposed to show people, I like File:Young muslim woman in the Thar desert near Jaisalmer, India.jpg and File:Meghalaya Khasi Woman.jpg. Also I should say I am nearly totally ignorant of the various ethnicities of India. I am liking these pictures for their photography and showing of people, especially at thumbnail size, not for anything to do with India's ethnicities. Also, these comments are done quickly at with me tired and about to sleep. Perhaps tomorrow I will take a closer look. Pfly (talk) 09:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Voting #2 (With 47 images)

The first vote only involved eight some images and was not brought to a conclusion. On my request and others, editors have worked very hard to bring a new set of 47 images together. We need to select eight among these. Please add your choices here. In case you have voted in the first round above and would like your previous selection to be unchanged, please indicate that also. AshLin (talk) 06:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: There are no images numbered 37, 38, and 39 (so that, in effect, there are really 44 images to choose from). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
  • User:AshLin - Tried fr a reasonable geographic spread with both sexes represented equally.
    • K2, K3, K12, K32, K22, K14, K27, K40. AshLin (talk) 07:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
  • User:Saravask - Descending (ranked by quality considerations alone; accepting some blown images for the sake of their otherwise high EV):
    • Eight: K12, K13, K43, K15, K46, K30, K36, K28. Next: K6, K9, K27. Saravask 13:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
  • User:Pfly - Somewhat random order. Mostly chosen based on photo quality—both technical, ie focus, color, exposure, etc, and aesthetic, ie composition, framing, expressions, etc. Tried to pick best for highlighting people (some seem more about "scenes" than "people", if that makes sense). Tried to avoid overly posed photos, but chose some anyway.
    • K6, K3, K27, K23, K46, K1, K9, K12. Pfly (talk) 09:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

\mathfrak{Chitransh Gaurav} (Talk) 20:09, July 25, 2015 IST (purge)


  • user:Zuggernaut
    • Sorry to jump in here directly but there are 4635 communities (castes) in India (258900 persons per community if you do an average) according to the Anthropological Survey of India. These are divided in to rural, urban, rich, poor, Hindu, Muslim, Christian and may look completely different in images due to different fashions and attires. For example, the Roman Catholic Brahmins look completely different from other Brahmins (say Chitpavan Brahmins) of the Konkan region and there is no uniformity even within the Konkani people of the same region. This is just a stretch of land that is 30 kilometers in width in the state of Maharashtra.
    • We need to determine what is due and what is not and then include images that win the weight race.
    • The proposal above is heavily biased against south Indians, not representing Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Kerala at all and gives undue weight to non-elite communities of north India.
    • In summary, no one picture nor a rotation of 100 images will ever be able to represent even 10% of the 4,635 communities in India. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Zuggernaut raises good points but these are not easily addressable in quick time frame. I suggest, we start of the rotation with images chosen above with consensus, and at the same time explore a list of attributes to be found in the many images to be displayed in the rotation. We may improve the rotation as he suggests by chnging images one by one later. AshLin (talk) 03:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
What is the hurry, why not put the inclusion of images on hold until we determine what is due per WP:WEIGHT? Thanks for moving my comment. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
The selection currently proposed for demographics does lack pictures from the South, but the original selection upstairs did not: it had some dozen pictures. Those will now appear in image proposals for the Economy and Culture section. Overall, we will have reasonable geographical balance. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Though Zuggernaut makes a good point, I think it better to select pictures that are visually appealing for this article than it is to focus on WP:DUE with a rough attempt to ensure geographic balance across the page. As Zuggernaut also points out, the page is never going to be able to achieve balance anyway, so characteristics like photographic quality, interestingness of the subject, and visual appeal should be the focus here. And, as the pictures themselves testify, India's diversity is easily represented. --regentspark (comment) 09:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Agree with RegentsPark, it's impossible to balance the article considering highly diverse demographics of India; so, I don't think we even need to try. Focus should be on to have a good collection of images, without exaggerating on any specific geography. — Bill william comptonTalk 11:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Current selection is highly biased one: Too much representation of tribals, Arunchal, Rajasthan, MP. No Gujarat, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Kerala, TN, Andhra, Kashmir, Sikkim, Bengal. No sign of Buddhism, Jainism. If a suitable set of neutral images is not found, it is best to retain the map and not add any images till there is a clear consensus to add images.--Redtigerxyz Talk 17:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Reply to Redtigerxyz: From the old selection above, I have included here only the pictures which satisfied two criteria: (a) people had already voted for them in the previous discussion, and (b) they were not fit for inclusion in other article sections such as Economy or Culture. In other words, they are mostly portraits. To these pictures I added Wikipedia Featured Pictures. It is true that the selection is geographically biased, but that is mainly because the Indian FPs are geographically biased. The lack of geographical coverage will be made up in the other sections by complementary biased selections, and together these will add up to a approximately unbiased whole. I believe this is a good place to start, otherwise there will never by any pictures anywhere on the India page, or for that matter anywhere on Wikipedia. Your argument applies as much to the Ajanta Image or the Gandhi-Nehru image in the History section as it does to the "demographic" images. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

To Redtigerxyz, AshLin and others who would like to have more choices: I went through some 10,000 image files on WikiCommons. With whatever I found there, in in some cases on Flikr, I've created a subpage, User:Fowler&fowler/Additional Images for India Demography, of my user page, which has 24 more images from all the remaining regions and religions of India. The only two left our are: the native Andaman Islanders and the Indian Jews, both, sadly, dying communities. Would you like me to add the images here? You'll certainly have more choices (a total of 36), but it will also be more work. Let me know. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
PS If you want to view all 36 in one place, you can go to User:Fowler&fowler/Images for India Demography. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's Wait for More Pics Before Voting

Honestly, I am a bit uncomfortable that these images have been handpicked just by User:Fowler&fowler and we have only these options. I think it would be much better if we waited for one more week for more editors to add their proposals for demographics images before we voted.
Also, most of these images are of tribals and Eastern India, with no representation of Buddhists, Muslims, etc. Also, there are no pics from several large states like Gujrat, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Andra Pradesh, J&K, Punjab etc. This is clearly WP:Undue. I feel it is best to wait and ask other users to also add their pics before voting. Does anyone else feel the same way? Nikkul (talk) 02:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Apparently, you didn't read my post above. I've now moved the remaining 24 images to the collection above, making it a reasonably unbiased collection of 36 images. Please view them. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Nikkul, the best way to get over the discomfort is to find and suggest more images especially regarding those peoples, aspects you feel are left out. AshLin (talk) 04:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
MangoWong: Zuggernaut is not respecting the time order of the posts here, and thereby changing the meaning of the threads. He has done this before. He, moreover, has an interaction ban with me. I have been relaxed with him, but it doesn't mean there is endless rope. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Instead of being relaxed on Zuggernaut, you have been taking undue advantage of Zuggernaut's interaction ban with you. And since Zuggernaut has an interaction ban with you, that is precisely the reason why Zuggernaut has to avoid giving the impression that Zuggernaut may be responding to you. That is probably the reason for Zuggernaut's post being out of time order. What's so hard to understand about that?MW 04:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Zuggernaut made his post after I made mine. Moreover, he says, "The recently expanded gallery ..." Who is he responding to? I expanded the gallery, not Nikkul. So, why the pretence that he somehow was responding to Nikkul? Anyway here is his post. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Zuggernaut was saying something to Nikkul. Now you have made it appear that Zuggernaut may have been saying something to you. I think there is something misleading to the present arrangement and the original arrangement was more representative of what was intended by ZMW 05:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
The recently expanded gallery is an improvement and a step in the right direction. However, I am still with Redtigerxyz and Nikkul for some additional reasons listed below:
  • The urban population of India is close to 30% and all we see in the proposed image gallery is everything but that. We should include an image that represents the urban Indian.
  • Our focus should be on including images that do justice to the subject as well as to the quality of the picture (but this is a secondary criterion).
  • Selecting and captioning images on the basis of castes or tribes is not fair or even offensive.
  • There is a sizeable Indian diaspora outside of India so a image should be reserved for them
  • Lastly, I am fully with Redtigerxyz - if we cannot find images, leave the map there. We can separately setup an initiative and a team that works on getting the images we are looking for. We can ask volunteers who have worked considerably in the areas of images to work on this. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── A full 13 out of 36 images are of urban India. What is a street cobbler in Delhi if not urban? What are school girls in Calcutta if not urban? What is the woman in Mahabalipuram if not urban? Or schoolgirls in Mumbai, or street vendor in Hyderabad, ... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

As for the diaspora, they are citizens of whichever country they live in. They contribute to the ethnic diversity of that country, not of India. By that standard, the demographics page of the United Kingdom should have pictures of Australians, New Zealanders, South Africans, Canadians, and Americans ... Maltese, Falklanders, and Gibraltar-ians. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I think that if anyone thinks the photos posted for debate so far are not enough, they should find and post others--while at the same time trying to keep things relatively manageable and not overwhelming. Obviously, India is extremely diverse, ethnically, and it is clearly impossible to show decent quality photos of all Indians (unless perhaps Indian editors here go out and start taking good photos of people and uploading them to the Commons! hint hint). Also, while the differencies between Indian ethnicities may be obvious to Indians, for many in the rest of the world they are not. Myself as an example, being largely ignorant of this topic, I can see some obvious differencies in the various photos above in terms of skin color and dress, pretty much everyone looks like an "Indian" of one kind or another. Sure I can see differences between southern and northern Indians, and perhaps especially eastern Indians (if that is the right term for Assam and neighboring states), but still, to me they all look Indian. Even in America, which is nowhere near as diverse as India, people look and dress differently in many ways, but we are all Americans. Are Indians not all Indian? From some of the comments here, I get the sense that not all Indians consider other Indians truly Indian. Pfly (talk) 09:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Nikkul, Saravask has made some excellent points about photographic quality above and I think we should, as simply as possible, decide on a reasonable set of images that are visually appealing and of good quality. Once we have these images in place, replacing images with others on a case by case basis will be a straightforward process. I think fowler has gone out of his way to choose appealing images and that we are at a good starting point. If we wait for more editors to add images, and if the set of images becomes too large, the process will get unnecessarily complicated and will bog down quickly. I'm sure that there are many better images out there (and know from experience that you have an excellent 'image' eye) but let's just move forward with what we have and deal with replacements once this process is completed. --regentspark (comment) 10:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree with RegentsPark. Nikkul, Zuggernaut. We will appreciate Fowler's efforts and choose from his images. Later, you can propose changes. As AshLin said, all can judge them one by one. Saravask 14:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I think we should take a couple days to find relevant images of India's demographics from ALL OVER india. Once everyone is satisfied with the image pool, we can begin voting. I do not like the fact that we only have to select from images that one user has handpicked. There is no rush. It's better to wait a couple days and have others (like me) submit more images before voting. Nikkul (talk) 20:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Since we seem deadlocked, I'm wondering if other people think Nikkul and others should be given until the 23rd to add more images to Fowler's choices. Saravask 05:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Sure, take two more days. Until 00:00 24 October 2011 Greenwich Mean Time it is. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I propose that, after the GMT start of the 24th, we let Fowler—at his leisure—draw up a list of images to rotate in "Demographics". He can go through the votes and collate them as he sees fit. He can also take into consideration geographical balance if he sees a compelling need to do so. So he would be like the "Featured Article Director" of images displaying on the page. IMO that's the quickest and fairest way to finally end this interminable voting business and move on to other sections—"Economy", "Culture", etc. Saravask 14:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. --regentspark (comment) 14:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
No, we should all vote on the images proposed. There will be new images that were not in the pool before. We need to vote on all images at one time. Letting one editor handpick images is NOT consensus. Nikkul (talk) 03:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I have always been a little suspicious of picture number 40, File:Indiadem.jpg. The Flickr link and author name provided in the permission data, however, are marked "private." Perhaps at one time it wasn't private. Can such a picture still considered to be approved and permitted on Wikipedia? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I'd ask at WP:MCQ. Nikkul has been blocked repeatedly for uploading under false image licenses, hence committing willfully mendacious copy-vio. Yet another reason why I agree with SpacemanSpiff in saying that a topic ban may be needed here. See my comments below. Saravask 02:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I posted on the Commons page of the reviewer who approved it in 2007. Here is his reply: ":Hi, aren't changed privacy settings and changed licenses at Flickr the reason we use the {{flickrreview}} system? I can't remember File:Indiadem.jpg specifically, but I always take great care when reviewing Flickr images. I am thus pretty sure that the picture had a valid free license back in 2007. I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be allowed on Wikipedia. Regards, --Kjetil_r 21:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)" So, it is seems to be OK. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Image Vote Results

I calculated the results of the vote. The top 8 images by votes are: K2, K3, K12, K22, K32, K42, K43, K44 Nikkul (talk) 01:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive intervention, Nikkul. Let this be a warning.

I'm afraid Nikkul, by agreement, I'm the person who is to decide which pictures have made it. I have to balance for geographical bias. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not being disruptive. I have listed the top 8 images that we all voted upon. One user does not get to choose what images he wants when all users have voted on images. Wikipedia works with consensus. Nikkul (talk) 01:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Announcement: voting for Demographics images

The deadline for submission of images for the demography section has now passed. We are now voting on a total of 47 images in section Voting#2 (With 47 images). You will have all of the work week to vote for a total of 8 images. Voting will close at midnight Friday, that is 00:00 29 October 2011 (UTC)) Please vote early and vote often, but no more than eight times. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Fowler. Lets get the image rotation on the road at the earliest. AshLin (talk) 14:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Voting has ended and the results are in. Shown here. Nikkul (talk) 01:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Those pictures are great!! They will work well in this articleMillertime246 (talk) 01:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Please disregard user:Nikkul's premature post. I will post the results here later. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Disruption on this page

user:Nikkul is overriding an agreement on this page proposed by admin Saravask and seconded by admin RegentsPark that I would tally the votes and then apply a corrective for geographical or gender bias. user:Nikkul has taken it upon himself to announce the results. I haven't even voted myself. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

There are other correctives that need to be applied. Pictures that are obvious candidates for a rotation in the culture/religion section such as K 12, are not the best pictures for demographics. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

  • First of all Fowler&fowler is the one that said "Voting ends at 00:00 29 October 2011" voting already ended.
  • Second of all, most of the people who voted did not agree that ONE user would get to handpick the images he wanted. What's the point of the vote then???
  • Third of all, when I tried to explain myself on this Talk page, Fowler&fowler reverted my edits TWICE. Here and Here. It is disrespectful AND disruptive when one user is reverting another user's explanation on the Talk Page.
Now, I am not trying to be disruptive. All I did was count the votes and display the results AFTER the voting had officially ended. This is NOT called being disruptive. Nikkul (talk) 02:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The top 8 images that were voted upon by ALL users are already geographically balanced: K2- Tribal woman in Rajasthan, K3- Hindu Man in Uttar Pradesh, K12-Sikh man in Punjab, K22- Muslims in J&K, K32- Girls in Tripura (Northeast), K42- Buddhist monks, K43- Tamil Nadu- Women in South India, K44- Hindu wedding. Nikkul (talk) 02:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


Background: Talk:India/Archive_35#Changes_in_the_lead.

I've read some of the archives pertaining to the lead. I am wondering if we can keep the lead as historically accurate and neutral as the present one, and yet make it tighter, more interesting, better organised in a thematic and sentence-wise sense, and more redolent of "refreshing, brilliant prose".

My take:

  • Iffy word: "here".
  • Jingly repetition: "independent ... independence"; "administered ... administered".
  • Malapropism: "Gradually annexed and administered" implies it was "gradually administered". Either the EIC administers some particular piece of land, or it doesn't—it's binary. The "gradual" bit seems intended to convey the geographical spread of EIC administration.
  • Phrasing: "in the world" is redundant and connotatively carries a boosterish sense, as in "Daddy! This is the bestest iscream in the world!" It is something you see in grade-school essays, perhaps accompanied by backward-facing "k"s and loony doodles.
  • Sentence order. It jumps around, and is not as thematically consolidated as it could be IMO.
  • Transitional fillers: "in addition", "also". Not as big a deal as the above, but recasting could squeeze these out.

Enough for now. I'd rather not compose or edit proposed replacement wording myself; better to leave that to people more knowledgeable about Indian history. I'd rather merely comment. Saravask 14:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Just an FYI, Wikipedia is not a novel or epic saga. It is an encyclopedia- meaning that the page should be written in a easy-to-understand, strightforward fashion. Descriptions like "in the world" give more detail about the statistics they are talking about. If you don't have that, then the information will not be complete. Nikkul (talk) 20:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
How about replacing the sentence "It is the seventh-largest country by geographical area, the second-most populous country with over 1.2 billion people, and the most populous democracy in the world" with "It is the seventh-largest country by geographical area, and with over 1.2billion people is the (world's) second-most populous country and most populous democracy." I included worlds in brackets because I don't think it's necessary, but it does add to flow slightly. Thoughts? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
You do need "world" somewhere to provide extra context for the reader, to make him comfortable. Redundancy of that sort is a commonly used rhetorical device similar to repetition. Either "It is the world's seventh-largest country by geographical area, the second most populous country, and the most populous democracy," or "It is the seventh largest country by geographical area, the second most populous country and the most populous democracy in the world." I prefer the second. It goes better with the cadences of the language. The 1.2 billion we can do without. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
PS If we are going to work on the lead, then do we need to pick up the version (of April? May?) that we had almost agreed on? Or, should we hold off on the lead until the pictures have been sorted out. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
PPS You could get rid of "in addition" in paragraph 1. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
PPPS Since the thought is in my head, I'll put it to paper. The second paragraph needs to be trimmed. Something like: Beginning with the Indus Valley Civilization and for much of its long history, the Indian subcontinent was known for its commerce and culture.[5] Four major religions—Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism—arose here. Others, among them Christianity and Islam, arrived in the 1st millennium CE and helped shape India's culture. Gradually annexed by the British East India Company from the early 18th century and ruled directly by the United Kingdom from the mid-19th, India became an independent nation in 1947 after a struggle of independence marked by non-violence. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


  • Fowler's second paragraph reads much better than its live homologue IMO. But "[b]eginning with the Indus Valley Civilization and for much of its long history" sounds awkward (faulty parallelism perhaps)—it could use a recast, because "[b]eginning with the Indus Valley Civilization, the Indian subcontinent was known ..." strikes me as semantically weird. The polyptotonic "independent ... independence" remains. "Here" remains. It's something that I seemed to find in every other tourist brochure in Darwin: "Here in Kakadu, outdoor enthusiasts will find breath-taking unspoiled vistas awaiting them ..."
  • I likewise prefer Chipmunkdavis's sentence to the live version and its periphrastic bloat. I somewhat disagree that "world" (in any form) is required (except for, as CD stated, flow); the reader is sufficiently cued by the term "country", which provides an unmistakable context—that of the 180+ UN-recognised countries. If we must have it, however, I'd prefer "world's" to "in the world" for the reason listed above. Saravask 05:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
It would have helped had I read Saravask's first post. Agree with two points in second post. Thanks for noticing repetitions. ("Culture" too is repeated.) I have changed the paragraph in a number of places. "struggle," for example, is POV. "Noted for" probably goes better than "marked by" in the recast version. I disagree about "here." I feel it is better than "there," and invites the reader in. Other points, I remain unconvinced. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
New version: India is a country in South Asia. It is the seventh-largest country by geographical area, the second-most populous country, and the most populous democracy in the world. Bounded by the Indian Ocean on the south, the Arabian Sea on the southwest, and the Bay of Bengal on the southeast, it shares land borders with Pakistan to the west; Bhutan, the People's Republic of China and Nepal to the northeast; and Bangladesh and Burma to the east. In the Indian Ocean, India is in the vicinity of Sri Lanka and the Maldives; India's Andaman and Nicobar Islands share a maritime border with Thailand and Indonesia.
From the time of the Indus Valley Civilization and for much of its long history the Indian subcontinent was known for its commerce and culture. Four major religions—Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism—arose here. Others, among them Christianity and Islam, arrived in the 1st millennium CE and helped shape India's diversity. Gradually annexed by the British East India Company from the early 18th century and ruled directly by the United Kingdom from the mid-19th, India became a new nation in 1947 after an independence movement noted for non-violence. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Not bad. A few points: (1) you've lost zorastrianism - suggest adding that back. (2) 'new nation' is not correct. If independent and independence are too much for you guys, I'd grab a thesaurus. (3) You've lost the 'names of India' parenthetical note (a sure way to increase strife) (4) the original first sentence of the second para was striking, the new version is (apologies fowler) pedestrian. (Also, was India 'known' for its culture and commerce? By whom?) --regentspark (comment) 13:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I'll withhold detailed comments until RegentsPark's concerns, which I mostly share, are addressed in a new draft. I don't have an opinion about the historicity of the term "new nation"—not my ken. But I'll say this: the original start of the second paragraph indeed *was* "striking"—strikingly bizarre. It would be best to try again and craft a new sentence that all four of us can agree on, rather than merely revert to that heteroclitic hack of an eyesore. Saravask 13:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Didn't Gandhi say, "a new nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal?" at Gettysburg.  :) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
You're confusing Gandhi with Robespierre. Though Robespierre only got up to "created" before he was, um, cut short. (Gandhi meant 'new' in a different sense.) I guess new is fine, though reborn is more accurate. --regentspark (comment) 14:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Was just kidding. Hmm, I'm just noticing Saravask's post (where did that come from?) Heteroclitic? Where is the abnormal declension? If you mean the presence of the article, "Home to the IVC and region of historic trade routes and ...," my preferred version, was tried but got replaced along the way. We can try it again. "Home to the IVC" has been around for a long time, Nichalp's time. I've been uncomfortable with "home" because the Republic of India was not exactly its home. That's why the subcontinent is there. 1) slip, (3) was left out to highlight the prose and will go back in after consensus. Yeah, "known by whom," is a tricky one, but I think there is ample evidence throughout written history that India was cultural and commercial heavyweight. Could find cites. "Commerce" is probably not right. I was trying not saddle the lead with jargon terms like "cultural and commercial wealth," which are more accurate. Suggestions are welcome. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid Saravask it'll take many more than four. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Here are a less plebian version. Gotten rid of "here". Swallowing bitter bill of "India = Indian subcontinent."  :) "Nationalist movement" is the term used in history books. I've brought back "struggle." ("after a movement" sounds off.) I might not have the correct "Zoroastiranism" link.  :

Home to the Indus Valley Civilization and (the) sweep of historic trade routes and vast empires, the Indian subcontinent was fabled for its riches and culture for much of its long history. Four major religions—Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism—arose in India. Others, among them Zoroastrianism, Christianity and Islam, reached its shores in the 1st millennium CE and helped shape its diversity. Gradually annexed by the British East India Company from the early 18th century and ruled directly by the United Kingdom from the mid-19th, India won freedom in 1947 after a nationalist struggle noted for non-violence.Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Hmm. I'm ok with the 'fabled', 'arrived' was better than 'reached its shores', 'shaped the region's diverse culture' was better than 'helped shape its diversity', the departure of administered is good as is the rest of the last sentence. My suggestion is to stick with the original for the first two sentences and replace the last sentence with the version above. --regentspark (comment) 18:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 :) I take it you don't like "sweep?"  :( OK, here's another:
Home to the Indus Valley Civilization and land of historic trade routes and vast empires, the Indian subcontinent was fabled for its riches for much of its long history. Four major religions—Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism—arose in India. Others, among them Zoroastrianism, Christianity and Islam, arrived in the 1st millennium CE and helped shape its diverse culture. Gradually annexed by the British East India Company from the early 18th century and ruled directly by the United Kingdom from the mid-19th, India won freedom in 1947 after a nationalist struggle noted for non-violence. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I see all my original gripes have been resolved in this version. Thank you for the attentive wordsmithing. Comments:

  • I quailed when I read "land of"—"Land of Hope and Glory"? Perhaps "host to" or something else of your choosing would be better. Word-wise, everything else reads much better now. Eyesores are gone.
  • The all-important Gandhi is gone. I didn't mean to make you do that (if indeed you did it intentionally). Soon someone will ask for S. C. Bose to replace him. Ugh.
  • Dabbing between the "RoI" and "India". You've dealt with this more than I, I'm sure. Chandni Chowk to China is an example of how "arose in India" could offend. I understand why you referred to it as a "bitter [p]ill". Perhaps it's actually needlessly divisive poison. I don't want to be the one who forces readers into swallowing it en bloc.
  • I know "fabled" irked rgpk (with good reason), though it didn't bother me that much—as long as it is documented, which I would guess it is, given the fable-driven Columbus and the rest. Maybe "freedom" used alone is the same? Subjective? Or not? I don't know—not conversant with the historical literature. Perhaps "political freedom" or something else would be more neutral.
  • I don't mean to push for the sacrificing of the staid balance/accuracy in the current lead. I asked that the revoltingly weird wording be massaged into top form and its appeal perked up a bit. There *has* to be a way to make it more compelling, and yet not throw it off-balance (perhaps due to my needling) in terms of POV. I've seen level-headed verve brilliantly pulled-off before in other serious ledes. Saravask 14:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Looks good to me too. Though I too am disappointed by the disappearance of MKG and would prefer to see him worded back (if I may coin a phrase). One nit, which applies to the original as well, is the arrival of the other religions. Shouldn't that be a 'from' rather than an 'in'? Not a crucial point because it will mean rewriting the entire sentence, but 'in' is factually incorrect. --regentspark (comment) 14:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
(@Saravask)Well, "land" is not my first choice. Probably "sweep" or "compass" is. You guys really don't like:
"Home of the Indus Valley Civilization and sweep of historic trade routes and vast empires, the Indian subcontinent was fabled for its riches for much of its long history." or
"Home of the Indus Valley Civilization and compass of historic trade routes and vast empires, the Indian subcontinent was fabled for its riches for much of its long history?" "Host" for me, in spite of the nice alliteration, has the same issues as "birthed." They are used all the time to be sure, but the imbue the subject with purposefulness. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
PS Or even, "Home of the Indus Valley Civilization, sweep of historic trade routes, and compass of vast empires, the Indian subcontinent was fabled for its riches for much of its long history" It is the most accurate in my view. True, some might confuse the second with Dick van Dyke in Mary Poppins and the third with something you can buy in Eddie Bauer, but they can get a dictionary. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I don't know ... I think I read/heard stuff worded something like this in Michael Wood's pop-history India book/series. It's just ... a bit over the top (as with rgpk, my apologies). It'll take time. It'll take several tries here. I'm looking for more sublime wording, a mystique that subconsciously gets the reader more enthralled with the subject. I'm not talking about the blatant POV of revisionists, whose prose tends to be brash, brutal, and coercive—like a verbal rape. Instead, it is the poised magic of balanced, yet finely crafted, copy that is the goal. Neutral, dispassionate, yet vivid. Maybe like something you would hear from the most eloquent and vibrant professors in the "The Great Courses", which is aimed at laymen for sure, but still narrated by tenured subject experts. Or you could look at Bishonen's more recent FA ledes, though lit stuff tends to be cut much more slack in terms of encyclopedic wording—that is, it gets to be more informal and even jocose—than what is allowed here. Saravask 16:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, no, not MW!  :) I've stayed with "Home of ..." because it harkens to Nichalp and to the page's past. "Cradle of the IVC ..." would probably be my choice, when it comes to using common words. If you are looking for subtle, however, then the content itself will need to be rethought. For example, India wasn't really the land of historic trade routes, which for the most part lay just above it or just below. We might to rethink the salient points. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Did look at Bishonen. Beyond the obvious difference in what constitutes the encyclopedic register in the two fields, the main difference for me is that his/her articles are nowhere near as high-level as India. When you are writing a relatively low-level history, the lead can more easily express broad qualitative themes (as, for example, in my FA Political history of Mysore and Coorg (1565–1760)), but here we have four sentences for a history that has 20, 50, or 100 times the content of early-modern Mysore! (We are shackled with three formulaic paragraphs (1, 3, and 4), leaving only paragraph 2.) Subtlety here will require more than just pretty sentences; it will require an even higher-level rethink of the content. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:17, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
PS Funny but we have boxes full of the Great Professors, some in VCR format that we can't view, including a bunch of the Dartmouth/Brown dude on Shakespeare. I could find them, but ... I don't know ... I don't think that is the issue here. I guess I'm thinking of Boileau in L'Art Poetique, "What one truly understands clearly articulates itself. The words to say it come easily." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
PPS Let me rethink broad (over the long haul) themes. Will be back here in a couple of days. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I read a number of introductions and conclusions in Indian history books, as well as survey articles on Indian history and historiography, and this, in my considered opinion, is the modern historically sophisticated assessment of India's history that has the support of many of the leading historians of India. It is necessarily quite a bit longer than the old lead, but I have seen leads that are longer. With this history paragraph, the lead would be the same size as that of the United States page. Here it is:

Never truly isolated, India has had bonds with other cultures throughout its history. Never homogeneous, its many peoples and regions have charted distinctive historical courses. India's history encompasses the interleaving and mutual play of these bonds and local histories with what one historian has called the unifying "empires of rule, custom, and belief.a" The earliest neolithic cultures of the Indian subcontinent belonged to an arc of such cultures cutting through West Asia. The bronze age cities of the Indus Valley Civilization participated in a broad trend of urbanism running across southern Eurasia. The iron age Indo-European languages-speaking culture that created the mythologically opulent Vedic Hinduism in India had also spread among pastoral people in Central and West Asia. The major political consolidations of ancient India, under the Maurya and Gupta empires took place not long after Buddhism and Jainism arose in India, Hinduism matured, and the caste system created uniquely Indian hierarchies, but even as large swathes of the indigenous adivasi people of India continued to lead lives largely untouched by these. The culture and political systems of early medieval Southern India were spread to South East Asia by the Chola and Pallava empires around the same time that Zoroastrianism, Christianity and Islam arrived in India and helped shape its diverse culture. Much of late medieval Northern India was influenced by the Turko-Persian tradition for several centuries, as syncretic cultures took hold under the Delhi sultanate and the Mughal empire, as Sikhism arose, and as Southern India was united for the last time under the Vijayanagara empire. Gradually annexed and unified by the British East India Company from the mid-18th century and ruled directly by the United Kingdom from the mid-19th, India became a colonial economy, as parts of it modernized, and as some elites commenced engaging the Western world, leading ultimately to a nationalist struggle noted for non-violence, and to India's political freedom in 1947.

Let me know what you think. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: a Robb, Peter (2011). A History of India. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 31. ISBN 978-0-230-34549-2. Retrieved 25 October 2011. 

PS. Of course the explanatory first three sentences (ending ... custom, and belief.") could be left out entirely. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

But for a few stylistic quibbles, I support this paragraph:

  • Like rgpk, I think that Gandhi can be added back.
  • The first sentence is somewhat vacuous: other than perhaps pre-contact Nauruans, Rapa Nui, and other island societies, what cultural entity has been utterly isolated? Even the technologically backward ancient Chacoans were trading with Mesoamericans thousands of miles away. Not to mention Arab traders, Varangians, etc. Most everywhere, members of most every group has been seemingly going here, there, and back over the long term. Is there something unique about those "bonds"—were they uniquely strong or tenuous, were they long-run, was there a distinctly Indian way in which those bonds trended or developed? If not, it and everything else not uniquely characteristic of India should be pruned.
  • I prefer serial commas for the same reason MOS regular Noetica insists upon them in the "Australia" page—they help rather than hinder clarity. And if we are going to keep this as one paragraph, we should split it into two for (perhaps frivolous) aesthetic reasons: you would otherwise have this huge thing more than twice the size of the preceding one. The current third and fourth paragraphs should be merged for the same reason. Of course it is ultimately Fowler's choice whether and where the break should occur.
  • I think there are way too many links—stuff like "Northern India", "Hinduism", "Western world", "South East Asia", "colonialism", "Central Asia", and many, many others, when blue, are just crowding out the really helpful India-related essential-context links like "Maurya empire" or to EIC. The surplus links are either patently obvious in meaning or are mere dictionary terms. See User:Tony1/Build your linking skills.

Again, I cannot offer informed comments on topical balance and other less superficial issues. But this one seems to sink its teeth into the subject. After critiquing is over, it should replace the current paragraph pronto. Saravask 22:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Another section

I've just reverted Nikkul's new addition of a voting section. This continues to happen every time he doesn't get his way. If he wants to add new images let him do it at the relevant section, not restarting discussions because something doesn't go in the way he wishes. —SpacemanSpiff 05:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a new pool of images. It obviously needs a new section. If you don't want to vote on it, that's fine but do not delete my contributions. Nikkul (talk) 05:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
No, if you want, add them to the above list. You do not get to create new proposals every time something you don't like happens. We've already discussed a topic ban proposal for you when your disruption at Mumbai was getting difficult, it might be time to take it up formally. Please stop this. —SpacemanSpiff 05:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
The votes above do not include the new images added. Please stop with the threats. Nikkul (talk) 05:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
This is not a threat. Your disruption across multiple articles is beyond belief. Mumbai, Chennai, Delhi, India, everywhere you come by to just do what you like. Clearly it has to stop. If it doesn't, then a topic ban is the way to go. —SpacemanSpiff 05:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Please! I have been on Wikipedia for more than 5 years, and I have probably brought more India images onto Wikipedia than any other user. Don't tell me I am being disruptive. Nikkul (talk) 05:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Bringing good images does not excuse disruptive behavior. Quite simple as that. You continue to act against consensus on most image choices, always going this route of "I've been here five years, I've added so many images and therefore I am the final word". Sorry, but disruption is disruption. —SpacemanSpiff 05:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
If there is any disagreement, I've always taken it to the talk page. And the only images I've reverted are the ones that were added without discussion. And please don't act like you haven't been disruptive before. We all know about your history too. Nikkul (talk) 05:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
FYI, I have added the new images into the section above. So you have no more reason to complain. Nikkul (talk) 06:00, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Ah yes, I wonder who knows of that disruptive history, your block log and numerous discussions here and the other talk pages speak for itself. And, the point is not lost that you've wasted so much time with this behavior again. —SpacemanSpiff 06:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Nikkul, talk about yourself first. You are overtly possessive about your images. Being on wikipedia for 5 years and bringing in the most images doesn't exempt you from any policy. How about these lovely links that Saravask posted in one of the above sections? I'm reposting them here!
[24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34].  Abhishek  Talk 06:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment These links above are all reverts to undiscussed image changes by User:Saravask. Nikkul (talk) 13:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Nice try. Next time I see you flinging patently false accusations against me, SpacemanSpiff, or anyone else in image-related threads again, you will be the subject of an ANI Indian-image topic-ban request thread. See my comments below. Saravask 02:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Spaceman, I have segregated Nikkul's vote much above as a second section, in effect undoing your revert (without realising it). The earlier vote was when only two lines of eight images were there. After that Fowler & Fowler & others went to tremendous trouble to increase the size upto 47. Obviously the older voting is invalid. If people still want their original choice to hold, that is easily indicated. Selection now must take into account the new set, especially as the original voting was not brought to a conclusion. So why is that disruptive? Imho this is a reasonable step forward. To me, a relative newcomer on this scene, it appears as if your past experiences with Nikkul are colouring your judgement, your heckling him is certainly more disruptive than his simple act of getting the vote in place again. I request all to kindly stand back, cool down, ponder and re-examine the edits and your immediate responses before actually pressing the send button. The faults certainly donot seem one-sided to a neutral observer such as me. AshLin (talk) 06:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
"[Y]our heckling him is certainly more disruptive than his simple act ..." No, AshLin. No. Nikkul asked for two extra days to allow him and others to add images to Fowler's set, then add their !votes to the ongoing discussion. Now he wants to throw out the time-consuming votes of eight editors? In good faith, Fowler and I gave him three. How much time does he think we have to set aside from RL to waste on vote after vote after vote, just because one guy with a history of time-wasting socking (which on one occasion I had to clean-up after in a time-consuming fashion) and edit-warring says so? That is just ... not right. Not right at all. Given this, I'd support any proposal to topic-ban Nikkul from India-related images. Saravask 06:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I see your point. Possibly I have overlooked issues which may be relevant and may not have done justice to certain editors, if that's so, I'm sorry. However, to go forward we need to complete the voting once and for all. I request that we take the extra trouble and now limit the images to the 47 already provided (i.e. no more additions be permitted as of now) and vote for the selection of the eight images for rotation. Nikkul and I have indicated our choices. I would request all editors to take the trouble one last time to select the images of their choice, end this long discussion of demographics. Remember, even after all indicate choices, reconciling the consensus is another pending issue. AshLin (talk) 07:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


  • I now see that Nikkul has resumed his years-old habit of posting false accusations. In this case, he claims that the links Abhishek191288 posted, and which I had dug up, "are all reverts to undiscussed image changes by User:Saravask". Diffs, please. At any rate, most of the links were from the multi-year period when I hardly touched this article.
  • My years-long patience with him has just about run out. Next time I see Nikkul posting deliberate falsehoods here or at any other page, I'll post a proposal to topic-ban him from India-related images at WP:ANI. As SpacemanSpiff pointed out, this habit of socking, vote-stacking, trolling, and time-wasting disruption is a tragically chronic problem extending far beyond present events. It seems it continued here and at other India-related articles even after his 2007 sock-voting mess in the intervening years: Coollemonade (talk · contribs), Bangalorevenkat (talk · contribs), Indianhilbilly (talk · contribs), XavierIcI (talk · contribs), Huniebunie (talk · contribs), and who knows how many more.
  • It appalls me to think of the sum total of productive editor time he has wasted with his antics over the years, and over how many other pages. Unilaterally overturning ongoing discussion after recent discussion. Wielding a half-dozen socks in one case during the 2007 rotation votes. Even after he was given another chance, he went back to his old habits of copy-vio, falsehoods, and discursive disruption, going off what SpacemanSpiff states of his comportment in the intervening years elsewhere. God knows what he has done while I've been largely away from WP for several years before finally returning here in September. Other testimonies are needed, from other pages and other vexed and needled users. Once again, Nikkul has blown his second chances, repeatedly, even after enormous past assumptions of good faith and (I see now, wrongly) choosing to overlook his chronically troubled past. Blocks for copy-vio images, blocks for talk-page disruption. The same old story. Continued. Saravask 16:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Moreover, AshLin's calls for leniency strike me as outrageously naive given his lack of familiarity with the backstory. Indeed, it is quite the kind of stuff Everyking (talk · contribs) used to pull before he finally reformed several years back—he would again and again test community patience by overturning injunction after injunction against practiced and proven time-wasters, including in cases I was involved with. His resultant block log speaks for itself. AshLin, please do not follow in his footsteps by helping absolve repetitiously recidivist problem users of their once again recrudescent wrong-doing here. Saravask 16:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC):
Surprisingly, I appear to be getting a guarded threat of a block by Saravask. Presumably my interventions for a little civilty and less animosity has made him unhappy with me. Whatever happened to AGF? A simple message on my talk page that in his opinion I am mistakenly lenient and other issues exist would have been sufficient to inform me of his sentiments. I would be naive IF I was aware of Nikkul's back-story and still felt that he could reform, allthat has been said in recent posts is news to me. I am surprised and appalled that Saravask is clubbing my name with another user whom I have never heard of, whom I have never emulated and who is not relevant to the discussion. Even more since my block log is pristine. My editting has drastically reduced and the only reason I bother about India because I respect the hard work Fowler and a few others do to keep this article clean and high quality. I'm also here basically as a show of support for Saravask's many efforts to improve the image quality of India. I have not taken sides with either Nikkul or Saravask but spoken my mind out clearly as per my conscience. If that is worthy of a block, kindly make it a topic specific block for me so that I can continue to work in other forums where I am regarded as part of the solution and not as part of the problem. I hereby end my edits to any image discussion involving Saravask and Nikkul. Fowler, I apologise for a premature exit but please be reassured that I will continue to support you in your activities to improve the article in the light of my conscience. AshLin (talk) 15:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
The existence of this timely thread belies your declamations of "conscience". "Whatever happened to AGF", you ask? This comment captures my sentiments here. As soon as low-value editors—who have done *next to nothing* to improve the text of this article—start distorting content and flouting core policies while making the page uglier in the process, glib calls for politeness get short shrift from me. Indeed, the few non-image edits that have taken flight from pestis Nikhilensis have been so consistently piddling, so time-wastingly awful, that it is clear he has little concern for improving, for complying with WP:MOS and other content irrefutables. Peddling a few so-so images among page-loads of boosterised visual bloat hardly makes up for this. It's so easy for AshLin and RegentsPark, whom I have nothing against personally, to blab and grandstand about AGF, allowing both to come off looking like God's gift to conflict management; it's far less trivial and self-aggrandising to stand up for content patency in a time-efficient manner, thereby often coming off as rather the ass-hat. Yet it is the former, who stand up for those "who ignore policy to disrupt and destroy content is not, allowing people to politely destroy the reason we're supposed to be here", who abet them. As for the self-righteous block-paranoid thespianism, not going to treat with it here. I couldn't care less who is "appalled" by what, etc. Useless splashing around. Saravask 22:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
What does Everyking have to do with this thread? Your last three points do not seem to have anything to do with this article. P. take it elsewhere. If you look into the blocklogs of other users, lots of long term users would turn up with a comparable list of blocks. It may be uncivil to mock at others because of their blocks.MW 01:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
User:SpacemanSpiff and User:Saravask are being very misleading:
  • First of all, this thread was started because I made a new section for voting because some people had voted when there were only 8 images in the pool, and some had voted when there were only 24 images in the pool, and now there are 47 images in the pool so OBVIOUSLY we need to look at all the images again. I started a new thread on talk so that people could vote on all images once and for all, but User:SpacemanSpiff reverted it twice. But User:Fowler&fowler ended up creating 2 new sections anyway! Here and here So what was the point of reverting my contribution?
  • Second of all, I have been following the India page over time, and I have noticed that User:Saravask has been making numerous image changes with NO DISCUSSION or CONSENSUS! I tried to leave a message on his talk and he deleted it. Then I asked everyone here to discuss first before changing images. When I tried to revert them and ask him to discuss first, he reverted back under the guise of "cleanup"
  • Here User:Saravask changed a FEATURED Taj Mahal image to another one with NO DISCUSSION whatsoever!
  • Here User:Saravask changed the Biodiversity Image Rotation (which had multiple pics that had been agreed upon by 20+ users) to just 2 images with no discussion.
  • Here User:Saravask replaced an image in the Government section with an image of the interior of the parliament WITHOUT any discussion!
  • Here User:Saravask changed an economy image also without any discussion.
  • Here User:Saravask added an Environment image with no discussion or consensus.
  • Here User:Saravask changed a Defense image with no discussion on talk.
  • Here User:Saravask has added his own images of BSE without waiting for consensus on the Talk page.
User:Saravask is the one being disruptive. I have only reverted his undiscussed changes and the mountains image which was not discussed in talk. Now, I know I have made mistakes in the past, and I have apologized for them completely, several times. He can keep throwing that in my face, but that's not going to change the facts shown above. Nikkul (talk) 14:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

(od) I think everyone needs a dose of AGF here. Nikkul hasn't done anything outlandish and doesn't deserve to be dumped on. Saravask stopped making changes and moved discussion to the talk page when he was asked to do so. We have a process in place that appears to have consensus, let's just stick with it and stop commenting on the motives of each other. Life is too short for this sort of grief.--regentspark (comment) 14:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I think we are getting unnecessarily worked up. I note that Saravask has voted for some of Nikkul's images and Nikkul has voted for some of the first 36 images, so, clearly, we are aiding each other more than we are impeding. Let's all step back, take a deep breath, let bygones be bygones, and get on with the job of firming up the images for the various sections. Let not the clear streams of pragmatism and generosity get lost in the dreary desert sand of pet peeves and dead habits (with apologies to Tagore). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)