Talk:India: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 07:23, 19 January 2011 editQwyrxian (talk \| contribs)57,186 edits →Edit request from Narayanam5, 15 January 2011: hmmm...maybe an RfC would help...← Previous edit		Revision as of 07:26, 19 January 2011 edit undoZuggernaut (talk \| contribs)5,018 edits →Famines: ReplyNext edit →
Line 254:		Line 254:

	:There was no consensus, please do not misrepresent it. The current version edited by King Zebu and RegentsPark is neutral and sufficient. —]''']''' 07:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)		:There was no consensus, please do not misrepresent it. The current version edited by King Zebu and RegentsPark is neutral and sufficient. —]''']''' 07:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

			::Majority of editors were OK with the addition back then. However, that content was very different from the recent addition which is merely a template of numbers of deaths and a footnote/quote from ]. Let's try to build consensus this time around since I this is a significant part of Indian history which deserves mention in the article. ] (]) 07:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 07:26, 19 January 2011

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the India article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60Auto-archiving period: 21 days

Template:VA Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

India is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 3, 2004.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 16, 2004	Featured article candidate	Promoted
April 11, 2005	Featured article review	Kept
May 6, 2006	Featured article review	Kept

Current status: Featured article

Template:CollapsedShell

This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

view · edit Frequently asked questions

Q1: Why is Bhārat Gaṇarājya not rendered in Devanagari script?

A1: See this discussion (from 2012) and this discussion (from 2017), which are codified in WP:INDICSCRIPT.

Q2: It's "Bengaluru", not "Bangalore"!

A2: This article uses the name that is most commonly used by English-language reliable sources. See WP:COMMONNAME.

Q3: Why was my content removed?

A3: The India page adheres to summary style, sticking to core topics and skipping excess details. To update economy figures or other content, cite credible sources. See WP:V.

Q4: Why aren't there sections on science and technology, education, media, tourism etc?

A4: New sections require talk-page consensus. In archived discussions, it was decided to keep them out. Consider expanding their respective daughter articles, such as History of India, instead. See WP:WPC.

Q5: Why was my image or external link removed?

A5: To add or remove images and links, start a thread on this page first. See WP:FP?, WP:IMAGE, and WP:EL.

Q6: The map is wrong!

A6: The map shows the official (de jure) borders in undisputed territory and the de facto borders and all related claims where there's a dispute; it cannot exclusively present the official views of India, Pakistan, or China. See WP:NPOV.

Q7: India is a superpower!

A7: Consult the archives of this talk page for discussions of India's status as a superpower before adding any content that makes the suggestion. See WP:DUE.

Q8: Delhi is a state!

A8: To create an Indian state, the Parliament of India must pass a law to that effect—see Articles 2 through 4 of the Constitution of India, full text here. The Sixty-ninth Amendment, which was enacted in 1991, added Article 239AA to the constitution. It proclaimed the National Capital Territory of Delhi, gave it a legislative assembly, and accorded it special powers that most union territories lack. But Delhi was not made a state. Several crucial powers were retained by the central government, such as responsibility for law and order. Delhi also does not have a governor; instead, a lieutenant governor presides. Unlike Himachal Pradesh, which gained statehood in 1970, and Goa, which gained it in 1987, Delhi continues to be listed as a union territory by the First Schedule.

Q9: Add Hindi as the national language/hockey as the national sport!

A9: Hindi is the official language, not national language. There is no national language, but there are constitutionally recognized languages, commonly known as Schedule 8 languages. English also serves as a subsidiary official language until the universal use of Hindi is approved by the states and parliament.

Field hockey is not the national sport as per this article "In RTI reply, Centre says India has no national game", Deccan Herald, August 2012.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on August 15, 2004 and August 15, 2005.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

"The 50 most-viewed Misplaced Pages articles in 2009 and 2008". The Daily Telegraph. August 17, 2009.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

reflist

Pachisi

Is Pachisi the national Game of India? I am not sure.

Puranjan Dev (talk) 07:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

No. It's not. It's known as the Royal Game of India because of its having been played in royal courts. It's just an Indian game which I, a Bengali, in Kolkata, heard being referred to as Ludo. --LordSuryaofShropshire (talk) 16:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Ammend to create two titles: Foreign relations and military

Foreign relations and military are two different subjects and deals with two different things. Basically to make a distinction officially, foreign relations deals with relation with other countries, diplomacy whereas military deals with armed forces, military stats, info ; military exercices etc... of similar kind and nature.

There is no country in the wiki which has termed 'Foreign relations and military' together in one heading. Neighboring countries like Japan, China, Pakistan, South Korea, USA, UK etc .... articles has formatted as such (Foreign relations and military - under two different title headings.

Under what circumstance, conditions, perception, economics and reality is Foreign relations and military termed under one heading and one section? I adhere and ammend to change this to different title i.e one is "Foreign relations" and the other is "military". Both title should have their own relevant materials not mixing up and making a ketchup article.

Proposed addition of images to Geography section

I don't feel there are enough images to illustrate the diversity of India in the Geography section. I propose adding the following images:-

--RaviC (talk) 21:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd say no to both. The Lakshadweep image is of poor quality and the image doesn't show much either. The Jaisalmer one looks good for a tourist brochure but it's too "commercial" for this article. —SpacemanSpiff 16:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with SS. The image of Lakshadweep is a nice composition but is of low-resolution, while the Jaisalmer image does very little to illustrate anything about geography - the camels, their shadows and riders distract too much from the desert landscape. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 13:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

IMO, another minus point is that both represent aspects of India's geography that aren't very significant. Our islands are too few (as compared to say Indonesia), a coastline image would be better. As far as desert is concenred a picture of Jaipur or Udaipur may be more relevant than an image of camels in the desert: this could be anywhere, Sahara or Gobi too. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 12:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

As per Deepak, could anyone suggest some better images to be added to the article, as one image does not represent the diversity of the country. --RaviC (talk) 14:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Based on what is said, why not these images? --92.4.51.64 (talk) 15:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

A beach in Kerala, South IndiaA beach in Kerala, South India

Mehrangarh Fort, Jodhpur

These are all TERRIBLE pictures! The current geography pic is fine. Nikkul (talk) 03:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The probolem, again, lies in image quality and composition. The Mehrangarh Fort image is a low-res, poor-quality image, and the structure in the foreground takes away the focus from the fort and the surrounding topography. The Varkala image, likewise, focuses more on the paragliders (who are a major distraction in the pic) than the beach itself, and consequently also fails. I'd give a thumbs down to both. This is not to take away from the main point here — while the existing picture is good, I do agree that we could have a couple more, perhaps in rotation, for a better illustration of the geographic diversity of the country — it's just that none of the images proposed so far are of quality good enough for an FA-class article. I'm sure better images exist and can be found. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 14:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

User SBC-YPR is completely correct. Any western tourist may go to India expecting that all regions have a cold Himalayan environment, which is far from the truth! Anyway, regarding the Varkala image, there is a version below not focusing on the paragliders. I would also appreciate if others could suggest some images that would be appropriate here as well. --92.8.35.103 (talk) 21:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Varkala Beach Kerala.jpg

Update: There are images at Commons:Category:Featured pictures of India that may be suitable. Some of them I have placed below:

It seems there are a lot more suggestions since last time I joined this conversation.. Could we please choose at least one more, one picture does not reflect the diverse features of India! --92.3.239.11 (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Driving side should be changed

Driving in India isn't left, it's right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vimal.ramaka (talk • contribs) 22:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure - it was on the left in 2007 in this image File:Delhi-Gurgaon Airport Expressway, 2007.jpg, have they modified all the roads and signage recently? You would think a major change would get some press attention. MilborneOne (talk) 23:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Requester is hoaxing--Sodabottle (talk) 03:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a misunderstanding of terminology. Our cars are 'right-hand drive' as against most of the world's 'left-hand drive'. But in india we still drive on the LEFT side of the road. Romitmitra (talk) 04:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romitmitra (talk • contribs) 04:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Intel-Excel, 29 December 2010

Afghanistan borders India like other countries such as Pakistan and Bangladesh do. So, I request that an edit be made to the page "India" that Afghanistan borders India in the north-west. Same is for Afghanistan. It borders India in it's north-east point. (It's a very small area, so an enlarged map might have to be used as a proof.) Intel-Excel (talk) 11:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

It is arleady mentioned in the article. see the first note in the reference section--Sodabottle (talk) 11:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Sports Image

I have changed the IPL image with the Olympic Gold winning Hockey team image. The reason being:

The IPL image doesn't signify any glorifying moment / personality for India. It is merely a trivial moment during a domestic sports.
Field Hockey being the national sports - the hockey image is more appropriate. It also goes well with the beginning paragraph.
The hokey image signifies a glorious moment / team for India sports. A comparable alternative would be Kapil Dev's world cup winning team - but unforunately a free image is not available. Arman 09:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Cricket is the biggest sport in India. Hockey is significantly less popular than cricket. We should wait and see what others say before changing this image. Nikkul (talk) 05:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Nikkul here. In terms of popularity, cricket clearly overshadows hockey and therefore, an image on cricket is more than appropriate. Secondly, I cannot see any "glorifying moment for India" in this image, especially considering the fact that it was British India which took part in 1936 Olympics, not Republic of India. --King Zebu (talk) 17:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Language categories

The languages categories on this article still need sorted out. The current situation (English being the only language category) gives an inaccurate impression of the linguistic situation in India. English is spoken by only a small proportion of the Indian population as first language but there are many other languages that are. Thus the language categories should be edited to reflect this. This should be either by removing that category, or by adding other categories relating to language(s) which are widely spoken in India as first language(s). Hindustani, the language of which Hindi is a register, and possibly also Tamil and Bengali among others would be appropriate. If the current category isn't removed that is. Munci (talk) 03:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

References

^ page 475 of Principles of historical linguistics by Hans Henrich Hock

I support removing the English language cat. Adding a few languages will open a can of worms. We need 22 cats just to cover schedule 8. So removing eng lang cat is the better option.--Sodabottle (talk) 09:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Inconsistent claim about Islam in introduction

The intro to this article says that Islam was brought to India in the first millenium CE. If one clicks on the word "Islam" in that sentence, one is taken to "Islam in India". This page says in its intro that the religion entered India in the 12th century CE. This is clearly a date that is difficult to pin down, as it was probably gradual, but it seems that there should be some consistency here. Bentheimmigrant (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Cuisine

In the Cuisine section, the staple foods of India mentioned are rice and wheat. I propose we add lentils to that. Lentils are universally consumed in some form or the other across all parts of India. Romitmitra (talk) 04:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

i agree. if you can find a WP:RS for this, we can add it?.--Sodabottle (talk) 05:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

This fine?: But it has been red lentils which have 'fed the masses' particularly in the Indian subcontinent. Lentils are a staple food in many regions Munci (talk) 14:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that looks good.--Sodabottle (talk) 14:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

You told me my request was granted regarding the "india is third most powerful country in the world" to put it in the "india" article. But where did you put it?.

Previous request and your acceptance: request: I have already put a request to put the follwing data in "INDIA" web page in the beginning. But you can put it in the politics, you can create global power one more headline and put this news under that heading. I am giving more news regarding this. This is an important news and must be in the india website. I hope there will not be any other reports such as this. This Report is the standard and final deceisions report as of my knowledge. "According to "Global Governance 2025" jointly issued by the National Intelligence Council (NIC) of the US and the European Union's Institute for Security Studies (EUISS): They recognized india as the thrid most powerful country after the USA and China. There will not be any change in the order of powerful countries upto 2025. China and india will become even more powerful".

http://news.in.msn.com/national/article.aspx?cp-documentid=4404832 http://news.rediff.com/report/2010/sep/22/slide-show-1-india-is-the-third-most-powerful-nation-in-the-world.htm

Acceptance: Done: I agree that this definitely belongs in the article. This is a high profile document put out jointly by 2 key analysts of international politics and relations. I have added this information to the "Foreign relations" section and directly cite the Global Governance 2025 report. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Narayanam5 (talk • contribs)

Edit request from Narayanam5, 15 January 2011

Could you add this before the etymology paragraph ie> at the beginning of the web page of "India": "India is listed as the third most powerful country in the world after the US and China and the fourth most powerful bloc after the US, China and the European Union in a new official US report" Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/India-third-most-powerful-nation-US-report/articleshow/6598434.cms

Narayanam5 (talk) 04:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done. That is WP:UNDUE here without proper context. Probably in the foreign relations or the global power article but it is only one report and has to be presented with proper context, which we cant do in the lead.--Sodabottle (talk) 05:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

You told me my request was granted regarding the "india is third most powerful country in the world" to put it in the "india" article. But where did you put it?.

http://news.in.msn.com/national/article.aspx?cp-documentid=4404832 http://news.rediff.com/report/2010/sep/22/slide-show-1-india-is-the-third-most-powerful-nation-in-the-world.htm

{{edit semi-protected}} I have already put a request to put the follwing data in "INDIA" web page in the beginning. But you can put it in the politics, you can create global power one more headline and put this news under that heading. I am giving more news regarding this. This is an important news and must be in the india website. I hope there will not be any other reports such as this. This Report is the standard and final deceisions report as of my knowledge. "According to "Global Governance 2025" jointly issued by the National Intelligence Council (NIC) of the US and the European Union's Institute for Security Studies (EUISS): They recognized india as the thrid most powerful country after the USA and China. There will not be any change in the order of powerful countries upto 2025. China and india will become even more powerful".

http://news.in.msn.com/national/article.aspx?cp-documentid=4404832 http://news.rediff.com/report/2010/sep/22/slide-show-1-india-is-the-third-most-powerful-nation-in-the-world.htm

Previous request and your answer:

Narayanam5 (talk) 04:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Narayanam5 (talk) 16:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Done I agree that this definitely belongs in the article. This is a high profile document put out jointly by 2 key analysts of international politics and relations. I have added this information to the "Foreign relations" section and directly cite the Global Governance 2025 report. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the edit summary, every year, several reports are published which express the viewpoints of these "key analysts". The main India article is not the place for these reports which provide rather subjective information on India's "global power". We have separate articles such as foreign relations of India for this kind of information. --King Zebu (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, except for the fact that this report is by two remarkably important international political/economic analysts. Note, further, that these are both government agencies, not independent think tanks. Furthermore, note that the claim it makes is quite broad and striking--it, effectively, ranks India as the fourth most "important"/"powerful" country in the world. For example, I'd argue that's more important than the claim that India has the 11th biggest economy in the world, has the third largest standing army, and the extremely vacuous claim of "regional power in South Asia" (in the lead), all of which are mentioned in the lead. So, yes, we can't include every such analysis, but it seems like the GG2025 has more prominence than, for instance, the analysis in the Washington Quarterly on which the claim of India being a "regional power" rests. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with King Zebu on this one, this is WP:UNDUE here as it is the opinion of (reputable) analysts. The rest of the statements that this is being compared to (with the exception of regional power) are statistical claims of importance. However, all these are supported by multiple reliable sources (including the regional power), that we don't use all of the sources in the article shouldn't matter. In addition, if at all this statement merits inclusion, it needs to be attributed to the analysts and the agency as it is in effect their opinion. —SpacemanSpiff 06:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It is very likely that this is a minority opinion and we should avoid making such claims until it becomes a substantially mainstream view. Zuggernaut (talk) 06:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, my thought was that two of the world's 2 premier governmental policy analysis groups would constitute an opinion that legitimately meets WP:DUE. But, I may well be over-rating the importance of this document. Perhaps I'll start an RfC on the matter--it's not that I think either SpacemanSpiff or Zuggernaut are necessarily wrong, it's just that I think that more than the opinions of the 4 of us may help clarify the issue. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Picture of Obama with Singh

I recently made an edit to the foreign relations section of India wherein I added a picture of Mahmohan Singh walking alongside Barack Obama and justified this on the grounds of the intimate relationship India and the US as being the "two largest democracies in the world" and their sharing "an extensive cultural, strategic, military and economic relationship."India-U.S. Economic and Trade Relations The Evolving India-U.S. Strategic Relationship. The edit was removed by another user because I didn't discuss the edit on the talkpage, so haven't taken that user's advice to heart, what do the users here think about my inclusion of the picture of Obama with Singh onto the foreign relations section of India?Fellytone (talk) 02:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I am the editor who removed the image. Most of the images in this article are rotated periodically. I think a single picture for foreign relations section is enough and it is a good idea to alternate between the Medvedev/Singh and Obama/Singh images.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I had removed this image once too. One image is sufficient, currently the Indo-Russian relationship is "significantly" discussed in the article, so it's reasonable to have an image relating to that aspect in the section. —SpacemanSpiff 04:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Although India has a history of good bilateral relationship with the erstwhile USSR and its successor state, Russia, but the Indo-US relationship and the scope of engagement has been moving northwards in the last 10 years. Keeping this in view, I believe that the rotation of images, as suggested by Sodabottle would be the best idea. Shovon (talk) 08:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

~~Personal Opinions on the depth of relationships aside, I guess it would be good if the images are rotated.~~ TheMike • 14:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm against adding image of Obama and Singh. Ten years back, India and the United States were on the opposing sides of most foreign policy issues and this trend started to change only during the Bush era. Compare that to the four decades old strategic alliance between India and Russia. In comparison, India's strategic partnership with the United States is relatively new and to be frank, unstable (Indian foreign policy experts were up in arms one year back when Obama encouraged China to play an active role in South Asia). Secondly, India does not enjoy "intimate" relationship with the United States and there are several outstanding issues which undermine the strategic partnership — be it States' continued financial and military support to India's arch-rival Pakistan, or Obama administration's protectionist and anti-outsourcing policies, or disagreement over global protocol for fighting climate change, or Doha round trade negotiations, or military end-user monitoring agreement. Ten years from now, maybe one could term Indo-American relationship as "intimate", but as of now, India and the United States are just partners on some key strategic issues while Indo-Russian relations go beyond intimacy. --King Zebu (talk) 17:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I end up agreeing with King Zebu. TheMike • 17:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

India 3rd most powerful country.

You told me my request was granted regarding the "india is third most powerful country in the world" to put it in the "india" article. But where did you put it?.

http://news.in.msn.com/national/article.aspx?cp-documentid=4404832 http://news.rediff.com/report/2010/sep/22/slide-show-1-india-is-the-third-most-powerful-nation-in-the-world.htm

I believe the matter is under discussion. Let us await consensus. TheMike • 05:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Famines

Back in September 2010, there was consensus to add factual information about famines in India. I'm back here after substantially expanding the Famine in India article (currently nominated for a GA status). I've added one line, footnote and a template (doesn't increase the size of the article) per WP:BRD. Feel free to modify or discuss here. Zuggernaut (talk) 06:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

As i see it, there was no clear consensus - . You could have restarted the discussion and waited for its results before readding the content. (i am not reverting it, i will wait to see what others think). The main article - Famine in India is still not settled (have no dog in that fight). --Sodabottle (talk) 06:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

There was no consensus, please do not misrepresent it. The current version edited by King Zebu and RegentsPark is neutral and sufficient. —SpacemanSpiff 07:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Majority of editors were OK with the addition back then. However, that content was very different from the recent addition which is merely a template of numbers of deaths and a footnote/quote from Amartya Sen. Let's try to build consensus this time around since I this is a significant part of Indian history which deserves mention in the article. Zuggernaut (talk) 07:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Categories: