Talk:India

Why Does the China page get to brag but the India page doesn't?

A while ago I wanted to put some thing's down on India's page that was factual and giving credit to things that had to do with India. But I was told that it wasnt proper because basically it's like im just bragging about India, and this is about facts....so....I asked how come the China page gets to say nice things and the India page cant then? For example on the China page it get's to say thing's like China is one of the oldest civilazations, and how it was one of the leader in the world of arts, etc. etc.....but....if I want to say thing's like that regarding India, the rulers of Wikipedia won't let me.....and I was told the reason is, because, that India is an offical page, and China isn't. So now im asking has that changed? Is China an offical page? If so then someone please tell me why does the page on China get to say some nice things that elevate the country and can I please put down things of that nature for the India page then so here the and ? ? 71.105.87.54 (talk) 23:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Since, according to you, the China page allows bragging, the easiest solution would be to brag about India on the China page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Your suggesting POV pushing? Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 02:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

it ain't worth a dime replying to wiki-disneylanders. --CarTick 03:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I could give you examples of what I think should be added here, and it's actually pretty logical. But I get the feeling, judging from my history of dealing with you dictators and those of you like to "pick and choose here" , that your probably not going to read down everything I write, and if you do, you probably won't take it into consideration and / or give me logic.....I mean none of you have explained why it's ok to prep up China on it's article, but you can't allow that with India then. I mean would any of you people like examples on what I think can be added to this India page? ? 71.105.87.54 (talk) 22:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not a question about being ok for China but not for India. Unwarranted promotion is not good for either article. If you think that the China article 'brags' in a way that is not suitably referenced, you should comment on the Talk:China page or just go ahead and boldly remove material that is unwarranted. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Even if I did that, isn't their a chance someone might just undo what I might do? And then if I kept doing it they might block me......anyway where is the consistency? If China is allowed to say things that might elevate it, which I dont neceessarily object to, why can't India then? If it's not ok for China why is it allowed? If it is ok for China, why can't India get it....I mean im not saying can I just lie and say India is great. But their are things that the dictators won't let me put, and it's not even that bad then. But they won't let me put it. If you want I can give you examples. So if I can't put things that I don't even think are that bad then, and someone might make it seem like I just want to brag about India then, which might be true, why does the article on China get to have thing's that might seem like it's being bragged about then so? Im not saying I necessarily object to what's on China's page . But it's a matter of consistency....for example....I can't put down how India has Aryan hertiage, which is true then. But China get have something like how it was a leader in the arts then? So I cant put something thats at least maybe somewhat true, but China can put something like that (which is ok then) but isn't that kind of a contradiction then? Kind of maybe then? Water then? 71.105.87.54 (talk) 03:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

ARYAN818, your posts are getting fouler and fouler, stop calling people dictators and perhaps take Fowler&fowler's advice. -SpacemanSpiff 03:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Dont feed the troll. It's pointless trying to make him understand anything because he has porved it four times on this talk page that he doesnt want to. And he isnt realy concerned about the article, ultimately all he cares about is the Aryan race and proving that it is supreme. For those of you who dont know User:Aryan818 was blocked because his username was offensive. 818 is the numerical for H-A-H: Heil Adolf Hitler. (Now watch as he says that 818 is his area code and not HAH ). So the next time this IP makes any edits, save yourself and others some trouble and revert his trolling. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 04:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Althought, I don't agree with what this IP is saying, I do understand where he is coming from and it is a problem. There are many instances where certain topics have been left off this page, such as the Science & Technology section, which many other countries have. Similarly, a template with multiple city skylines is present on many many country pages. Nikkul (talk) 19:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Who keep's erasing my replies? And some of you wonder why when I use the word dictator? lol 71.105.87.54 (talk) 01:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I do, and here's why: Its because you treat wikipedia like some forum. Your messages are all about "I, me , myself" not about "improving the article". You are an attention seeking little kid who does not understand that building an encyclopedia is a serious activity. You treat talk pages like some chat group on orkut or facebook. Your "cool dude" kind of talk only , calling others names only betrays your lack of seriousness. You have failed to get consensus four times but that has only added to your self-centered wailing, not encouraged you to become more constructive. Your behaviour on this page falls into the category of trolling. That is why you get reverted all the time. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 04:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

don't you think there are many more important things to talk about ?Idlichutni (talk) 16:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Science and Technology section

There is a need for science and Technology section with the latest being the Chandrayaan mission. This kind of important information is lacking in the page.Bcs09 (talk) 14:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree Nikkul (talk) 19:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

--TRYPPN (talk) 04:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree on this point. Indian mission found that Water is there in the surface of Moon, before NASA. NASA confirmed afterwards.

All the good achievements, which were in great detail shown on TV and other public media should be included in the INDIA page article to show that we are NOT just a developing Country but we are going towards as a Developed country.

--TRYPPN (talk) 04:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC) I agree too--Baloria88 (talk) 04:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

agreed--Migelot ^{Talk to me!} 05:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

everybody Agreed so shouldnt we starting the work??--Migelot ^{Talk to me!} 16:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Most populous democracy ???

Why cant we just say the second-most populous country in the world ? --Zhonghuo (talk) 11:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The fact of India being the most populous democracy in the world acquires notability since the most populous country in the world is not a democracy. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 12:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It is a well referenced and well recognized term. Please also see this archived discussion. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 13:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

"The fact of India being the most populous democracy in the world acquires notability since the most populous country in the world is not a democracy" => and why is it important ? --Zhonghuo (talk) 00:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It is important because multiple sources, both scholarly and news media, consider that qualifying label to be important. If there's a change in that status such as the larger nation becoming a democracy or India becomes a dictatorship or something, we should change it, but until then, it's a perfectly valid point to include for our readers and to maintain our integrity. -SpacemanSpiff 02:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with SpacemanSpiff and RegentsPark. To manage democracy in a large country with many economic and social problems for a period of 60 years (with one gap of two years) is no small feat. Even if China did become a liberal democracy tomorrow, India's achievement will not be one whit diminished since its democracy has been sustained through a very long time. No other developing country, and no country other than Japan, Israel, US, Canada, and the democracies of Western Europe (minus Portugal, Spain, Greece) has been able to achieve this. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Slightly off-topic, but ... Ramachandra Guha's recent tome India after Gandhi: The history of the world's largest democracy lays quite a stress on how sustaining the democracy and territorial unity were significant and non-inevitable achievements in post-independence India. Abecedare (talk) 22:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Subsection on health

I would like to add a subsection on health to the introduction section. Sarcelles (talk) 12:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I meant the demographics section. Sarcelles (talk) 20:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you outline what content you are thinking of, so that we can discuss it here ? Also consider expanding the Demographics of India, or Healthcare in India articles. Abecedare (talk) 23:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I would like to state major diseases and mention statistical data on topics such as government health expenditure and physicians per 100,000 people. Sarcelles (talk) 10:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Sarcelles, sorry I missed your earlier reply. I just saw your addition and while I think the 2-3 sentences don't need a separate sub-section of their own, some of the content is indeed pertinent to the article. For instance, I was surprised that we don't talk about disease and malnutrition anywhere outside the lede. However I am not sure how the topics you included in your draft were selected; for example, why mention pollution and malaria and not water borne disease etc ? Also family planning, and immunization programs may well worth be mentioning, and we need to give an idea of historic trends rather than just the recent some statistic.
Here are the sentences you added:

According to the World Health Organization 900,000 Indians die each year from drinking contaminated water and breathing in polluted air. ^{http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1736516,00.html} Malaria is endemic in India.^{"Status of Malaria in India" (PDF).} Half of children in India are underweight, one of the highest rates in the world and nearly same as Sub-Saharan Africa.^{"India: Undernourished Children: A Call for Reform and Action". World Bank.} Many women are malnourished, too. There are about 60 physicians per 100,000 people in India. ^{http://india-reports.in/transitions/global-skills/doctors-per-one-hundred-thousand-people-in-india}

Can you and others comment on what information we should include in talking about healthcare in India, and what are the most authoritative sources for a short 2-4 sentence summary ? Once we have those, we can craft the exact language and placement. (I don't care whether the above senetences remain in the article or not, while the discussion is ongoing). Abecedare (talk) 04:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd say this needs a paragraph with the history of health issues in India, status of healthcare and availability mixed with a few stats. I think the above stats are interesting, but I don't know if they are the most important. -SpacemanSpiff 06:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we need a separate section on health issues. Rather, some of the material can be included under demographics. Particularly, IMO, the material on malnourished children. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 11:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on a separate section vs the info being inserted in different parts of the article, but I think it has a place in the article. The above edit introduced the word "health" to the article, that's kind of a mismatch given the significance of healthcare issues in India. Access to healthcare (and therefore the history, is it improving etc), one major problem, and major disease might be good enough. -SpacemanSpiff 17:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

What could be added? If noone has another idea, I would be in favour of mentioning leprosy and blindness. Sarcelles (talk) 06:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Why leprosy and blindness, in particular ? Instead of selecting arbitrary diseases and ailments, we need to look what the reliable sources and perhaps only list the the main contributors to morbidity and mortality. I am sure there are standard reference works, or reports produced by WHO and other organizations, that provide an overview of health and healthcare in India, and I can look for some in the next few days. Feel free to list any authoritative references you find here too. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 09:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

This is the healthcare section of the (excellent) German article. Should it be a model? Sarcelles (talk) 20:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

congress historians

We have read enough by congress biased historians in our textbooks in our childhood. And deceived enough times by maps to think whole "kashmir" is owned by us. But now let us be neutral in wikipedia. Doorvery far (talk) 05:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable scholarly references for your claims about "congress biased historians" and "other organizations" which started the modern independence movement. Please do not discuss Kashmir here. Stick to the topic of the article. Wikipedia is not a forum. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 06:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) Doorvery far, I have reverted your edits to the India page since the current sentence has been discussed extensively at these talk pages before, including a formal RFC: see Archive 14 that deals almost exclusively with the topic, and the conclusion of the discussion in Archive 15. For a quick overview, you can consult these charts: File:India_freedom_bar_chart.jpg or File:Indian_freedom_pie_chart.jpg, which also provide links to sevral references, any of which can be used as an explicit source for the sentence, if needed. Abecedare (talk) 06:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I need any of those links as ref. It is easy to synthesise into desired sentence, but i need an inline citation, i dont want to go though archives to find one. Burden of providing ref lies with you people. And being admin, you removing fact tag is unfortunate, and please dont block people with whom you have directly engaged in disagreement. Doorvery far (talk) 08:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. (From WP:V) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 15:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I have added a reference for the sentence, since you insist. But to be frank, plain verifiability has never an issue with various versions of the sentences that have been proposed to describe the Indian independence movement - all could have been trivially verified by reference to any standard text on modern Indian history. The issue has always been due weight. These have been the most scrutinized 3-4 sentences in the article, and after all that discussion (some of which I have linked above) and consultation of dozens of sources the current version was deemed to be the most appropriate description of that part of Indian history. You are free to propose an alternate, but for that you will need to read the past discussion and then compile suitably compelling evidence to establish a new consensus. Abecedare (talk) 16:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

An inline citation needs to be precise, not pages 345-385. The "due weight" need to be mentioned by the ref cited, but condensing 40 pages into one sentence is exactly what is synthesis. I will replace the vague ref given with citation needed tag if it does not point to single page/paragraph. And I will look for more such vague refs used for synthesis in this article and replace them with citation needed tag. Doorvery far (talk) 04:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

You are confusing summarizing with synthesizing. The former is what we always do in writing a tertiary source, especially in a summary style article]]. Also as explained above, the current 3-4 sentences on Indian independence movement have been determined to be a good summary of the material and sources. If you want to propose a change, and establish a new consensus, that is fine. However, if you continue disruption and edit-warring, you will be blocked from editing. Abecedare (talk) 04:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Asking for ref DOES NOT need consensus. And so is tagging for ref. I wait for a third opinion and remove sentence if it is not given correct ref. Doorvery far (talk) 06:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It is sufficiently referenced, and that has also been attested to by the RfC linked above. -SpacemanSpiff 06:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion

There is no good ref that mentions both Congress party and Gandhi and skips all others in Indian freedom struggle. Not just the text, even the image there gives all credit of freedom struggle to congress party. Summary article need to mention another summary article by third party source as ref, instead of synthesizing 40 pages into one sentence which is ridiculous WP:SYN. There is no point of inline citation if the whole book is cited for single sentence. Is it only me who thinks 40 page inline citation is not at all specific and needs replacement by a different ref? And the admin threatens to block me for asking for exact page in the ref given - [1]. Doorvery far (talk) 03:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your objection. Are you saying that India's independence struggle was launched by parties other than the INC? Your previous edit says "different" political parties and I'm not sure what you mean by that. Sources would also help. Also, are you contesting the fact that Gandhi is the main persona linked with India's struggle for Independence? (BTW, it is customary to post requests for third opinions on the WP:3O page. In this case a 3O may not be accepted because of two reasons: (1) there are more than two editors involved and (2) there has already been an RfC on this issue.) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 03:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps if the statement was changed to remove the Indian National Congress, and reword the sentence to say that multiple groups rallied and worked towards Indian independence, the undue weight nature of singling out a single group or individual would ratchet down the current conflict in opinions of how the sentence is worded. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

That depends. If the INC was the principal party behind the rallying around India's independence, then removing that would be incorrect. We don't necessarily want to satisfy the diverse opinions on our editorial body. Rather, we want to be in concordance with what reliable sources say. I'm curious as to whether doorvery far wants to correct what he perceives to be a bias in our article or whether he wants to correct what, if we went by reliable sources, would be an incorrect weighting in our article. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 04:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

That depends not on opinions, but on refs. Show me one ref that mentions only congress in the summary and nothing else, then i will take back. Summarizing is not limited to wikipedia, but most books/refs have that at starting. Give me such a ref, or remove sentence. Pages 435-485 for a single sentence doesn't make any sense. There is INA "organisation" by Subhas chandra bose, and he is considered no.2 freedom leader - not Nehru(no.3). Doorvery far (talk) 08:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I must agree with Doorvery far here, references do need to be as specific as possible to provide proper referencing to the material. That being said, if multiple organizations, including the Indian National Congress, worked towards the independence of India, then other notable organizations should be listed as well (or none at all), and in a manor that isn't related to one's opinion of which was more important than the other, but something neutral such as alphabetically or first recorded and properly referenced action. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

This issue has come up many times, prinicpally borught on by Congress-hating[2] RSS supporters who want to deny that the INC was the leading force in the Indian independence and want "due credit" to all who particpiated. And the conclusion has been the same every time. Do we need to discuss this again? --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 08:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

RightCowLeftCoast, have you taken at the RFC on this exact topic that is linked above ? The question about the non-existence of other notable organizations/persons was examined there in great detail. Are there any particular organizations that you have in mind, that you think played a role comparable to INC ? Abecedare (talk) 08:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I dont hate congress, let me be frank and Khan is mentioned in refs there, @Deepak. There is gaming going on in this article (1) Giving some random ref as inline citation and another guy SpacemanSpiff supprots saying it is properly referenced. (2) It is said to every user here that it is "summary" article so go away, summary is common in most refs/books - nothing new. Doorvery far (talk) 09:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I actually came here after seeing this discussion highlighted at third opinion, but did not come here as an offical third opinion provider. I have skimmed over some of the discussion linked above, but have not read it in depth. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Take your time - it is only around 200 kilobytes! :-)

The reason I asked is so that we can avoid retreading that well-beaten paths again, and continue this debate only if some new and equally good sources are produced as the ones that were analysed during the RFC. Abecedare (talk) 09:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

This issue is not about the beaten path of old RFC. It is precisely about the "inline citation" you added [3], Abecedare, which is not an acceptable ref in the context. I wish to remove that ref and put fact tag there. Doorvery far (talk) 10:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you point out which sources cite Feroze Gandhi as a Khan on that article's talk page, please? And you haven't given any sources for your claims that "biased congress historians" wrote this history ; so the essential substance of your argument is unsubtantiated. And since when is there a "ranking" of freedom fighters? Again with reliable refs , please. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 10:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request (Disagreement about vague inline citation given.):

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on India and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

A more specific edit should be provided, in order for readers to be able to find supporting material in the referenced source.—RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Since my statement of this being a proper reference has been questioned above by User:Doorvery far. Let me quote from the opening (summary) passage of the associated reference:

British rule was soon contested by a nationalist movement, which was embodied by the Indian National Congress, founded in 1885. From 1905, a protest movement developed...

— Claude Markovits, A history of modern India, 1480-1950, p. 345, Part Five, From the British Indian Empire to Indian Independence, Anthem, 2004

Other organizations are also mentioned in the rest of the chapter, but the number of mentions of INC/Congress outweighs them all. Now let's see what the article currently says:

In the 20th century, a nationwide struggle for independence was launched by the Indian National Congress and other political organisations.^[34]

20th century vs 1905, embodied by INC vs launched by INC and other political orgs (included in the rest of the chapter). I fail to see how this classifies as synthesis.

In response to RightCowLeftCoast, I hope this addresses your comment though, which was more in line of a clarification being required. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 11:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I have fixed the ref for now, but currently unable to access the book. If content of p345 of the book were like what SpacemanSpiff told, then it is definitely specific enough and does not amount to synthesis. Thanks to RightCowLeftCoast for the third opinion. I will try to get some internet ref, which are user friendly, maybe with the help of archived discussion. Doorvery far (talk) 14:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It does, and the reference should be changed to indicate the specific page provided which supports the statement in the article, if it hasn't been done already. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a minor issue, but the remainder of the pages in the citation were for the "and other organisations" included in that sentence, as those orgs aren't discussed in p345. This is not a matter that's worth back and forth arguments, but it's the reason the pages were all listed initially (at least my interpretation of it). -SpacemanSpiff 15:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Just for clarification: I had cited the 40 pages from the book because those provided an overview of the main post-1857 political developments that led to the end of the British rule in India - the events we are summarizing in 2 sentences in this article. In general, I don't think it is a good idea to simply pick one-two isolated sentences from a reference and use them as a basis for such a highly condensed article, since such a method can be gravely abused. But in this case since the sentence being discussed is frankly absolutely non-contentious from a verifiability point of view, and can be so easily confirmed by referring to any of the dozens of reputable undergraduate texts on Indian history, that I have no problem if editors prefer to cite a single page from the reference. I assume the immediate issue is resolved now ? Abecedare (talk) 15:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It is definitely not a minor issue, because those are blind ref for the majority. All those books we cannot access, and authority of those books not known and zero internet links are there to support. Directing to utterly ridiculous WP:OR "freedom pie chart" and "bar graph" and 201kb discussion is not acceptable, dodging the straight question. This being likely first stop for new wiki editors from india, scaring behavior should stop, remind again since im dealing with 3 "admins", admins not supposed to block users for issue with whom they directly engaged with. Doorvery far (talk) 08:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) This is a topic that keeps reappearing in talk page discussions here. The larger topic is driven (in my view) by the belated frustration felt in certain political constituencies in present-day India (the Hindu right wing, many Bengalis (although this might be restricted to an older passing generation), and many elites of former princely states) at having played very little part in the Indian nationalist movement, at least in the last 30 years of it. They try to make up for this sense of historical inadequacy by diminishing Gandhi and by subscribing to certain myths, among which are: the so-called "freedom struggle" began in 1857, the "revolutionaries" really sent a shiver down the British spine, and Subhas Chandra Bose came within a hair's breadth of liberating India. What they forget is that the Indian National Congress's monopoly was so complete that even many revolutionaries were not outside its pale of influence. Bhagat Singh, for example, was a graduate of a nationalist college in the Punjab that was founded by Lala Lajpat Rai in response to Gandhi's call for non-cooperation in 1921. Bose, as is well known, spent much much more time in the INC than he did in the INA.

The best brief statement of the nationalist movement in India in the period 1917 to 1947 is provided by Rajat Kanta Ray (Professor of History, Calcutta University) in his introduction to Anthony Low's edited volume Congress and the Raj: Facets of the struggle, 1917–1947, OUP, :

The narratives make three things very clear: the Congress brought the country and the 'peasants' (whoever they might be) into its orbit to the dismay of the Raj in the 1930s; the rural upsurge did not prevent the Raj from reimposing its grip on the country; indirectly, however, it destroyed the Raj because the British had taken to governing India by certain electoral rules which Congress turned to its advantage.

In any case, if other people are required to be mentioned in the Indian nationalist movement, they would be among the likes of Sayed Ahmad Khan, Dadabhai Naoroji, Gopal Krishna Gokhale, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Surendranath Banerjee, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the Muslim League, the two Nehrus, Maulana Azad, Vallabhbhai Patel, Rajendra Prasad and so forth. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

You are living in past referring to paper books, which are currently very difficult to access for common man. And books by Indian authors (like one you mentioned above) about indian politics is likely to be biased. And authority of those books need to be justified, just because they are printed by publishers doesnt mean the book is good. I will look for neutral web refs and come back. And it would be nice if you justify the rationale of purely misleading "freedom pie chart" in its deletion discussion, which you failed to do in your comment above. Doorvery far (talk) 04:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid the book, Congress and the Raj, a collection of scholarly articles, is not written by an Indian author. Rajat Kanta Ray wrote only the introduction to the new edition. The book has been edited by the historian of decolonization, Anthony Low, and has contributions by 15 scholars, of which only two, Gyanendra Pandey and Ravinder Kumar are of Indian origin. The other contributors include Judith Brown, James Manor, and David Hardiman. Since you suggest that Indian historians might be biased in their accounts of Indian nationalism, I hope you will be comforted in the preponderance of non-Indians among the list of contributors (and not take us to task for other kinds of bias that such authorship might occasion). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Doorvery far, you are going too far! Really! This is one of the most ridiculous arguments I have seen someone make to push his POV:"You are living in past referring to paper books". The internet is full of wannabe "scholars' and researchers peddling crazy "The truth is out there" theories to other gullible self-styled researchers. You shouldnt be worried about three admins here. You should be worried as to why not one of the 100 odd watchers on this page finds any reason in your argument. Here's some sensibe advice. Take a break , cool off for a few days and come back and examine this thread again. You may be surprised to see how you have twisted arguement after argument, without any refs,scholarly or otherwise. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 12:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

100 odd ?! More like 2200. Abecedare (talk) 12:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, i indeed noticed nobody came to my side. But the only third opinion i received got completely in my favor, that means that admins here blocked all non-congress people and scared them away showing "hardware books" ref. But still dont think all those 2200 people vote congress, i really need time to device a strategy :) I like casual comments by Deepak. Doorvery far (talk) 14:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Doorvery far, while devising a new strategy, you may also want to rethink your basic understanding of Wikipedia. Those 2200 people didn't 'vote' congress. They understood and applied the policies of Reliable Sources and Verifiability. You might also want to read Consensus and Edit warring while you're at it. And they are all written on teh internets, not on that old musty unreliable bark and paper :-). Priyanath ^talk 16:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Doorveryfar, you are very far (but not door) from a block :). However, the reality is that the independence struggle is largely associated with the Indian National Congress (even you agree with that - though you feel that historians, textbooks, and maps are all out there to deceive us). The purpose of an encyclopedia is to record and impart accepted wisdom and, while it is certainly not impossible that the accepted wisdom is biased, short of becoming respected historians ourselves we can neither assert that the bias exists, not can we go around rewriting history to remove those perceived biases. I seriously doubt you'll find reliable sources that play down the role of the INC and suggest you follow Deepak's excellent advice above. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 16:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

More seriously: more eyes will be welcome at Feroze Khan where Doorfar is intent on proving that Feroze Gandhi was a Muslim; first based on sources such as this fringe website, which claims that Feroze was a Muslim and adopted son of Mahatma Gandhi, and that "Rajiv (Khan) Gandhi" was a Christian convert. When those edits were reverted 2-3 times, he used this otherwise reliable source, which actually say the opposite of what he cites it for! Amusing to certain extent, but getting disruptive. Abecedare (talk) 17:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I have noticed Britannica web article on India limits summary to INC and Gandhi, so I have stopped editing this article long back. Edits were hardly disruptive [4], [5], i leave it again to some third person to decide that, not the directly involved admins/editors. The editors of this article should think why the only third opinion went against them, while they were outright rejecting any irregularities on their side. Let us be frank about congress vote, politics is not as bad as you think. Doorvery far (talk) 04:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

hi i need helpppp

hi i a doin h/w and i am really stuck. u have 2 do a spider diagram on india, with all art and gods and religion comin off it. can ani 1 help me to fill it in???? pllzz taa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.222.122 (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

May I direct you to the reference desk. The talk pages of the article is for improvement of the article, and not for questions regarding the article's subject. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on Economy Section

It says Bombay Stock Exchange is the largest stock exchange in the India. That claim is little confusing. It is largest by the market capitalization of the companies listed on BSE. But if the shares transaction per day is considered National Stock Exchange is the largest stock exchange in India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redr (talk • contribs) 14:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I have made the crireion by which BSE is the largest, explicit in the caption(it was indicated only through a wikilink before). Abecedare (talk) 15:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

guptas rule is not indias golden age

The guptas only ruled north india so guptas rule is only golden age of north india. The golden age of south india is the rule of Chola dynasty which comprised the entire south india, srilanka, malayasia, indonesia and java. Also Vijaynagar dynasty needs to be explained in detail.

Yes, the history part doesn't cover the history of Soutth India

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chola yadava (talk • contribs) 04:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC) 

The Gupta empire covered much of the Indian Subcontinent. The Gupta army had reached Kānchipuram in modern Tamil Nādu state, capturing local kings and then reinstating them as their dependents. see [6] which's archived from [7]. Remember Aryabhatta was from Kerala. So any renaming Gupta period as Golden Age of North India would be inane. . Arjun (talk) 14:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Education

I suggest, that there should be a section on education. Sarcelles (talk) 12:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The article already has information about basic literacy rate, and role of English in higher education. Don't know what else we'd want to include in this summary style article. The details of the educational system and statistics belong in the Education in India and its sub-articles. Abecedare (talk) 13:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Gender inequality should be mentioned there. Sarcelles (talk) 20:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The article already does that. Abecedare (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Avuryeda plays a special role within Indian higher education. This should be mentioned. Sarcelles (talk) 16:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what gave you the idea that "Ayurveda plays a special role in Indian higher education" ?! It is just one of many systems of medicine (Unani, Siddha, Homeopthy, Naturopathy etc) taught in India, and all of these are minor relative to "allopathic" medicine. And of course, education in medicine itself is only a small subset of overall higher education. Thus such random trivia would be undue in this article. Abecedare (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It should be stated that:

• decidedly fewer women than men are in higher education
• vocational schooling is not much
• there is compulsory schooling from 5 to 14 (and some drop out)
• de:Datei:Alphabetisierungsrate.png is a map on literacy in states in India

I hope above information is right Sarcelles (talk) 16:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Are there any objections to adding this? Sarcelles (talk) 15:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

As I stated above, the details you are suggesting are undue trivia in this summary style article. Abecedare (talk) 16:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Telangana

After removing edit I read this news and I wonder whether it was right to remove edit, whether this is right time to mention this development. Thanks! RAMA (talk) 19:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You were right in removing it, this is a summary style article, so when it becomes a state, it should be good enough to change the text/ref to say 29 states. -SpacemanSpiff 19:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to keep it out of the India article even though it is mentioned in the Andhra Pradesh and Telengana articles. The statehood is , at present, just a political decicison. We can wait till there is an ordinance or bill passed to put it up here. The promise may be withdrawn if the opposition is sufficient; or, if the me-toos dont scare the govt into reversing their decision. So it is best to wait and watch. Also request the more active editors to keep a watch on the relevant articles and also other statehood-demand related articles. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 04:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Deepak ... right now, the Telangana news item is simply a 1 day old story of a single Govt announcement. As far as I've read in newspapers, there is no decision of statehood yet, rather the minister said that the process will begin. The bill needs to be passed before any statehood news can be added to a featured article like this. Right now, everything about the Telangana statehood is either speculation, or demand by the statehood supporters. Let's wait till the parliament decides. --Ragib (talk) 05:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

A new state telengana is added —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adithya911 (talk • contribs) 07:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

third highest muslim population??

could someone change the statement - third highest muslim population because it cannot be said with certainty. some people have said that its maybe fourth, not sure as the statistics of muslims in india is not very well documented. i think better to just leave it as "one of the highest muslim populations". since the link already has the number which is close to 160(?) million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.76.31 (talk) 05:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Some suggestions

1. It is better to put the North block in Ndelhi image under Government section rather than politics section. 2. A table of biggest 10 cities included in some country pages can be added under Demographics 3. I would suggest to add an image depicting something from South India. There are no images here that represent a place south of vindhyas . 4. Isn't it more relevant to put some image related to India's IT industry rather than the Nano car? While Nano generated much hype across the world, it is the IT & BPO industries that represent Indian economy outside India, and it is those sectors that push the growth. Shekure (talk) 05:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Shekure, thanks for your input. To address your points:

1. I agree that the North Block image is misplaced in the Politics section. It would be difficult to fit it into the Government section, because that sections already has a table and a map of India, but perhaps we can replace it with an image of Sansad Bhavan, which is a better symbol of politics in India. Do we have a decent image for that, or are there ay other suggestions ?
2. The table of 10 (20 ?) biggest cities was removed from the article after discussion since such content can be covered more compactly and with greater context in text, as in the first paragraph of the Demographics section.
3. Any specific suggestions ? Note though that the Bombay Stock Exchange, the Konark Sun Temple, Ajanta Caves, and the Chidambaram Stadium, are all south of the Vindhyas. Also keep in mind that the image in the Flora and fauna section and one of the images in the Culture section change daily.
4. Any specific suggestions ? It is hard to depict IT industries pictorially especially since we should avoid adding a picture of an IT company's office building, since we already have several pictures of such buildings in the article (North Block, Taj Mahal, BSE etc)

Abecedare (talk) 05:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Commons has a few images of Sansad Bhavan, but none too good. An alternative could be an image of an election rally or something, we seem to be placing too much emphasis on buildings.

South of the Vindhyas -- I'd think adding a couple of images from Brihadeeswara temple, Shore temple, Belur, Shravanabelagola to the culture section rotation might be good, especially since these don't duplicate any of the existig architecture styles. Kerala backwaters might also be an option in the flora and fauna section?

During an earlier discussion, Deepak and I had suggested that the Nano be replaced with a GDP chart instead. That would be better than some random picture like the nano.

Commons has quite a bit of images for the above "South of the Vindhyas" bit, if anyone wants to look there.-SpacemanSpiff 06:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Image of Parliament bldg is a good suggestion.

I don't know what images are rotated in culture section - I think it would be good to add shore temple of Mahabalipuram or Madurai Meenakshi temple or Tirupati Temple. We can rotate Geography images the same way - Ladakh/Eastern Himalayas/kerala backwaters/goa beaches/rajasthan desert etc.

I definitely think Nano should be removed. There are better things to represent Indian economy, I would prefer Infosys HQ photograph to that of Nano car anyday —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shekure (talk • contribs) 10:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Here are the images currently in the Culture section rotation:

• Image:MysorePalace1.JPG
• Image:Prayer flag col.jpg
• Image:Ravi Varma-Shakuntala columbia2.jpg
• Image:Sakyamuni_Buddha.jpg
• Image:Tagore3.jpg
• Image:Shiva Bangalore .jpg
• Image:Wheel of Konark, Orissa, India.JPG
• Image:New Delhi Lotus.jpg
• Image:Mahabodhitemple.jpg
• Image:New Delhi Temple.jpg

Most of them are of temples/religious structures, and it would be a good idea to expand the breadth of Indian culture that is depicted.
About the Tata Nano image: I actually think it is pretty decent choice since it gives the reader an idea of low-priced, small, mass-market cars that are popular in India, and is a good representative of both indigenous development and manufacturing, and the expanding middle-class consumer market. The one downside I see is that we may seem to be shilling a particular commercial product, and taking anything to be "representative" of the Indian economy is always an oversimplification. I don't think a picture of the Infosys or any other IT company HQ is useful, since such buildings are virtually indistinguishable across countries, and IMO provide no real insight into particulars of the Indian IT industry. Perhaps we need an image illustrating agriculture in India, since that still accounts for 60% of the labour force...
The problem of course is to find relevant, encyclopedic, high quality and free images for the article (ideally, we'd pick featured pictures, or at least something that is comparable). If there are any suggestions of specific images, we can discuss them here. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 18:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realize that the Mysore Palace was included, just never seen it on the article (or the Mahabodhi temple which I saw for the first time now). I'd think one of the Hoysala and/or Chola/Pallava temples would make good additions as they are significantly reviewed pieces, both as individual structures and as architectural styles.

Nano, I disagree. The auto industry isn't even covered as a significant part of the economy, and the nano is more of a well covered "recentism" issue. I don't think that a picture of Infosys lor something like that is any better, and it's really difficult to represent "human capital" pictorially. However, an agri-industry pic or a GDP chart would enhance the section, IMO.

cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 05:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with the suggestion for diversification. I see no reason why culture should be restricted to architecture and religion: there's a whole lot else that could be incorporated, such as cuisine and clothing. I'm on the lookout for good images of Indian food - will post here if I locate any. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 12:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

For starters, here are a couple of FPs: 1, 2. A couple of others from PINSP - 3, 4. Can't seem to get away from architecture with the last one, but it's at least a non-religious structure :-) Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 12:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 
• 

Thanks for the suggestions SBC! I have placed them in a gallery for easy viewing. Here are my views on the choices you list:

• I have long been a fan of the Toda Hut image, and old-timers may have read my paean to it. But I was in a (vocal ;-) ) minority, at least when the section had two static images; wonder if the consensus has changed now that the images are rotated ?
• The pigments image is simply wow! I really like it, both aesthetically, and in terms of the diversity it brings to the selection (still related to religion, but representing a distinctive and almost universal feature of Indian culture).
• The Idli image subject is okay, but the image itself is very poorly framed and photographed. Given the ubiquity of the subject, I would prefer if we could find a better photograph.
• The Gateway of India, on the other hand, is okay as a photograph, but I am not sure if it has much relevance to Indian culture. At best we can say that it is an example of the Indo-Saracenic architecture, but personally, I think we can do better.

Can others also chime in with their opinions (please don't just "vote") ? Once we have a few opinions, we can pick from these (and forthcoming ?) options and then craft an appropriate caption. Given how precious real-estate on this page is, I think the caption should not simply be descriptive of the image itself, but needs to be informative and complementary to the article text. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 17:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The toda hut image represents .0001% of India's population. There is NO way this can be representative of the pan-Indian culture. Toda's make up only .001% of India. It is WP:Undue to have an image on the India page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikkul (talk • contribs)

The image of the Toda hut, like Spaceman pointed out, is not representative of merely the Todas, but of India's tribes in general, who constitute some 8% of the population - certainly not undue. In any case, population is not the sole criterion for showcasing a particular image, particularly when the country's diversity is attempted to be portrayed. Also, the policy on undue weight applies to views and opinions w.r.t. article text and not images. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 10:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• The Toda Hut image is a perfect addition to the article. It represents the diversity of the different indigenous tribes and the associated cultural heritage. I'm not exactly in favor of the pigments image, while aesthetically pleasing, I think it needs more explanation than what it provides. As for another addition, I think the Golden Temple would be a good fit, but none of the images below appear to be of acceptable quality, a search for some better quality images might be in order. I also agree with SBC-YPR's statement about the Bangalore Shiva being a bit out of place. -SpacemanSpiff 05:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Remove Tajmahal and add Meenakshi Amman temple Picture

The temple forms the heart and lifeline of the 2500 year old city of Madurai. The complex houses 14 magnificent Gopurams or towers including two golden Gopurams for the main deities, that are elaborately sculptured and painted. The temple is a significant symbol for the Tamil people, and has been mentioned since antiquity in Tamil literature, though the present structure is believed to have been built in 1600[1]. The tallest temple tower is 51.9 metres (170 ft) high[1].This represents India rather Tajmahal which stands no where in architecture and Engineering when compared with Minakshi Temple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.78.27 (talk) 05:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

So which picture are you talking about?--Migelot ^{Talk to me!} 17:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I will post link to some Pictures.My point is every few days someone changes picture just to satisfy his/her interests.We should put pictures that represents architectural and Engineering feats rather any random picture.Some of South Indian temples and structures definitely qualifies for that and are way ahead in architecture and engineering complexity then TajMahal.What you say? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.29.197.150 (talk) 23:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Taj Mahal is more notable than any of the South Indian temples. --CarTick 01:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe you are wrong. Taj Mahal may be more popular in the world, but Indians are mostly Hindus. So a Hindu buildung would be more notable or appropriate for this article. Just a second thought. --Caughingjoe (talk) 13:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Please understand that we do not go by individual beliefs, but what is considered notable by reliable sources. Whether Indians are predominantly Hindus or not has no bearing on architectural structures that are notable. -SpacemanSpiff 14:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

i see your point. we could have both, Taj Mahal for its notability and Hindu temple for its ubiquitousness. we have a Shiva image anyway. we cant have too many pictures. Shiva or temple. --CarTick 16:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Public of India has already given its Mandate.It's time to remove Tajmahal from Indian culture.This is not a secularism debate but what should represent Indian culture.Certainely something related to Hinduism(Hindu/sikhism/janism)represnts Indian culture and not something made

by invaders.Put Tajmahal picture under tourists places,if anyone thinks so.But certainely not under Indian culture.It's totally illogical and off point.TajMahal picture must go from Culture paragraph.Here is link to 7 wonders choosen by Indian public. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NDTV%27s_Seven_Wonders_of_India —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabusharma (talk • contribs) 02:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Taj mahal is more Famous than any other monument or temple. That way I can also recoomend that Golden temple should have a picture here because it shows artitecture of north-west india--Migelot ^{Talk to me!} 16:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• Can we consolidate the responses under the Some Suggestions section above. It has a listing of the current images in rotation. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 16:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

architecture of North-West India is not as compelling as Ubiquity (which is actually an extension of majority of Indians being Hindus). --CarTick 17:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

There are three Hindu related pics in the rotation -- the Shiva, Akshardham temple, Konark temple. This shouldn't be a representation of religions per se, but the geographic and historical diversity of the country and the associated output (architecture is one example, but art like the Ravi Varma painting is also another). cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 17:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

On that note, why is a picture of the Shiva temple in Bangalore even in the rotation? It has little historical or cultural significance, and the Meenakshi, Brihadeeswarar temple or the Golden Temple (provided there exist good images) would be much better choices, IMHO. The second is also a UNESCO World Heritage monument. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 12:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Well brothers , It doesnot matter that Hindus are in majority in India as India is made by Indians. Moreover Sikhism originated in India and 70% of sikhs lives in India.I am not saying that Golden Temple Pic be added but I am supporting Taj mahal over others, cheers,--Migelot ^{Talk to me!} 14:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

well brother,it matters that hindus are in majority TajMahal pic is under culture section,it can be placed under tourist places.But what

should be posted under Indian culture section should be decided after knowing what Indian culture is.Indian society and culture is predominantly Hindu since last 5000 years.So passing comments that it does not matter whether India is Hindu majority or not sounds uneducated.Its a culture section and not secularism.Link for Indian culture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_India —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabusharma (talk • contribs) 03:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for the Taj Mahal image. The Taj is one of the most famous representations of the culture of India. keep in mind culture includes architecture. Nikkul (talk) 15:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Can any of the following image of Golden temple Make up to the rotation list???--Migelot ^{Talk to me!} 09:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 
• 

Well My point is very clear.Lets puts pictures of Architectural and Engineering Marvals.This is not a question what is more famous or less famous.Therefore we should put pictures of exceptional engineering Marvals from India.One more thing the section under which we are posting pictures is culture.Indian culture is mostly and predominantly Hindu,therefore any picture posted in this section must represent Predominant culture of India and not any other.India is not a muslim culture but Hindu.Even on Engineering and architectural comparison TajMahal stands nowhere near Great Indian temples.SO better to change since this section is Indian culture and not secularism.

TajMahal certainely not represents Indian culture and it should not be placed there as a permanent entity.More ever TajMhal was build by invaders,so how can it be a representative of India?Indian culture must have pictures which shows predominant culture.Hindu culture mostly covers Hinduism,sikhism,Janism.Put Tajmahal under tourist places but certainly not under Culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabusharma (talk • contribs) 02:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Taj Mahal was not built by an invader. It was built by Shah Jahan who was an Indian. Period. At least my history textbooks taught me so. Babar was an invader, but his descendents were not. If we think that way, all Aryans must be considered invaders, and only images of something built by Dravidians should be put here, isn't that so?

The point is, Taj Mahal deserves to be in the culture section. Even within India, Taj Mahal is identified by more people than Bruhadeeswara temple or any other monument. Please understand that wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view.

Having said that, I support the removal of Shiva statue from Bangalore. It has no other significance apart from its size

Shekure (talk) 05:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI, all Mougals are defined as Invaders in History book,Calling there descendants as Indians is your ignorance.You can't compare Aryans with Mougals,that shows your lack of knowledge about history.

TahMahal just don't represent Indian culture.You need to get your knowledge of culture correct.Put TajMahal picture in tourist section or places to visit India.But not in culture section.Indian culture for the last 5000 years is Hindu culture and you can't put something representing a brief period of Invaders.

Tajmahal must go from culture section.Put something representing Hindu culture,that is what India's culture is.

We do understand that wikipedia is wriiten with neutral point of view,thats why culture section must represent Indian culture.Tajmahal is not Indian culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabusharma (talk • contribs) 18:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Islamic culture, especially in North India cannot be taken deliberately as Indian culture. If this was accepted by North Indians, Ayyodya wouldn't have been a case. Infact Islamic culture is known is "Indo-Islamic" culture, not as "Indian culture", which generally refers to Hindu-culture of the majority people of India. The Taj Mahal is however most famous, because of the Muslims in the world. It shoul be also noted, that most outstanding architecture in Dravidian style are also UNESCO objects. Taj Mahal can take the second place in the article, not the first. --Caughingjoe (talk) 13:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about?? Taj is the most famous architectural landmark in India...and architecture is an integral part of culture...also taj mahal shows islamic influence in Indian culture. Nikkul (talk) 22:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)