Jump to content

Talk:India/Archive 21

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23→Archive 25

Change Requested For Image:India Geographic Map.jpg

The river names in the image "India Geographic Map.jpg" under the Geography section are incorrect. Change of image requested. Yamunda --> Yamuna, Kasveri --> Kaveri, Tapati (duplicate) --> Krishna, narmaada --> narmada, Ganges --> GANGES.

Should change population unit

should change 1.12 billion[8] to something like 1.120.000.000 because the term "billion" is ambiguous. It can be either that or 1.120.000.000.000.000. -- Lacrymology

Aircraft Carrier instead of Air Force Jet

We should have the INS Viraat instead of the Air Force Jet, only a few countries have Aircraft Carriers in their Navy, but every country has Air Force Jets. China still doesnt have an Aircraft Carrier. India's had it for a long time. The USA page has an Aircraft Carrier picture on it. Why not India? Tri400 (talk) 13:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

hi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kishoremalla (talk • contribs) 19:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Largest democracy

The following is a closed discussion of a topic that is now being mediated at the Mediation Cabal here. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

It is vandalism to insist calling India a populous democrasy. To me that has a bit negetive connotation. The citation given for the claim clearly mentions (the bbc article) that India is the "largest democracy" and not populous democracy. I do not understand why people are hell bent against it being called what it is. Democracy is decded not by geography democracy is decided by the number of people. Thus largest means largest by the number people but is used in the media consistantly. No one refers to it as populous democracy. Why is a new term being cooked up here? ~rAGU (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The reason for using "most populous democracy" instead of "largest democracy" is to avoid any ambiguity. There's nothing negative about it. "Largest" is used for the first time in the sentence to mean "of greatest area." Next, "populous" is used to mean "most populated." So, when "largest" is used again (when applied to "democracy") to mean "most populated," it creates confusion among some readers. Not among Indian readers, to be sure, since they are familiar with the expression; but not all readers are, the BBC quote notwithstanding. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that we should use the widely adopted term "LARGEST DEMOCRACY". Assertions as to whether or not populous is pejorative are very subjective. (You may think it is not negative, I think it is). So we should, go with the broadly used term, cite BBC, and say "largest democracy". If you think populous is a superior/not-negative term over largest, hold a poll here to see if the majority agrees with you. Until such time, revert it back to "largest". 24.130.60.26 (talk) 03:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

"Largest" in terms of what? Population? Land area? Number of political parties? The term "most populous" is clear and unambiguous. Largest democracy is ambiguous, and therefore, I would support using "most populous" democracy. --Ragib (talk) 06:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

"Largest Democracy" needs no further qualification. The size of a democracy is decided by the number of people that participate in it, and *is a term that is widely used*. As rAGU also said, suddenly using a different term in this article is jarring. I'm ok with putting explanation parenthesis to say we mean population, but we should include "largest democracy" -- that is something that is oft mentioned about India in print and media, and to suddenly invent another term seems out of place. ("Largest country" could mean land area, populationm etc. etc., but "largest democracy" is self-explanatory). MintCond (talk) 13:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
To generalise the topic a little, any sort of "largest" political state does not necessarily imply population. Just as the largest democracy is a familiar expression, another is that the Mongol Empire was four times "larger" than the Roman, which refers to geographical area. Now it isn't clear why you think populous has pejorative connotations. At the end of the day, Indians who are proud of such a statement are proud because this democracy contains more than one billion people. Using "populous" makes this more obvious to those who are unaware of this fact. There is every possibility that a reader may think to him/herself "Hey, I though Canada, USA and Australia were larger democracies." There is no harm in using a specific term. In fact, it is very beneficial to remove any ambiguities in the article because the number of vague words is inversely proportional to the quality of the article. GizzaDiscuss © 13:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Why don't we use something like "largest democracy(in terms of population)". This will remove any ambiguity and at the same time use the term which is familiar to most. Rest day (talk) 18:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I'll take a stab at it, in the most unambiguous way. MintCond (talk) 05:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I've randomly bumped into this conversation and can not help but be amused. What could possibly be ambiguous about the largest democracy? If two people went to Mars and voted to stay, would you then declare that Mars was the largest democracy? Mars would probably become the furthest democracy (and anybody who said "furthest to what", could not possibly be serious.) Czar Brodie (talk) 16:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, this is just another example of the systemic Western bias WP:CSB in Wikipedia, that needs to be corrected -- but I'm hopeful the "wisdom of the crowds" will get it right in the end. MintCond (talk) 22:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear MintCond (talk · contribs), Czar Brodie (talk · contribs), and Rest day (talk · contribs), the largest democracy bit is simply not important enough to merit an entire sentence in the lead paragraph, which is supposed to be about geography and population, not about systems of government. (See Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries). If tomorrow China becomes a democracy, will you be clamoring for the sentence: "India is the second-largest democracy in the world, and is commonly referred to as such [13], on account of the size of its electorate?" Very unlikely that you would, although India's democratic achievement would be no less remarkable. Or for that matter if the sizes of democracies are such a notable achievements: can you name the second, third and fourth largest democracies off the top of your heads? In addition, if anything needs to be said about democracy, it is not clear what is more remarkable: that India is the largest democracy or it is an enduring democracy. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

PS MintCond (talk · contribs) for someone with a sum total of 19 edits on Wikipedia, you shouldn't be edit-warring so soon. You are about to violate 3RR. (Just offering some friendly advice.  :) ) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
India is the largest democracy but not the largest democratic country. Since democracy used as a noun does not defer to the country but rather a system of governence which depends on peoples participation, I do believe that India being called the largest democracy is a correct statement. Also, BBC would be considered to be an extremely important authority on this matter as Indian English is far closer to British English than it is to American English. Also, it ought to mentioned in the main paragraph as it is distinguishing. It should be mentioned in the main paragraph because it is noteworthy.75.110.214.35 (talk) 02:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Ketan Khare

And, BTW, how did my various interlocutors here come up with the fiction, "No one refers to it (India) as (the world's most) populous democracy"? True, the phrase "world's most populous democracy" is not as popular as "world's largest democracy," (especially among Indian links) but it is certainly common enough. Here are some reliable sources and well-known people who have used the phrase, among them Sonia Gandhi:

Given that the phrase is widely used, and that it is unambiguous and succinct (doesn't require qualification), I see no reason to change "the most populous democracy." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


Fowler&fowler -- you say above "the largest democracy bit is not important enough to merit an entire sentence in the lead". While I'm sure the majority disagree with that statement, and consider being the largest democracy to be something very significant about India, I'm ok with a compromise position of having it be a part of an existing sentence, as it has been now changed to. You don't have to give it a sentence by itself, but it certainly merits mention in any lead paragraph about India (just geography and population is not enough, in fact by your own admission, as the democracy mention was already a part of the lead)
Whether China in the future becomes a democracy or not is irrelevant to the current discussion and does not have any bearing on why we need to ignore the widely prevalent appellation for India -- "world's largest democracy"
I had assumed "admins" on Wikipedia were meant to be "reasonable" and I cannot understand the resistance to accept India as the world's largest democracy. It's like saying I won't call a basketball player tall, I'll call him "long". It seems to me you are trying to take "something away" from India and its commendably successful democratic tradition -- it holds the largest democratic exercises and elections anywhere in the world, and regularly so. Again you yourself have admitted above: "populous democracy" IS NOT AS popular as "world's largest democracy,". Then why insist upon this awkward sentence about India, in the lead paragraph, when "world's largest democracy" is something that is oft mentioned about India. You don't get to write history here Fowler&fowler. As I said, I am still unable to understand what your actual objection to "world's largest democracy" is -- the only reason I can come up with is perhaps a bias somewhere, or an inclination to "take away" or somehow diminish India's achievment in deciding to be democratic post-independence. I agree with you that being an enduring democracy is remarkable, but that does not mean being the largest one isn't.
Authoritative and reputable sources referring to India as the world's largest democracy:
  1. United Nations (www.un.org): [1] World's Largest Democracy to Reach One Billion Persons on Independence Day. According to the official United Nations population estimates and projections
  2. BBC: [2] The world's largest democracy and second most populous country has emerged as a major power after a period of foreign rule and several decades during which its economy was virtually closed.
  3. Britannica Online: [3] ... it represents the appeal of India, the world's largest democracy, to global marketers.
  4. New York Times: [4] Democracy Speaks in India. What most distinguishes a democracy is the people's right to reject those in power. In India, the world's largest democracy and the third world's most durable, voters have done just that...
  5. NPR: [5] Proponents say that the world's largest democracy is an increasingly important economic and military power.
  6. Fareed Zakaria, Editor, Newsweek in book The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad: [6] We prefer to speak romantically about the beauty of Indians voting and the joys of the world's largest democracy.
  7. US House International Relations Committee, Nicholas Burns: [7] The U.S. and India: An Emerging Entente? It is in our national interest to develop a strong, forward looking relationship with the world's largest democracy
  8. Strobe Talbott, Fmr Dpy US Sec. of State in Foreign Affairs: [8] But since becoming the world's largest democracy in 1947, the country has not had a single substantial famine, despite frequent crop failures and food
  9. MIT / Economic Political Weekly [9] : It is clear that India, the world's largest democracy, is a nation that despite communal conflict has ...
  10. Univ of Georgia International Center essay collection [10]: US Strategic Relations with the World's Largest Democracy
  11. World Policy Journal: [11] India has asserted for more than a decade that its claim is "natural" and "legitimate" since it is the world's largest democracy and a rapidly growing economic
Being the "world's largest democracy" deserves mention in the lead paragraph on any article about India. Using sleight of hand in words to avoid calling India that, (for what reasons is unclear WP:CSB ?) does not behoove admins on Wikipedia.MintCond (talk) 08:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Good job. Thats the way to go about it. So what about the solution of adding a footnote (like done in this edit? Also please note that Fowler&fowler is not an admin. KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 09:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 -- I am happy with your edit, the solution of adding a footnotes makes things very clear. Thanks. (Also a relief to know Fowler&fowler is not an admin).MintCond (talk) 09:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
relief to know Fowler&fowler is not an admin—please avoid such statements—its against WP:AGF and WP:PA. Also note that the solution needs consensus. KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 12:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, here's how I remember the saga of "democracy" in the lead paragraph. When I first arrived on Wikipedia (October 2006), there wasn't any mention of it (but that was a chaotic time on the India page, and it may have been there earlier). At some point, it was introduced; soon thereafter, some readers (Chinese perhaps?) objected to the use of "democracy" without any qualification, and the text was changed to the "largest liberal democracy." But soon after that, other readers got confused by the different uses of "largest" in the same sentence and wrote, "But I thought America was larger ..." (or words to that effect). After discussion at that point, the text was changed to "most populous liberal democracy," and it remained that way for almost a year, when someone else again removed the liberal, and it became "most populous democracy." Every now and then, of course, some reader wanted to put "largest" back in, but they never did. The basic point is that when in one sentence "largest" is used in two different way, some readers (especially the ones not very proficient in English) get confused (and, yes, I'm aware that Wikipedia is not censored etc. etc.).
The point of giving examples of the usage "world's most populous democracy" was not that it is the more common expression, but that it is used often enough by varied sources and speakers, spanning many continents and sub-continents, not least India. Obviously, if it is good enough for Britannica (as a caption to a photograph in the "Democracy" page) and Encarta, for Sonia Gandhi, while giving a keynote address on the 50th anniversary of India's Election Commission, it is good enough for Wikipedia. If you want to add "world's largest democracy" to the third paragraph in the lead, where government is discussed, be my guest, but in a sentence about area and population in the first paragraph (where it doesn't really belong in any case), it can cause confusion (among some readers)
Please don't throw around convenient terms like "systemic bias." The self-congratulatory expression "largest democracy," has been loved by the Indian elite pretty much since India's independence. Many generations of Indian elite have grown up with that expression, reading it in their newspapers, while a vast majority of Indians, as Pankaj Mishra reminds us in the Guardian piece I quoted above, remain mired in poverty (even as the number of billionaires grows exponentially). Obviously, for the poor, among whom are the largest number of malnourished citizens in any country in the world, that democracy has provided little benefit, and for them India remains the world's most populous democracy. The elite, on the other hand, bristle when the see the expression "world's most populous democracy," because "populous" puts into stark perspective—that the euphemism "largest" doesn't—what India's democracy can mean for many of its citizens.
Finally, I don't see any consensus for the "largest democracy" yet. Certainly, user:Ragib and User:DaGizza are not for it; neither am I (at least not in the lead paragraph). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Let me put on the record that I'm ok with the article as it stands only as a "compromise" and ideally I would like to see a sentence about India being the world's largest democracy, in spite of what Fowler&fowler thinks about "the largest democracy bit is not important enough to merit an entire sentence in the lead". You seem to want to have it both ways -- you claim that the reason you don't want largest is because you have said "largest by geographical area" earlier in the sentence, but then you don't want it in a different sentence either. And you don't want anyone to reword it to make it clearer either, and you jump and revert. And finally, now you say, you want to play with terms largest and populous etc. to impose what you feel is the so-called misplaced pride of the "elite" on India being a democracy! I had always suspected "an agenda" on your part, and it is becoming clearer now. My position is that we defer to the multiple authoritative sources that say India is the worlds largest democracy. And since no one here is in a mood for compromise, I'm now pushing for having a clear unambiguous sentence in the lead paragraph that mentions cleary India is the world's largest democracy. MintCond (talk) 15:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I did give you another option. I have now removed the part about the largest democracy from the lead paragraph, and have put it in the last paragraph, where it is much more appropriate:

I would like to know what people think of it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

PS The bit about "Indian elite" was added to simply make the point that there are many ways of claiming "systemic bias." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not happy at all with removing such an important fact about India from the lead, and burying it elsewhere. Let's work on the lead paragraph -- do you have any other suggestion of working in largest democracy in the intro para?(something that is mentioned first in most "country profiles" on India). In addition to the current, I have other suggestions on where it could fit in the lead, but I think it's better if they come from you. MintCond (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Also I don't see how combining democracy with diversity of wildlife is more appropriate than having it in the introduction about India. MintCond (talk) 16:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Huh? What's the matter with you MintCond (talk · contribs)? Why are you deliberately misinterpreting what is said? The sentence talks about "pluralistic, multi-lingual, and multi-ethnic" society before, (with qualification "also" to subordinate what is being said next), it talks about wildlife.
I made the edit on the main page, so that people can see it in its new surroundings (in the third paragraph). Your edit is only minimally different from the previous one. I do understand that you are new to Wikipedia and may not understand everything about it, (and that I'm supposed to be nice to you), but for heaven's sake, why are you edit-warring on the cusp of 3RR (having violated it once yesterday and let off with a warning)?
And where did you get the idea that the last paragraph in the lead is not important. It is the last thing people read before they make the decision to continue with the rest of the article or not. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The third paragraph is the right place for "largest/most populous democracy." In fact, it should have put there right from the start. Pretty much all the other FAs: Australia, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Canada, Chad, Germany, Libya, Pakistan, and Peru, have the following structure of topics in the lead: 1. Geography/Population 2. History 3. Current affairs: Politics/Economy. There is no reason why India should be any different. Here, for example, are three references to political systems of other FAs (all in their third paragraphs):




Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler -- Let me just say that I find your patronizing tone offensive, and so let me first get a few things out of the way. You know nothing about me in real life. So save your patronizing comments for someone else -- I don't need you "to be nice" to me. Argue based on the weight of your positions, not that you have more edits than someone else. That's a classic sign of not having substantive arguments. You keep harping on new user and old user, as if that magically makes your point of view or your arguments more convincing. You claim to be an elder in the community, and yet you are far from being an exemplary "elder". Your bias ridden comments earlier today about India's "elite" being unreasonably proud and "self-congratulatory" about their democracy were laughable. In fact that comment makes me seriously question your neutrality. You seem to admit there, that "populous democracy" is pejorative as compared to "largest democracy". You were OKAY WITH that being in the lead paragraph. Only when you had to consider changing it, did you suddenly start having problems about democracy being mentioned in the lead. This discussion was not started based on WHERE it appears in the article, it was on the choice of the term. (I know several "experts" on India, who are still trapped in the cow-caste-curry stereotype of India and are clueless of all that has followed. Your comments increasingly indicate you are one of them. )
Now you claim there is an implicit rule about the "right" place to mention system of governance in an article and you quote a few examples. I can cite SEVERAL other prominent Wikipedia articles on countries that mention pertinent details about their system of governance in the lead, or immediately after geography (which was the case with the India article).
  1. USA The United States of America is a constitutional federal republic comprising fifty states and a federal district. (lead)
  2. France France is a unitary semi-presidential republic. Its main ideals are expressed in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. (lead)
  3. Russia It is a semi-presidential republic comprising 83 federal subjects. (lead)
  4. Switzerland Switzerland is a federal republic consisting of 26 states. These states are called cantons. Berne is the seat of the federation and de facto capital (lead)
  5. Taiwan The island groups of Taiwan and Penghu (except the municipalities of Taipei and Kaohsiung) are officially administered as Taiwan Province of the ROC. However, in practice, almost all government power is exercised at the national and local (city/county) levels. (governance details in lead)
  6. UK union[7][8] of four constituent countries: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. The United Kingdom is a parliamentary democracy with its seat of government in London, the capital, and a constitutional monarchy with Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II as the head of state. (immediately following geography, which was the case with the India article)
And many more examples... I hardly see your examples of Chad, Peru, Libya etc. as being representative in any special way; the articles of the countries I have mentioned, including FAs, do not follow their "template". In reality there is no pattern as you claim of system of governance being mentioned last. In fact this was not even up for discussion. ARE YOU NOW CLAIMING YOU HAVE THE CONSENSUS TO CHANGE THIS, and exclude the fact about India's democratic form of government from the lead? On what basis are you claiming this?
Yesterday, I did not revert to MY version, I reverted to a version by KnowlegeHegemonyPart2. And that is where I think this article should be at until we talk this through on the discussion page. You can put up your proposed text here. I will also put up one or two of my alternate suggestions here (I do not see why in your version wildlife and democracy have to be in the same sentence -- its reads like a jarring juxtaposition, the sentence just does not flow). And we can go from there... MintCond (talk) 02:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I made the comments about India's elite simply to make the point that systemic bias can take many forms, not just the one that you were facilely tossing into the dialog above. You might find those remarks laughable, but for the thousands of children in the Indian state of Madhya Pradesh that are now being rushed to hospitals in states of near-starvation (and were featured on the BBC news today), it is no laughing matter. India does have higher rates of child malnutrition than sub-Saharan Africa. And, no, I didn't make any admission about the phrase "world's most populous democracy" being pejorative, only that it might be discomforting to the elite, which is a different matter altogether. After all, the Brazil page, which has modeled its lead on the India page's lead, doesn't think it is pejorative. As for your random musings about the several experts you know, please take your discontents to them; I have no interest in them or in your assessments of them.
None of the countries you have are FAs, and your examples vividly point to why they are not. Whether the country is "prominent" (as you put it) is not at stake here, but rather whether Wikipedia regards the country pages to be quality articles, and rewards with the imprimatur of an FA. Clearly, the country FAs, by an overwhelming majority, have a sequence of paragraphs in their respective leads: 1) Geography/Population 2) History 3) Politics/Economy. Finally, really don't care about what version of whose edit you had reverted to. The bottom line for me is that you were edit warring and were warned by an admin for violating 3RR. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Fowler&fowler, I think we should call for informal mediation since this is an important issue. I am disappointed in the way the above exchanges have occured. People seem to have taken a personal stand on which version is correct and have decided to be rigid about it.Ketankhare (talk) 06:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
You can try, of course, but they will typically want you to do an RfC etc. The phrase "world's most populous democracy" has been in the text of this article for nearly two years. As I have indicated above, while it certainly is not the most common term, it is common enough (Britannica uses it in its article on Democracy and Sonia Gandhi used it in her keynote address on the 50th anniversary of India's Election Commission, and neither used it pejoratively; the Brazil page, which has modeled its lead on India's lead, also uses it without implying anything negative about Brazilian democracy) and it is unambiguous. The original version "world's largest democracy" was changed in Fall 2006 because some readers confused "largest" to mean "of largest area.". As for this particular exchange, I am concerned that there is as yet no consensus for the changes. Also, both MintCond (talk · contribs) and Rest day (talk · contribs) are not only new accounts, but also seemingly single purpose accounts. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
PS Plus it seems that IP 24.130.60.26 is the same as user:MintCond. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

F&F, you cannot argue from the point that India is not the greatest democracy because you have provided the proof of India being the most populous democracy. Both are true. Also you mentioned of China becoming a democracy and India being pushed to the second slot. Can you tell the date in which China becoming a democratic nation and taking the title of the "largest democracy" from Indians. I can tell you that the title will again change hands shortly after that and if they are late in proclaiming themselves as a democratic nation, they will never get the title.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 08:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not a religious book that cannot be changed be it two years or five years we must find alternatives and let "largest" be the term for the next two years. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 08:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Chanakyathegreat, Good to see you back on the India page! No, no, I'm not saying India is not a great democracy, only that "largest" is confusing to people who are not aware of the term. As you will see, from the following two discussions: Talk:India/Archive_14#Largest_democracy_in_the_world and Talk:India/Archive_14#Worlds_largest_Democracy where the issues first came up in October 2006, I don't have a rigid position. (As you will also see, I was already aware, in 2006, of some of the references user:MintCond has provided above.) I just think, in light of what I've seen on Wikipedia, "world's most populous" democracy is less confusing to the average reader. That's all. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the "confusing" argument holds. If it is confusing, there are several ways to make it less confusing, and yet go with the widely accepted term of "world's largest democracy". There are so many talented editors who could remove confusion and keep the term that is used by the UN, and BBC and all the sources mentioned in the comments above. Anyone can claim anything is confusing, that does not mean we can ignore established appellations with which countries are widely referred to. How can people "not be aware" (as you say) of the popular term? And if they aren't it is Wikipedia's duty to inform them. Not cook up another term, which is even less common, and so they should actually be lesser people who are aware of it.
Fowler&fowler if your argument is genuinely about confusion involving 2 uses of "largest" in the same sentence, the obvious way of course, is to use the 2 largest in different sentences. Can KetanKhare, ChanakyatheGreat, RestDay, CzarBrodie, or anyone else come up with 2 sentences for the intro paragraph that introduces India, mentions it is the world's largest democracy, and also mention the area and population? That would help the dispute resolution process instead of only Fowler&fowler and myself being involved. Where is the "community" :-). From what I have heard about Wikipedia I expected a lot of people to jump in and weigh in in the conversation. But both Fowler&fowler and myself seem to be waging a lone battle! :-)
And, yes the the IP 24.130.60.26 under which there are 2 comments on the Talk page is me. I had made a comment before "logging in", and there is no confusion regarding that since in the comment I CLEARLY refer to the MintCond list as "MY comment".
Anyway, I don't think the version up right now is "stable" -- I'm sure many people must have objected to largest democracy not being used, and perhaps with the constant opposition F&f has to the term, they just couldn't see this through resolution. I intend do. If this is not leading to resolution, and the so-called stable version remains, I'm afraid I will have to change it (or I invite some of our other editors to change it) to "largest democracy" following the WP:BRD philosophy. MintCond (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of usage

I think that it is important that the average reader understand that democracy is not a type of country. So while you can have a Kingdom of XYZ or a Republic of XYZ or a State of XYZ, one does not have a Democracy of XYZ, it is always a Democratic Republic, if at all. If it is said that India is the largest democratic republic, that is wrong. If a reader is not aware of this difference, then this difference should be illustrated there at that point without simpifying internationally recognized terms. Simplifying well know and grammatically correct terms is the function of a "Simple English" article and not an English article. F&f has brought up two issues,oen whether "Largest Democracy" is a correct term in an international context and two whether it needs to be in the first few paragraphs. I think we should atleast try and agree that the usage of the term is correct.

Just because people confuse democracy being a type of country rather than a system of governance does not mean that wikipedia should allow this confusion to continue uncorrected. Incidently the phrase "most populous democracy" is weird because what is the meaning of the most populous system of governance. A suitable replacement in Simple English for the term "largest democracy" would be "most populous country governed democratically". Ketankhare (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's not quite true. Here the OED:
  • 1. 1. Government by the people; that form of government in which the sovereign power resides in the people as a whole, and is exercised either directly by them (as in the small republics of antiquity) or by officers elected by them. In mod. use often more vaguely denoting a social state in which all have equal rights, without hereditary or arbitrary differences of rank or privilege. (Examples: 1836 GEN. P. THOMPSON Exerc. (1842) IV. 191 Democracy means the community's governing through its representatives for its own benefit. 1890 Pall Mall G. 25 Nov. 3/1 ‘Progress of all through all, under the leading of the best and wisest’, was his [Mazzini's] definition of democracy.)
  • b. A state or community in which the government is vested in the people as a whole. (Examples: 1794 S. WILLIAMS Vermont 342 In the ancient democracies the public business was transacted in the assemblies of the people. 1804 SYD. SMITH Mor. Philos. xvi. (1850) 237 In the fierce and eventful democraties of Greece and Rome. 1881 JOWETT Thucyd. I. 117 We are called a democracy, for the administration is in the hands of the many and not of the few.)
The implication is that in modern usage the state is understood. So, "most populous democracy" would be just fine; it would mean the most populous state or country in which government is vested in the people as a whole or in their representatives or where people have equal rights. The same as largest democracy. No difference there. After all, Britannica wouldn't be using that expression in its article on "Democracy" if it were incorrect. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
PS. That's actually a good question you asked Ketankhare. (Sorry, I misunderstood your intentions earlier.) But I think when people similarly use the expression "richest democracy", they don't mean that the government is the richest, but rather the country itself is the richest. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
PS In other words, "richest democracy" means: the richest country in which power is vested in the people or their representatives. So actually in this way of thinking, "largest democracy" would be the one that would be somewhat ambiguous. It would mean the largest country in which power is vested in the people or their representatives. People could then legitimately ask "largest by what? Area or population?" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
PPS Here, Ketankhare, is (from my point of view) the problem with "largest." This New York Times article calls China the "world's largest country," whereas this Encyclopaedia Britannica article on Russia, begins its second paragraph by, "Russia is a land of superlatives. By far the world's largest country, it covers nearly twice the territory of Canada, the second largest." And these are two perfectly reliable sources! That, in a nutshell, is the reason why I am advocating "most populous democracy." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
PPPS In other words, if I wasn't aware of precedent, by looking at both Complete OED and unabridged Webster's, which I just have (although I didn't dump the latter's contents here!), I can legitimately ask the question (especially in light of the NYT and Britannica examples above), "largest by what?" And I can do that as someone with knowledge of the etymology: Gr. δήμοσ the commons, the people + κράτος in comb. rule, sway, authority. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
You have brought up a very pertinent point. But by what you are suggesting there have been ambiguous usage of the term country as well!!! Extraordinary flexiblity english provides us with, I suppose we would have fewer issues if the language were Sanskrit. Anyways, I am disinclined to accept the usage "most populous democracy" because apart from the other issues, the statement seems to shift focus from the intent of the statement to the fact that India is heavily populated which it is and should also be mention, just not mixed up . What do you suggest we compromise on? Also, I am really sorry if I have caused any disturbances. Ketankhare (talk) 00:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


I think the entire argument of "largest by what" is specious. Largest DEMOCRACY is already explaining largest by what. If you want to be anal, you can say 'world's largest democracy (by virtue of the size of its electorate)', or put the contents of the parenthesis in a footnote. There is no confusion there. And we have indisputable precedent of that usage by all the authoritative sources that have been mentioned above. Going down the path of English is an inconsistent language, and trying to analyze reason of common phrases and usage based on the etymology of 'country' and populous and largest, we will find so many expressions and usage in English that is inconsistent with the rules of the language. An article should not use awkward sentences to deny a simple fact and truth; frankly a general article about India does disservice if it does not mention, what is almost universally mentioned about India when discussing its system of governance -- "world's largest democracy". We have seen what F&f version is, which has resulted in all this discussion. Let's try another version. MintCond (talk) 03:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I doubt "anal" is an apropriate term here, although I suppose if we want to get the job of wikipedia done right, we all should be anal. Cheers. Supreme Unmanifest (talk) 03:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC) (formely Ketankhare)
agreed! :-) MintCond (talk) 04:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a comment: It should be re-labelled as the ...liberal democracy. China is also considered to have a form of democracy, I had made the change to the page years back on a comment to this talk page. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nichalp. Great to see you back on the page! Please see the history of the dispute section in here. I will be proposing some version of your suggestion there as well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I dont think the sentence "It is the seventh largest country by geographical area, the second most populous country, the most populous liberal democracy in the world." has much of a flow to it. The first two details qualify India's geography and demography while the third is an administrative detail. The info box mentions that India is a federal republic and a parliamentary democracy. Why do we have to stick this awkward sentence in the intro ? Can we have a vote on this ? I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 01:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Support for "Largest democracy in terms of electorate". No confusion. --gppande «talk» 08:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is closed now. The matter is being decided in a mediation here. You are welcome to get in touch with the mediator user:Sunray, sign up as a participant, and make a statement there. Please be sure to read my statement there first though, since some of the issues in your post above have been dealt with there. In particular, I say there that a statement about democracy properly belongs to the third paragraph where issues about government, politics, and economy are discussed. My first preference, too, would be to remove the democracy part from the first paragraph and put it in the third in a more informative manner. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

I want to add an external link to India's energy profile/statistics from the Energy Information Administration (Official Energy Statistics of the U.S. Government). I feel this is an appropriate link considering how crucial energy is to the development of India and current energy concerns. I might want to add some energy content under the economy section as well. Any thoughts or concerns?

Let us sumerise the page

The India article is very large.If we sumerize it in catagories It would be great.(And keep the Article neat like the featured ones).
--Raunak' ' ( .:: Raunak Roy ::.. ) 13:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean daughter articles. Categories are something else. See Wikipedia:Categories. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually the page gives very little information about Indian history. Compare for example China. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.11.8.10 (talk) 21:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
The page is a summary of Indian history. The main article can be found at History of India. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Improving sections

Guys, The sports section in article India, lacks detailed or interesting information. Adding info abt the sports along with its prominence in tha nation, few names of outstanding players who have contributed their best in that sport, how the sport is presently going on...info abt these can be added to the section to make it more informative and interesting. At present our sport section sucks.

Secondly, Culture section is quite big including music, cultural arts, film etc.. I think it would be better to have a seperate section abt 'Film and Music' bcoz that itself can speak volumes.Giving info abt different film industries in the country and also which could include famous film stars who have contributed to this field who have made their mark globally. Famous Music directors and their contributions can be added too.

Thirdly we could have a seperate section abt Indian cuisine. Info abt how the different cuisine is in the north of India, southern, eastern and western can be included. Certain indian delicacies which are famous the world over can be included too. Such kind of info can really spice up the article too. Your thoughts on this....Cephas 405 (talk) 17:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

You might be right. But the problem is some people at Wikipedia are so stubborn to allow information they dont like. I mean on this page there is no mention of Aryan heritage (i could be wrong, but if i am, its because i didnt analyze the whole thing. And I shouldnt have to analyze the whole page because it should be mentioned early, at least in the history section). ARYAN818 (talk) 20:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Taj??

Why don't you people change the images used in culture section regularly. Why do you people keep taj as a permanent image. You are giving unnecessary extra advertizement to taj which is already famous round rhe world because of the only reason that it appeals to the european minds.

Moreover the so called world wonders are not recognised by any international body.

Taj was not a native Indian architectural master piece.

There are hell lot of better monument in India egAjanta ,Ellora,Thanjavur Temple,Madurai temple,Hampi etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.240.52 (talk) 07:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

i say not india, THAT'S MY DIMOND INDIA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.196.83.81 (talk) 09:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

For one culture is not demonstrative of just monuments. There is a lot more. Ask User:Nikkul. He will give you all the answers to pictures on the page. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Was that direction in good faith? :-)) --gppande «talk» 09:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

(Uncharitable remarks removed by Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC))

Why are we so unforgiving? KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 13:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that was made tongue in cheek. I guess he is the only person who can type lines and lines of text justifying the inclusion of images much to the chagrin of other editors. So, instead of us raking up trivial and oft repeated issues, he would be the best person to give a detailed analysis. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
The internet is a part of the Media and one way or another The Taj will keep on gaining pulicity,


I suggest you guys keep the picture of the Taj up as it would be nice for the people to know about what was made in the past by the people who made India, I think you guys can do that much by giving back to the Mughals.This was only a suggestion made by me as you guys can do whatever you want.--~*~Lil'GKhanster~*~ (talk) 13:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

To the IP 210.212.240.52 from Chennai who said: Why do you people keep taj (sic) as a permanent image. You are giving unnecessary extra (sic) advertizement (sic) to taj (sic) which is already famous round (sic) rhe (sic) world because of the only reason (sic) that it appeals to the european minds. Moreover the so called world wonders (sic) are not recognised by any international body. Taj was (sic) not a native Indian architectural master piece (sic).... There are hell lot (sic) of better monument (sic) in India egAjanta (sic) ,Ellora,Thanjavur Temple,Madurai temple,Hampi etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.240.52 (talk) 07:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
The Taj is not recognized by any international body? Why do you think it was in the first set of Indian monuments (along with Agra Fort, Ajanta, Ellora) that in 1983 were included in the UNESCO World Heritage List? Hampi made it only in 1986, and Thanjavur in 1987. As for Meenakshi Temple in Madurai, it still hasn't made it; wait a minute, it actually hasn't even been nominated yet by the Government of India. As for Taj not being a masterpiece, that is exactly what it is, according to UNESCO:

"An immense mausoleum of white marble, built in Agra between 1631 and 1648 by order of the Mughal emperor Shah Jahan in memory of his favourite wife, the Taj Mahal is the jewel of Muslim art in India and one of the universally admired masterpieces of the world's heritage."

As for "native," what is a native Indian? Indians, like all Homo sapiens, came out of Africa 50,000 years ago. So what, if a few stopped in Samarkand for a few years on their way (as Babur's ancestors did). Everyone is an intruder, except for the adivasis who are the descendants of the original settlers. If native is what you want, let's have the Toda hut or the Rock shelters in Bhimbeta in permanent place instead of the Taj. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
PS If you are so sloppy in your spelling and grammar, dear IP from Chennai, how come you are so immaculate in your anti-European and anti-Muslim prejudice? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
In this connection i must say, i am no longer a regular patrol to this page, i don't know if there was any general concensus on the use of Taj Mahal image permanently. On the last agreed consensus as far i can remember, we concluded that all the images in the culture section would be rotated automatically.Amartyabag TALK2ME 01:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC) 01:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid you don't remember correctly. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


Why is this such a big deal to all of you? The Taj is a part of the Indian Culture which reps the Mughals. Eventually someone will report to the Wiki Admins and you all know what their only suggestion will be to keep up only one picture--~*~Lil'GKhanster~*~ (talk) 06:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


The Taj is nothing superior to any other world heritage site or monument in India.It is not recognised as a world wonder by any international body.The use of Taj as a permanent photo in this article shows only the north INDIAN bias over here.Taj is already famous throughout the world because it reflected how Europeans wanted india to be.It was white in colour with gothic arches with no half naked priests,no dark sanctuaries ,no erotic sculptures.So the English polpularised it.Today the north Indians are further popularising it and making foreigners unware of the diversity of India.The south remains in the dark Eg:Hampi,Mamallapuram sculptures ,Thanjavur Periya Kovil,Gangaikoda Cholapuram Kovil etc (Arun1paladin (talk) 09:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)arun1paladin)

Caption in the culture section picture

While I was quickly skimming the culture section to see if there might be room for a quarter-sentence mention of Romani music, I couldn't help but notice the following caption in one of the rotating pictures: "The Amba Vilas palace at Mysore, one of the foremost centers of the fine arts in the post-Vijayanagara days, is an important tourist attraction."

The Vijayanagara empire began to fade in 1565 and disappeared in 1646. The Amba Vilas palace was commissioned in 1897 and completed in 1912. How did the post-Vijayanagara days last 300 years? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Post and pre-something should nearly always be avoided because it tends to glorify the something undeservingly. The only exceptions are when the pre directly influenced what came after and the post was directly influenced from what came before. The time period between the two things being compared also needs to be taken into account but generally speaking, the larger the time period, the less significant or direct the influence will become. (Sorry if that confused anyone, I can provide an example later to show what I mean). GizzaDiscuss © 12:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Culture section

As I've said earlier, the culture section is too huge including every possible thing which one might think it to be relating to 'culture'. I think it would be better to have a seperate section abt Film and Music bcoz that itself can speak volumes. Giving info abt different film industries in the country and also which could include famous film stars who have contributed to this field who have made their mark globally. Famous Music directors and their contributions can be added too. Guys you thoughts on this....

Secondly, why dont we have a section on Indian cuisine. This is one of the thoughts that came up on my mind. Since we have varied tastes and cuisines across our country, north is very distinct frm the south, as east is frm the west. Having a Cuisine section may truly spice up the article. What do you think? Guys your thoughts on this too... Im thinking of probably working on these two....

Yeah we could definetely discuss. Let's make the India article much more informative and interesting. Cephas 405 (talk) 18:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

As user:Nichalp stated above, please work on the Culture of India page first and try to get it featured. That article needs a lot of work. It has a section, Cuisine of India that too needs a lot of work. In fact, there is a page Cuisine of India that itself needs a great deal of work. It begins with: "Though a significant portion of Indian food is vegetarian, many traditional Indian dishes also include chicken, goat, lamb, fish, and other meats." Already, there are problems. For example, if a significant portion is vegetarian why are we spending most of the sentence talking about chicken, goat, ...? And what other meats are these? The North Indian section has sentences like:

"North Indian cooking features the use of the "tawa" (griddle) for baking flat breads like roti and paratha, and "tandoor" (a large and cylindrical coal-fired oven) for baking breads such as naan, and kulcha; main courses like tandoori chicken also cook in the tandoor. Other breads like puri and bhatoora, which are deep fried in oil, are also common. Goat and lamb meats are favored ingredients of many northern Indian recipes."

This too has inaccuracies: A. Tawa is not used for baking and roti and paratha are not baked. B. Tandoor is hardly a major feature of North Indian cooking; in fact tandoori chicken was unheard of in the Delhi area until, some refugees from Peshawar opened the Moti Mahal restaurant in Darya Ganj in 1948. C) Where exactly is lamb eaten in India? In Kashmir and some hilly areas? There aren't too many sheep to be found in the vast northern plains? D) Should restaurant food, which is hardly ever cooked in family kitchens, be given so much prominence in a cuisine? I think all this and a lot more needs to be clarified on those pages. You have your work cut out. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

There should be Two section for Foreign relations and military

There should be Two section for Foreign relations and military. Even articles like Nigeria have two section when Nigeria hardly has an army as big as India's. And whats so great about a SU 30 why is it on the page. The image shows a plane developed by India and Russia. But everyone knows that now India is on USA's side and if war breaks out we would blindly support USA. Even if one wants to show India's friendship with Russia why not an image of the BrahMos nuclear missile. Another thing pl. increase the size of this page it is smaller than the german version of India, and as long as English versions of small countries like Suriname, Columbia, Kenya etc. Enthusiast10talk 03:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI...just look at the Nuclear deal with the US...we are faaar from even considering the US as an ally! And the pic is perfectly relevant. i do support having 2 sections. Nikkul (talk) 17:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey, of course we'll support US. Manmohan Singh and the rest all are all paid by CIA. India in other words is a new Canada that supports US all the time. Nuclear Deal has been stopped due to the Left that is paid by China. All our politicians are sold to other countries if we had a dictatorship we would grow much better than China Enthusiast10talk 03:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Further discussion on "largest democracy"

The following is an archived discussion of Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-06-10_India in which consensus was reached on the words, "... the most populous liberal democracy in the world" in the second sentence of the lead. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

As a result of discussion at the MedCab Case India talk page, Fowler and Fowler has prepared a summary of his research on use of the term "largest democracy' as applied to India. We have agreed to post it here for discussion by editors who regularly edit this article. Here is the summary:

The superlative "largest" (when applied to countries) has some intrinsic ambiguity. Two perfectly reliable sources can use it quite differently: thus, a New York Times article calls China the "world's largest country," whereas the Encyclopaedia Britannica article on Russia, states in its lead, "... By far the world's largest country, it covers nearly twice the territory of Canada, the second largest." The ambiguity is often resolved both in Wikipedia and other encyclopedias by reserving "largest" for area and "most populous" for population. For example, the Britannica article on India says, "With roughly one-sixth of the world's total population, India is the second most populous country, after China." Similarly, the Wikipedia article on People's Republic of China states, "... is the largest country in East Asia and the third or fourth largest country in the world. ... With a population of over 1.3 billion, it is the most populous country in the world."
The collocation "largest democracy" is also ambiguous. For example, "largest industrial democracies" is applied to G8 countries, and does not include India; however, it also has a concomitant POV—issues that are best avoided. Although there are POV issues in any description of governance in a country as "democratic," these are further amplified when "largest democracy" is used, since, according to the OED, the phrase can have the following meanings:
  1. "the largest form of governance by the people" among all the nations of the world,
  2. "the largest social state in which all have equal rights, without hereditary or arbitrary differences of rank or privilege," or
  3. "the most populous of all nations that practice democracy."
In addition, the phrase "largest democracy in X" (where, X is some large region) has been applied most often to third world democracies (e.g. India, Brazil, or Indonesia) and hardly ever to Western democracies (e.g. United States), thereby introducing another POV dimension. Consequently, major encyclopedias either don't use the expression "world's largest democracy" (for example, neither the Britannica article on India, nor the Encarta article on India, mentions "world's largest democracy," although each talks, in great detail, about India's democratic system) or disambiguates its anomalies in some fashion. For example, the 40-page Student Britannica article on India begins with: "About one sixth of all the human beings on Earth live in India, the world's most populous democracy...."). Since there are many forms of democracy (even "totalitarian democracy"), it is more informative to use the expression "liberal democracy" to describe India's form of governance. Consequently, "the most populous liberal democracy in the world" is a more accurate (and less ambiguous) description than "largest democracy."

Would interested editors please comment by 23:59, (UTC) July 13? Sunray (talk) 23:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

remove "liberal" Nikkul (talk) 08:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
So you would opt for the phrase "most populous democracy"? Sunray (talk) 13:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't disagree with any of your points but for classifying it as 'liberal' democracy we need more clarification and top-notch citations... as India is often cited as Westminster democracy. KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 09:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
The term "Westminster democracy" seems rare in usage. What about "parliamentary democracy"? Sunray (talk) 13:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
It is the most populous democracy in whatever category we can put it. Why not the world's most populous democracy as Encarta and Britannica put it. Classifying India's democracy is subjective in nature and hence equates as an opinion. And an opinion may not be the actual fact. Opinions, no matter how scholarly, require attribution. Attributed material, in turn, is not what lead paragraphs should contain as they may conflict with other sources. The section which describes its Government is more apt for the info of its categorization of India's democratic status. KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 16:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I guess I agree with KH2 and Nikkul. It is true that India is a Westminster democracy, a parliamentary democracy, and a liberal democracy, but saying that it is the most populous of any of those three creates the impression that it is not the largest unqualified democracy. The only other country that is more populous than India is China; some Chinese political scientists have claimed that China is a totalitarian democracy (though they don't use those words); however, China fails the two cardinal tests of a democracy (from Wikipedia democracy page):

"Even though there is no universally accepted definition of 'democracy', there are two principles that any definition of democracy is required to have. The first principle is that all members of the society have equal access to power and the second that all members enjoy universally recognised freedoms and liberties ... An essential process in representative democracies are competitive elections, that are fair both substantively and procedurally. Furthermore, freedom of political expression, freedom of speech and freedom of the press are essential so that citizens are informed and able to vote in their personal interests ... Many people use the term "democracy" as shorthand for liberal democracy, which may include additional elements such as political pluralism, equality before the law, the right to petition elected officials for redress of grievances, due process, civil liberties, human rights, and elements of civil society outside the government.

Plus there is no scholarly source that considers China to be the world's most populous/largest democracy: see here and here. No news source either, well there is one hit when you search for the exact expression "China, the world's largest democracy," in Forbes magazine no less, but upon closer examination it turns out that the full sentence really refers to India! Since the Google algorithm ignores commas, appositives like "the world's largest democracy" in "China, the world's largest democracy," (notice comma at end) are useless! The sentence in question turns out to be:

"And unlike rival market favorite China, the world's largest democracy can boast a free press that is truly able to speak its mind, and the largest English-language speaking audience in Asia. (see see here)

Shows you that Google searches can only do so much. Anyway, one possibility would be to simply have "the world's most populous democracy," but with democracy linked to liberal democracy or parliamentary democracy or Westminster democracy. That way, we would have an unqualified statement, but upon clicking the link, a reader would get some extra information about India's particular form of democracy. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Updated Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Its even categorized as a representative democracy. Tried google scholar and google web search. – KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 10:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
So, I guess, I am proposing that the text read: "..., and the most populous democracy in the world" with "democracy" linked to liberal democracy. It would be an unqualified statement, but upon clicking the link, the reader would get more info about India's general type of democracy. Also, while there will always be people who disagree, India is widely considered to be a liberal democracy. See Liberal democracies around the world. "Parliamentary democracy" or "Westminster democracy," would really be about procedural issues of governance in the democracy, not about freedom of speech, movement, religion, etc., that characterize democracy in its popular meaning; see Types of liberal democracies. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
F&F has given a pretty strong rationale for "... most populous liberal democracy," IMO. Liberal democracy does seem to be an appropriate description, and, while "parliamentary democracy" also applies, it has a more narrow meaning. Perhaps we could have quick straw poll. What do editors of the India page think of F&F's proposed wording? Sunray (talk) 14:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I think it seems fine. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
What about this version? Please give your inputs. --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 17:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
F&f has given a pretty thorough explanation as to why "largest democracy" doesn't work. What part of his explanation do you not agree with? Sunray (talk) 07:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes I understand F&f's concern and this version is made keeping in mind his explanation(s). F&f stated that the whole "most populous" or "largest" democracy sentence was never there on this page when it was FAed by Nichalp and Ragib. So why not remove the ambiguous sentence altogether from the lead; making it free of controversy as WP:LEAD. However the "largest democracy" is a legitimate adjective (with no other nation claiming it). Thus, introducing it in a sub-section (with a valid footnote to kill any confusion or ambiguity) is quite safe in my opinion. Its is a win-win situation. — KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 17:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, if I follow F&f's logic, Canada would have a legitimate claim to the term "largest democracy." It is the largest liberal democracy in land area. Since land area is a common way of determining size when referring to countries, the term "largest democracy" is potentially confusing. It thus seems that "most populous" is the least ambiguous descriptor. Sunray (talk) 17:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Canada is never termed largest democracy. Google it. All you will find is some report about India. I find this to be a case of frivolous tagging of ambiguity. What about the ambiguity of most populous democracy in the world? Human population or livestock? (that was very sad, sorry my bad) --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 09:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
You evade my point. The normally modest Canadians could easily make the claim of being the "largest democracy," since they are the democracy with the largest land area in the world. As an encyclopedia, how can we use a term with such ambiguity? Sunray (talk) 16:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
KH2: The mediation lasted two weeks. You were well aware of it since you posted there on the talk page with "anybody there?" or words to that effect. If you had such major disagreement, why didn't you join the mediation, or, at least post there on talk page with your own views. My statement was there for a good two weeks. If "largest" is not ambiguous, what does the expression "largest industrial democracies" mean? And why does it not apply to India, but does to Japan, whose population and area are both smaller than India's. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes I was fully aware of the MedCab discussion and didn't take part in it since I agreed with your stance of ambiguity. The stance of ambiguity in that case was just, no doubt about that. A slightest hint of ambiguity meant the sentence was not fit for lead. Thats what I have done in the version made the lead free of any controversial sentences. However, after seeing the widespread usage of term I feel we can accommodate it with a footnote explaining it. I see the confusion arising after the removal from the lead and addition to a sub-section with a footnote is IMO a"frivolous tagging of ambiguity". I guess "frivolous" was not the adjective — "absurd" — was what I meant. KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 15:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
It "largest" is ambiguous and not fit for the lead, why not replace it with "most populous democracy" which is not ambiguous, which is in the lead sentence of the 40-page Student Britannica article on India (2008), and which was used by Sonia Gandhi in the second paragraph of her keynote address on the 50th anniversary of India's election commission in 2001? I have not come across any source that says "most populous democracy" is ambiguous or controversial. It was used as recently as, July 1, 2008, in The New York Times story, "India's Leader Struggles to Complete Nuclear Deal": "The deadlock holds important lessons for the future of the world’s most populous democracy, as the country’s two main political parties diminish in strength,..." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Here's India's current President Pratibha Patil using it at banquet hosted by the President of Mexico — Felipe De Jesus Calderon) Mexico City, April 17, 2008 and Senator Connie Mack, India - China Statement on the Floor of the Senate way back on June 16, 1998.
  • New evidence from the largest democracy in the world, India, and her four neighboring countries in South Asia What are Emergent Democratic Societies Doing to Democracy? What are Emergent Democratic Societies Doing to Democracy? Marta Lagos © The Author 2007. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The World Association for Public Opinion Research. All rights reserved. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 2007 19(1):122-126; doi:10.1093/ijpor/edl036 http://ijpor.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/extract/19/1/122
KH2/KHP2, I'm not sure what you are doing. You just said that you agree that "largest democracy" is ambiguous in the lead. I asked you if you thought "most populous democracy" is ambiguous or controversial, and, if so, produce some sources that say so. None of the sources you have say anything about "most populous." We already know that "largest democracy" is widely used. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh! I didn't read your post properly before copy-pasting my sources...fine I guess I am the only one endorsing my views! I rest this case...Thanks. KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 17:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks to all who have participated in this discussion which was respectful throughout. Special thanks to Fowler&fowler, who did considerable research and remained patient and civil for the duration. Sunray (talk) 03:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks to Sunray for a patient and fair mediation. Per the consensus, I will be adding the words, "... the most populous liberal democracy in the world." to the second sentence of the lead. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: Per the consensus, "... the most populous democracy in the world" to the second sentence of the lead.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

No mention of Aryan heritage?

You know ive created a subject headline about this before. It goes away. I mean first of all why does it go away? And secondly why is their not a mention in the history section of India as being, or as possibly being, the land where Aryans might have came from? ARYAN818 (talk) 20:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Already there's a lot of edit warring at Out of India theory! --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 18:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Dear IP 71.105.82.152 from Virginia, If you are looking to contribute to the land where the Aryans came from, you are in the wrong country, actually even in the wrong continent. You should really be in Ukraine, and, in particular, in Mykolaiv Oblast. If you need directions, one way to get from India to Ukraine would be to follow the route taken by the Roma people, who did indeed originate in India. Good luck in your travels.
Perhaps we should be asking why the Roma people are not mentioned somewhere in the India page. Perhaps they deserve a quarter-sentence mention in the India page culture section for Romani music. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Since you sound sarcastic (how to get from India to the Ukraine) and you sound sooooo sure about your history, let me give you some facts. The Aryan people spoke Sanskrit (language from India). The Aryan people believed in Hinduism or an older form of Hinduism (religion from India). The Aryan people had a Swastik symbol (symbol from ancient India). The Aryan word comes from "Arya" (again India). India was sometimes known as Aryanvarta (if thats the correct way to spell it and pronounce it) and I think that means LAND OF THE ARYANS. There is talk about Aryan heritage in INDIAN religions. There is archeaological evidence of Aryan heritage in India. And last but not least, many people feel that Aryans also lived in Afghanistan and Iran which is the same region as India......so......do you still want to tell me how to get from India to the Ukraine? Or do you need directions from the Ukraine to India? ARYAN818 (talk) 20:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I think, just as your 2006/2007 WP stint, you just missed the entire point. :( --Ragib (talk) 22:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
This is amazing. This is really really amazing. I mean the other user tells me about the Ukrain (I think he/she was trying to tell me that the Aryans came from the Ukrain area) and I respond trying to explain that maybe the Aryans came from India, and Ragib tells me im missing the point?....Did I get that right? The other person tells me about Ukraine, and im missing the point because im telling him/her that the Aryans have links to India? Yes Ragib I am missing the point. What point is it? Please tell me. Do you believe the Aryans came from the area of the Ukraine? ARYAN818 (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Om Shanti.. Shanti..... Shanti............. --gppande «talk» 11:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

There are lots of things that can be mentioned or omitted. When you say Aryan heritage, could you be precise in the findings of what you find omitted? Aryan heritage is a vague term. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Well if you go to the CIA world factbook website it says that roughly 70% (I dont know if I have the right percentage) of India is Indo-Aryan. Many people also believe that the Aryans came from India and/or Iran. In Hinduism there is reference to Aryan and/or Arya and/or maybe other things that have to do with Aryan culture/history. The Swastik sighn (used by Aryans) is used by Indians. India had a nickname of Aryaverta (I could be wrong of the spelling) which I think means land of the Aryans). Sanskrit is a lanugage used by Aryans and from what I understand is the oldest of the INdo-European languages. And people in India do have similar features as people in Afghanistan and Iran (which are also countries that might have Aryan hertiage).....I mean is anything with Aryan mentioned in this article? ARYAN818 (talk) 18:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Vedic Sanskrit, as its own page informs us, was an early descendant of Proto-Indo-Iranian language (spoken in the early Andronovo culture in the southern Urals, north-west of Iran and India). Proto-Indo-Iranian, as its page again informs us, descended from Proto-Indo-European language (PIE), the mother of all Indo-European languages, including Sanskrit. According to the mainstream view—the Kurgan hypothesis (see map there)—the original home of PIE is considered to be the Pontic steppes, which is the general area of southern Ukraine. It was in this area that the horse was tamed, and the resulting mobility, gave that culture unprecedented power to spread. (See, for example, Jared Diamond's The Third Chimpanzee for a readable account.)
The word, "arya," as its page states, is an Indo-Iranian term, which itself is "from Proto-Indo-European *ar-yo-, from the same root as Sanskrit rta, Iranian asha. Root cognates without Indo-Iranian include a large constellation of associated concepts, such as Greek arete "virtue" , aristos "best", and ortho, in orthodoxy; Latin rectus and erectus, and all Romance derivatives, as well as German Recht and English right." Perhaps you should take your discontents to the Kurgan hypothesis page and the Proto-Indo-European language page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Northwest of Iran and India? In those days it was all one land connected. I dont know if it was seperated to say it was NORTHWEST of Iran and India. And Sanskrit is the oldest of the Indo-European languages and I believe Sanskrit came from INDIA?....And what do you mean the mainstream veiw is the Kurgan hypothesis? I know it says that on wikipedia, but is their some poll that says most people believe in that view? Go to India and Iran and tell me if the Kurgan hypothesis is the "Mainstream" veiw. And even if the horst was taimed in the Ukrain that doesnt prove that Aryans came from the Ukrain. And even if they came from the Ukrain, the Ukrian isnt far from the land of India and Iran. So who's to say that's seperate? I mean if im from California, am I still not from America? California is FAR FAR from other parts of America, but it's stilll one connected land of America. But when you say they came from the Ukraine (if thats even true) your making it seem like they "INVADED" India and Iran. I mean lets assume they came from the Ukraine. They spoke Sanskrit. They had a swastika symbol. They believed in Hinduism. So they had more links with India and Iran then they did with the Ukrian. Back then there was no Ukraine culture (correct me if im wrong). And anyway I believe they came from the area of India and Iran, and many other people believe that too. ARYAN818 (talk) 18:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
So if the word Aryan is an Indo-Iranian term which itself is from the Indo-European language and from the same root as Sanskrit....arent u proving my point? That they might have came from India and Iran? ARYAN818 (talk) 18:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Aryan, I think your wiki-practice is taking a backwards route: generally, an edit is made first, and then discussed. Articles don't update themselves :-p The problem with the current method (discuss and discuss some more) is that the only thing to discuss is your comment and not your contribution, which tends to take up time and leads to incivility soo much more quickly (in my experience).
Even if you were to make an edit about the Aryan background without the proper sources - which'd get reverted pretty quickly for good reason (since you need sources) - at least the discussion would steer from the intricacies of this discussion to the basics of contributions.
Bearing that in mind, maybe the revert can be avoided: do you have any sources for the India-Aryan link? Xavexgoem (talk) 21:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Well first of all in my wiki experience edits are pointless sometimes because people here just take them out and put back what might have been there. So I dont want to waste my time editing. And discussing it first here might let the "powers that be" to make edits then. Ive made contributions in terms of editing. And sometimes its pointless.....as for sources....well much of that can be found here on wikipedia. 71.105.82.152 (talk) 17:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
You don't intend to edit this at all? Are you just here to talk, or are you waiting for someone to edit it for you? :-S Xavexgoem (talk) 20:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
(To, user:AR...18): It is the mainstream view, because if you do a "Google Scholar" search on the "Kurgan hypothesis" you get over 450 links; if you do a search on the "Anatolian hypothesis" you get 51 links. In contrast, if you do a Google scholar search on "out of India theory" you get 11 links, of which more than half are critical reviews of the model, whose main proponents today are some dubious scholars, Koenraad Elst, Shrikant Talageri and, Nicholas Kazanas, who no one had heard of until they were given an infirm, doddering, lease on life in Hindu nationalist publications. —This is part of a comment by Fowler&fowler (of 13:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following:
well first of all why are you just using the out of india theory as an example. I mean when people do searches thats not the only sentence they use. They might type in the word Aryan in google. Or the words Aryan invasion theory. Or "Is the aryan invasion true"....Or where did the Aryans come from.....I mean you just used one example as if thats the ONLY example to use......but anyway.....even if im wrong....and even if your right....so what? Go by facts not stats on google. I mentioned facts about Aryans possibly coming from India. So did you want to answer those facts? Does anyone want to answer them? Anybody?...Hello?...anyone?........and one more thing.......does this article even mention anything about Aryans? WEather they came from India or Ukraine, is their even a mention that India is land of Aryan heritage and or culture? 71.105.82.152 (talk) 17:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
In a nutshell, the language spoken either by the Kurgan culture of the Pontic steppes ca 5000 BC, or in a culture farther north in the Urals in 6000 BC, or in Anatolia in 7000 BC, spread to other parts of Eurasia. It spread west and gradually transformed into Ancient Greek, Latin, and eventually to most modern European language. It spread east, and gradually gave birth (by transformation) to the Slavic languages, and the Indo-Iranian languages (including Avestan and Vedic Sanskrit) and eventually to all North Indian languages. Whether there was an actual migration of people from the Black Sea-Caspian Sea-Urals areas to India and Iran, is a separate story; there are some DNA studies that point to a very limited migration, but the languages did spread, as did the Indo-European religion, which after arriving in India (in some transformed fashion) and interacting with the preexisting religions of India, gave birth to Hinduism. The Aryans didn't come from India and Iran; rather the Sanskrit word "arya," or Old Persian "Ariya," or Avestan "Airya," were terms of self-description used by the transformed Indo-European culture when it arrived in Iran and India after its origins in the Black Sea region two or more millenniums earlier. The word had existed in Proto-Indo-European language as "*aryo-." —This is part of a comment by Fowler&fowler (of 13:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following:
The Aryans spoke Sanskrit. The Aryans used the Swastik sighn. The Aryans believed in Hinduism. Aryan reference is in Hinduism. Aryan archeaology is in India. And your tellling me they came from outside of India and brought all this to INdia?.....71.105.82.152 (talk) 17:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I would urge you to read Jared Diamond's The Third Chimpanzee, or Michael Blatter's article in Science, "Search for the Indo-Europeans", 2004, or Gray and Atkinson's article in Nature, Language tree divergence times support the Anatolian theory of Indo-European origin, 2003, or David W. Anthony's book The Horse, The Wheel, and Language, Princeton University Press, 2007. Here is its Chapter 1. Good luck. This will be my last post on this topic here. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok so you obviously dont believe they came from India. Well did they live in India? If they lived in India then why is their no mention (correct me if im wrong cus i could be wrong) but why is their no mention of Aryan heritage in this article? 71.105.82.152 (talk) 17:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Points to be discussed are below

Recently, lot of tagging has happened to the page asking it to be cleaned, shortened, peacock terms to be removed and also edit warring. Housekeeping can be done easily to remove most of the objections but shortening and edit warring is difficult to avoid. Also, discussion comes every time to add more stuff. My suggestions are -

  • Geography section should be reduced. Geography of India was a formal featured article. User's can seek more info from this section.
  • Culture section should be reduced. Sentences like these do not hold much importance in such a main article -
  1. Traditional Indian family values are highly respected, although urban families now prefer the nuclear family structure due to the socio-economic constraints imposed by traditional joint family system.
  2. Listings like these should be reduced - Some popular festivals are Diwali, Thai Pongal, Holi, Onam, Vijayadashami, Durga Puja, Eid ul-Fitr, Bakr-Id, Christmas, Buddha Jayanti and Vaisakhi.
  3. Eight dance forms, many with narrative forms and mythological elements, have been accorded classical dance status by India's National Academy of Music, Dance, and Drama. These are: bharatanatyam of the state of Tamil Nadu, kathak of Uttar Pradesh, kathakali and mohiniyattam of Kerala, kuchipudi of Andhra Pradesh, manipuri of Manipur, odissi of the state of Orissa and the sattriya of Assam.
  • Sports need revamp. These sentences can be done with -
  1. Cricketers such as Sachin Tendulkar, Virender Sehwag, MS Dhoni, Anil Kumble are some of the currently best players of the nation and are well known across the world for their excellence and leadership qualities in the game. The recent Indian Premier League championship has taken the cricketing world by storm and lifted the popularity of the game to greater levels. Players from all over the world take part in the championship giving their best to the game as well as putting aside every racial and national attachments.
  2. Many places really use peacock terms like popular, famous, etc...
  • Economy has lot's of lists -
  1. Its natural resources include arable land, bauxite, chromite, coal, diamonds, iron ore, limestone, manganese, mica, natural gas, petroleum, and titanium ore
  2. Major industries include automobiles, cement, chemicals, consumer electronics, food processing, machinery, mining, petroleum, pharmaceuticals, steel, transportation equipment, and textiles.
  3. Textiles, jewellery, engineering goods and software are major export commodities. While crude oil, machineries, fertilizers, and chemicals are major imports.
  • Demographics section should get rid of Template:Largest cities of India. Added this point per F&F.
  • Length What is the max permissible size limit for this page? It looks like some special size consideration should be given to accommodate all users. Added this point per F&F.

I know I can be WP:BOLD and do it myself. But would like to get consensus since I want to avoid further edit warring/lengthy arguments. Jump-in with your valuable suggestions and if possible take lead to clean-up.--gppande «talk» 12:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The new addition to sports section is going to be removed soon as it is an obvious WP:OR,WP:UNDUE, WP:TONE and WP:WEASEL however I didn't remove it (or rather reverted my revert) as I am not ready for an edit war. A note to all please refrain from warning them as their edits though ... they are nevertheless enthusiastic... - KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 12:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I think you mean new editors. Sports got messed up with this edit. I had reverted four prior major changes of same user as seen from history and left him an advice. But later noticed 5th which could not be undone due to text conflicts with later edits. --gppande «talk» 13:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
It's headed for an FAR according to whom? The last time two users (user:Sarvagnya and user:Rueben lys) tried to do an FAR, in summer 2007, and it was in worse shape than it is now, the review was dismissed in less than 12 hours. It does need to be trimmed but not in Geography, or for that matter even in culture. True there are some lists in culture (that are there because accommodating the elements of the list was the only solution to the edit war that was plaguing the page at that time). But then, why is "cities by population," which is a glorified graphics list, needed? Who cares if the population of number 19 city is a little more than number 21 city? Even the length is debated by the experienced editors. I know that bureaucrat user:Blnguyen didn't think it was that long, and in fact last year thought that increasing its length might be one way to resolve edit wars. I would defer to more experienced editors, especially to user:Nichalp (the architect of the page's FA drive) and user:Ragib in this regard. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
A goodfaith point, I did not bring the FAR, I only commented on that as I saw appropriate. :) rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 15:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Don't get that personal buddy. I am not saying it is on door steps of FAR. It's just an effort to build consensus before touching these sections to avoid post edit wars. Just pointing that recent activity has brought some dirt which can be cleaned with good faith. As I said, I tried mopping earlier but failed to do some more. --gppande «talk» 15:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't being personal. My apologies if it came across that way. The India page is one of the celebrated examples of Wikipedia:Main article fixation; there are many many sub-articles that need work, but they are being ignored. Fine there has been a lot of automated tagging of various India related talk pages recently (with bots), and all credit to that work, but an encyclopedia is ultimately its "textual content." That needs to be written. I don't see that those India-related pages, whose talk pages have been successfully tagged, are being expanded or improved. We should be focusing on those pages. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect I have for you, I see housekeeping activities by bot runners and normal contributor are of equal importance. As you wanted this is 'the' effort to improve "textual content" on 'the' most important page of project. My aim was of reducing the talkpage edits after changes by building consensus first. But looks like edits would be more before changes too :-)) --gppande «talk» 16:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I know this edit will not make many people happy but I did this. --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 16:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we need an FAR right now. Some of the specific issues that User:Gppande has pointed out can (and should) be addressed, however. In terms of length, I think we're fine for now. Once we cut down on some of the overhead text and content outlined above, the article will be ok. Thanks AreJay (talk) 17:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

My fault, the catchy heading took more attention than points below. I changed the heading. BUT, 2 tags got quickly removed from the article after this discussion started. I reverted sports one. Did not add the length tag back as it seems to have consensus. --gppande «talk» 18:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I would strongly advise against having new sections. What is needed is the tightening up of prose, not the introduction of sections. The sections we use are as per the recommendations of Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries, and I would strongly advise that we stick to those guidelines to avoid fragmentation both now, and in the near future. I notice that the the culture section seems to be targetted this time. I would say this is the wrong way of approaching a revamp. This is how the India article works: The article is a summary of daughter articles such as "History of India" "Geography of India" and so on. Now, the idea is to get those top level daughter articles featured first. Once those are featured, all text that appears in the lead of those daughter articles, should be placed as sectional content. This is how the encyclopedia should be written: Bottom up, and not top down. So, if the culture section needs a revamp, please do clean up Culture of India first. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The cuisine section needs help...how about some examples? The largest cities template must stay...every big country article has this. this is an encyclopedia...uniformity is a must. Nikkul (talk) 17:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I second user:Nichalp's remarks. Please see my remarks in the section below. I would request all the people here to work on the Culture of India and Cuisine of India pages instead and get them featured. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with Nichalp. But getting an article to FA status is a herculean task. Bad creeps into India page without such mammoth effort. It's on us to keep it clean. This was just an effort to do the same. But looks like even that's not possible as nobody ever discussed the real points/lists/templates listed above to be kept or removed. Consider this discussion closed with no action. --gppande «talk» 23:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I see your point. Cleanups to tighten prose are always welcomed here. But for radical revamps, a more solid approach is needed. Getting an article to FA status is not herculean, but rather one that requires solid dedication by those nominating it. I say this because it is very easy for a random person to point out omissions in text without a holistic approach to article writing. Personally, I think an FA should be on every wikipedian's CV. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Largest city

I think the term "largest city" in the infobox is ambigious. It doesnt tell a general reader "large" in what sense..by area, by population ? More appropriate would be largest_settlement = Mumbai Metropolitan Region. Ninadhardikar (talk) 02:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree. There is a similar discussion going on about calling India the "largest democracy." The words large and big are by their nature ambiguous so it is better to use a more specific word. The less vague the article is, the better. GizzaDiscuss © 07:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
There are two tags in the template : "largest_city" and "largest_settlement". If the area of a city is considered to be the administrative area of its council, it serves no purpose to list which is the largest city by area in that country. I think these tags should be combined to form "Most populous metropolitan region" / "Biggest urban area/agglomeration" or something of that sort. Ninadhardikar (talk) 10:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I would favor using "most populous" instead of "large" or "largest". I don't think we should use the word "settlement" because it's ambiguous. Does "settlement" refer to a city (an entity within the jurisdiction of a municipal corporation) or an urban agglomeration (city and it's satellites towns and suburbs)? Thanks AreJay (talk) 23:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

History

I am thinking that we should be writing that the history section should be expanded. Futhermore, there is not a mention of how we were actually being many many countries before, Awadh, Bengal, Hyderabad, and so on. The Britishers helped to unite us and making us a India. Should we not be giving them some credit for helping us to be being a country today?

Thanking you, A. Kumar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.61.154.148 (talk) 17:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

let me explain why i edited this article.

When you go to an article like China on wikiepdia right away it talks about how China is one of the oldest countries in the world, and how it invented paper and basically it represents China nicely. When you go to INdias page, its not AS GOOD. Im not saying this is a bad article. But the wording and structure could be a bit better. In other words the article can start of by saying how India is home to one of the oldest civilazations in the world (Indus Valley) just like the article on China does. This article can also mention how Yoga comes from India a little sooner. And the fact that it mentions how India is home to 4 religions (at least) can also be mentioned a bit sooner. Does anyone have a problem if i slightly improve this article? All im asking is if its ok if i word things better and try to represent India a little better, just like the article on China reprsents China. Is that ok everyone? Check out my edits, and before u erase them, try thinking about it. And if u do erase them tell me what was so bad with my edits? ARYAN818 (talk) 19:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, the first sentence has no logical flow. It starts off taking about IVC and then talks about India's area and size. Secondly, statements like "India is also where yoga is said to have been first taught. Meditation is also said to have been first taught in India" aren't encyclopedic. Said to have been first taught by who? Thirdly, please obtain consensus and then make your edits, instead of making unilateral edits and then trying to explain them. Thanks AreJay (talk) 19:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok doesnt yoga come from INdia? If u dont like the wording u can change it, but my point is to just REPRESENT India a little better by mentioning things earlier. I mean when u go to other countries articles they talk abou thow its old and has this and has that, and here on India its like "INDIA IS BORDERED BY THIS COUNTRY" and it doesnt do a good job representing India.....and by the way.....when u say it has no flow, i mean did it have a flow before? All I did was add a few extra words and re-arrange paragraphs. So if u think it doesnt have a flow now, then did u say the same thing before? ARYAN818 (talk) 19:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


Agreed with AreJay. This large-scale change of the intro needs a consensus first, so I reverted to the status quo for the time being. --Ragib (talk) 19:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok was it reallllly neccessariy to change back EVERYTHING? I mean its one thing if u didnt like SOME of the edits i made. But u changed back EVERYTHING? Surley there must have been something u like. Let me give u an example. Remember the sentence where it says India is home to vast empires? Well I added the words Vast empires, temples, and palaces. Now was that so wrong? Is that not true?.......let me give u another example.....how come on Chinas article its ok if that article starts off by saying how China is home to an old civilazation, and yet when i put the same exact thing (that India is home to an old civilazation, that gets eraased? See this is what im talking about. This is why Wikipedia members like u are sooo annoying to me. Its like u pick and choose what u want , and if u dont like it, u erase EVERYTHING. I mean its ok for China to have the words "HISTORICALLY ANCIENCT CULTURE" but oooo nooooo if India has those words they get edited out? I mean u took out everything that i put down. EVERYTHIGN.. U didnt even keep one word......let me give u another example....u know the part about how India is home to 4 major religions? Well i moved that up higher becuase that is something of big significance. And u guys didnt like that either? What was wrong with having it higher?.....I mean if this was China or some other country on wikipedia, those people would want that put higher. But when it comes to India was should not have that higher? I mean why is it ok for other people to represent their country in a factual encylopedia sort of way, but we cant do the same for India? I mean India has so much to represent and much of it is so low in the article or not mentioned at all? ARYAN818 (talk) 20:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for finding myself and other wikipedians "annoying". You are most welcome. --Ragib (talk) 22:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok I made some minor changes. I didnt really erase too much. I kept basically most of what you people already had. And I just added a few things. Now is this ok? ARYAN818 (talk) 20:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Aryan, please review WP:RS and WP:CITE. All you've provided so far to "support" your edits is rhetoric. If you'd like to include content in the article, please discuss, build consensus, supply valid and reliable sources to back up your claims and then move forward as needed. Don't make changes and then attempt to explain your edits – unfortunately, that's just not how things work. India is a featured article, while China isn't. What goes into that article has no bearing on what happens on this or any other featured article. Thanks AreJay (talk) 20:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Wow this is amazing! ONe guy on wikipedia told me to make edits and then discuss. Another guy is telling me to discuss and then make edits? Wow what is up with u people?.....god some of u people are really annoying. I mean for example Jay is telling me supply valid reliable sources. Man I feel like cussing and breaking a windo cus of people like Jay. HELLLOOO JAYYYYY did u actually understand my edit? For example this article mentions how the India is home to the worlds largest film industry right? Well all I did was move that part up and re worded it as the worlds largest movie industry. And that was taken off? And now your telling me to provie reliable sources? I just used the same thing that was used before i edited it (worlds largest film industry, to worlds largest movie industry, and i moved that part up lol)........and when I talked about China I was using that as an example. The point I was making is, their are lots of articles on wikipedia that really do a good job of representing certain things while other articles dont. NOw you say China is not a featured article while India is? So what? I mean when people get info from wikipedia, some of them just get the info and dont care what article is featured and what article is not featured. Some might care. And some might not. The point is a country like India doesnt get represented as well as a country like China might (at least in some way(s) and yet that's ok becuase India is FEATURED and China isnt?.......and hey.....what was wrong with saying Yoga came from India? Isnt that true?......And if your answer is "well thats already mentioned in a different section, well, why not mention it a little bit higher?.......but hey.....at least some stuff was not taken out. 71.105.82.152 (talk) 21:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
This mild hysteria is somewhat amusing. Bottomline, you like to make unilateral edits and then defend them through empty rhetoric. Just not going to work. I don't care to continue this discussion any further. Needless to say that such edits are going to get rv'ed everytime. AreJay (talk) 23:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Aryan, you do start making edits, and then you discuss to form a consensus (read that, if you have time; it's one of the better written policies, and has a nice flow chart), and after that you edit again.
Sorry I wasn't clear: it's edit->talk->edit->talk in cases where consensus is shaky. But talk->edit doesn't work, unless you're both the talker and the editor, because you can't convince people to make an edit for you; that's all I meant when I said start with an edit. (talk->edit usually turns into talk->talk->talk->shouting) Xavexgoem (talk) 07:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
You know Xavexgoem, first these people pretty much erased all my edits here on India. Then they kept some stuff that I edited. And now ive noticed that they pretty much took out everything! Everything! ANd this user JAY is telling me that im using rhetoric? Let me give u some examples of people like Jay make no sense.....Can i give u examples?....Example 1 - About the second paragraph of the article it says how India is home to the Indus Valley civilazation. And I added the words "HOME TO ONE OF THE OLDEST CIVILAZATIONS, THE INDUS VALLEY CIVILAZATION"...All I did was added "home to one of the oldest". Now what was wrong with that particular edit? Is it not one of the oldest? I mean u have other wikiedia articles on here that do a better job in representing their countries, and yet here we cant give it a good reprsentation?.......Ok.....ill give u a second example.......In the same paragraph (i think) it says how INdia is home to historic trade routes, and vast empires.....and i added the words, palaces, and temples. So in other words the sentence goes like this in my edit: India is home to historic trade routes, vast empires, TEMPLES, AND PALACES.....And yet now that is gone to! I mean what was wrong with that edit?......This is what i mean when i get soo annoyed. I mean these are very minor minor minor minor minor edits, and they get erased? I mean I can understand if they didnt like all my edits. But they dont seem like anything! This is what makes wikipedia unfair. YOu have a few people who act like dictators and dictate what they think is proper. Now i know someone has to be in charge. But then why do people like JAY tell me im using rehtoric? What is rhetoric about these 2 edits that ive given you as examples? India IS home to palaces and temples. The Indus Valley civilazations is one of the oldest civilazations. ANd this user JAY is telling me im using rhetoric? 71.106.93.44 (talk) 20:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Aryan, one thing you must understand is that Wikipedia is not based on the truth or what is "obvious." It is based on a set of core policies, rules and guidelines. If you read these three links I will provide, your understanding of how Wikipedia works will improve dramatically. WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR. Thanks! GizzaDiscuss © 02:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
No actually wikipedia is sometimes based on truth. And what is obvious. There are many articles on wikipedia that say truthful things or thigns that are obvious. And all im saying is there are some articles on Wikipedia that really do a good job of representing certain countries or cultures. And there are those (like India) that dont do a good job. I keep giving examples and some of u are acting like im just giving rhetoric.....let me try again.....There is a part in this article that says early how India is home to 4 major religions right? (HInduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, and Jainism). And that's fine. But why is it ok to mention that, but its NOT ok to mention in the same paragraph that Yoga also comes from India? Its like you guys are picking and choosing whats "normal" and whats rehtoric. I mean when a person goes to wikipedia they want info quickly. And things like Yoga, the Kama Sutra, or the Vedas (which is one of the oldest scriptures in the world) should be mentioned early. And if you disagree, then explain to me why its ok to mention that 4 religions came from India (which im happy about) but its not ok to say that yoga comes from their in the same paragraph? 71.106.93.44 (talk) 18:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Why do you want to use the word "one of oldest" Its a redundant statement. Besides, geographically, the IVC is part of Pakistan, with very little territory in India. India has temples and palaces; undisputed yes, but so too Nepal, China, Cambodia and several other countries. The idea is to represent something more unique about India. Do remember that the article on India is not supposed to be a travel brochure about India, so the addition of phrases and sentences that lend just gloss value is looked down upon. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
nichalp:Why do you want to use the word "one of oldest" Its a redundant statement. Besides, geographically, the IVC is part of Pakistan, with very little territory in India.
You're right. Actually people don't (want to) differentiate between ancient India and the modern day nation state India that came into being just 60 years ago. The IVC and Gandhara Civilization evolved in the region what is now known as Pakistan, even ancient India was what is now Pakistan. Indians have only adopted their religion (vedic religion), their holy books (vedas) their language (Sanskrit), and their traditions and customs and now present them as their own, which is historically not true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kohestani9 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Why Do I want to use the words "one of the oldest"? Well why not? Does it offend u that it is one of the oldest? Is that not true? I mean their are many articles on wikipeida that refer to certain things like "it is one of the oldest" or "this has one of the oldest", so what is the big deal if the same is said here? This is one of the reasons why India is such a "mysterious country" to people because people just dont know about India. India is not always fully represented the way other countries are represented. I mean ill give u another example...(i keep giving u people examples)......If u go to Iran and Afghanistan there is mention of Aryan heritage right? And many people think Aryans came from that area. And yet I dont think (i could be wrong) that there is any mention of Aryan heritage in this article? I mean this land was known sometimes as Aryavarta (land of the Aryans) its where Sanskrit came from, the swastika came from, it has Hinduism (aryans followed a form(s) of HInduism) and there are SOME people who believe Aryans came from India....and yet....I dont even think (again I could be wrong) that there is a mention of Aryan heritage in this article lol. Ive brought this up before. 71.106.93.44 (talk) 18:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why you guys even spend time explaining things to an account named "ARYAN818" pushing "Indian Antiquity" here. This is the article on the Republic of India, founded in 1947. The article corresponding to China (viz., the article on the geographical/historical region, not the modern state), is at Indian subcontinent, as is perfecly clear from the disambiguation notice. dab (𒁳) 09:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually your wrong. When you type in China, it goes to the country of China. And waht is wrong with pushing "Indian antiquity"? Its done for some of the other countries on wikipedia. And yet India it cant be done for India? I mean what is wrong with mentioning that yoga comes from INdia, the Kama Sutra comes from India, when its in the same paragraph that mentions 4 major religions came from India? What is wrong with mentioning that India is a home to temples and palaces, when in the same sentence it says India is ho me to vast empires and historical? I mean its like you people are picking and choosing whats normal and rhetoric. Im not saying that we should type down INDIA IS THE MOTHER OF THE WORLD lol...Im just adding a few things to certain areas that mention similar things. I mean other articles on wikipedia represent their countries good. Why cant India be reprsented good, as long as its factual? 71.106.93.44 (talk) 18:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

But there is a simple difference, when India is put it takes to the India article instead of the Indian subcontinent. Whereas for China, it takes to the China article and not to the PRC page. And another thing is the Indian culture, invention, etc is described like in the China page in the Indian subcontinent page.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 13:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

When people want to learn about China they type China usually. I dont think a pesron who wants to do a report and wants to learn about China, says well hmmmmm should i type in China, or is their a difference between China and the PRC? I mean your going on a technicaltiy. The bottom line is, when people type countries on wikipedia, alot of these countries do a good job in mentioning "proud facts" and on this article I can improve it. IM not saying to allow me to type "opinions" or just brag. No i am trying to give factual things, in a more reprsentitive way. Why is that bad? Why do u people have a problem with it , if its factual? I mean why is ok for one article to say "THIS COUNTRY HAS ONE OF THE OLDEST CIVILAZATIONS", but if i say "THE INDUS VALLEY IS ONE OF THE OLDEST" then its not allowed? Is that fair? And its not like im saying just let me type any old opinion I have. I mean im just improving the article while still going by facts. IM not dramatically changing THE WHOLE ARTICLE. Just minor things here and there. 71.106.93.44 (talk) 18:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Mistake, it is is not added in that page.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 13:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to answer some other points made by some users....Somebody said how the INdus valley is mostly in Paksitan? Well thats such a stupid answer. I mean if u want to go by that logic, then why does this artilce say its home to the Indus Valley civilazation? Did u object to that? Because by ur logic, this article should say "IT IS HOME PARTLY TO THE INDUS VALLEY CIVILAZATION" lol.....and to the user who said other countries have temples and palaces....well yes....so I dont have a problem if that is mentioned in their articles either. And actually im guessing that some of those other countries have articles that might say how they have temples and palaces.......and by the way...how come its ok to say India has vast empires, but not temples and palaces? 71.106.93.44 (talk) 18:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
If you're going attack the main author of this page, user:Nichalp, by calling his answer stupid, you might consider learning to spell better. It's very simple: when you spell a word incorrectly, a red line appears under that word. When you see that red line, find a dictionary and fix the word. Of course, there is always the possibility that you are both dyslexic and color blind, in addition to having name Aryan and (California) area code 818, even as you edit from Virginia. In that case, please accept my sincere apologies. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
When did I attack the main author u obviously bitter wikipedia user?.....And this is another case where i feel like cussing someone out for the stuff their typing, but i know im not allowed to because other people (like this flower power person) can say mean things to me, but ooo noooo if i reply the way he/she does i get blocked.....I mean flower talks about spelling grammer (like its that bad when its not, or like its a big deal but its not) because flower cant come up with better arguments so flower talks about idiotic things like how it bothers him/her so much that im not spelling to his desires. I dont even know what he's talking about that's so bad lol......and then this user says im dyslexic and maybe color blind? O thats ok to say but if i dare type in CAPS or call him a moron, then i get blocked?......And why does this user keep telling me im in Virginia? I dont care what it says Flower im in LA. I mean ive told u before im one in Virginia, but maybe u didnt get that. Perhaphs maybe u missed it cus you focused on stupid stuff like spelling as if im spelling soooooo badly. ANd for the last time get off me about my name and area code. Im not a European. Im not a Nazi. My parents are from India. Aryan is a common name in INdia. And not everyone that has the name Aryan is a kkk person. Just like I assume not everyone with the user flower is from a garden. And 818 is an area. Your thinking of 88 (I believe thats the offensive thing). But I dont think 818 is offensive..........Anyway is their anything else ud like to go over? Perhaphs you want to talk about my sentence structure? Or the fact that im a Dodgers fan?
Aryan you had stated, "No actually wikipedia is sometimes based on truth. And what is obvious." Sorry mate but you couldn't be farther from the truth (no pun intended). It is clear that you didn't read any of the fundamental policies that I and other users have suggested to you. This reluctance from you is what is causing all these annoyed and hostile responses. And if you continue to ignore the advice of others it will only be a matter of time until you are blocked. What I said may be harsh but it is honest so you better improve your behaviour if you want to stay here. GizzaDiscuss © 02:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Are u sure this is what is causing all these annoyed responses? Wow thats pretty strange becuase some people were like this BEFORE as well. So im not sure if your exactly right about why their annoyed.....And no im not farther from the truth about wikipedia is sometimes based on truth....There are plenty of pages on wikipedia that type factual and/or truthful things......It doesnt matter what the policies are.....Even if your policy says WIKIPEDIA IS NOT BASED ON TRUTHFUL THINGS, then expalin to me why their are TONS of articles based on truthful things?......And when u say if i continue to ignore the advice on others ill be blocked? What? Why would I be blocked for not wanting to go to other links? Does your wikipedia policy say its ok to block people for not taking their adice when they ask u to go to other links? That's kind of strange........And u said i better improve my behavior? What behavior? Im asking about editing here, and im trying to logically figure out whats wrong with my edits. Flower power user can say what he/she wants, and i dont think ur threating to block him. SO why u picking on me?.......Anyway folks this is another example of me tying a long long reply, and im sure that not all of what I said will get a logical response in return. 71.106.93.44 (talk) 22:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
"One of the oldest" is a peacock term. Similarly, saying that "India is the home of temple and palaces" is ambiguous. Your draft suggests that temples and palaces originated in India. You mention that "why can't India be represented as good" has two critical flaws. You are assuming that the current version speaks ill of India, and secondly, having an article that just speaks good of India, and not touch upon the not-so-good aspects is a POV. I suggest you get to learning Wikipedia basics before you reply again. As please do not misquote me, I never suggested the use of the word "partial". =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
No my draft does not suggest temples and palaces originiated in India. If I wanted to suggest that, i would say TEMPLES AND PALACES STARTED IN INDIA....And by ur logic (which im sure u wont reply about) then that means that this articles suggest vast empires and historic trade routes started in India?......so your just picking and choosing what u want to accept......and no im not assuming this article speaks ill of INdia...again ur assuming that im assuming that. I mean i think i even said this artilce isnt bad. It just doesnt respresent India as well as it can. I mean alot of people dont know things about India. ANd their is harldy no mention of any Aryan heritage, it rarley talks about the Vedas being one of the oldest scriptures, or the Kama Sutra, or Yoga coming from India, and yet when u go to other articles on wikipedia, some other articles mention how this started in their country, or that started in their country, i mean they do a good job of representing. Here its not that the article is bad. But it can be improved.....ill give u an example (i keep giving examples and people wont give me logical responses).....at the start of this artilce it says 4 religions came from India right? That is partly factual and a good represntation. Now why cant i continue in that SAME PARAPGRAH about how Yoga also came from India? Can u explain that to me?.......And when did i imply u can ONLY talk about the good and not the "not so good"?....I mean why do i keep gettin responses that dont make sense? Im saying when it comes to the good parts, whats wrong in improving it? I mean we can say it has vast empires but not temples and palaces? We can say it gave birth to 4 religions but not yoga? I dont get the logic here people......ANd before u ask me not to misquote u, dont make assumptions of what im talking about. 71.106.93.44 (talk) 22:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't feed the trolls =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

How about having a picture section?

Im assuming there is a limit of how many pictures can be put here, so I was wondering if there could be a section where we could put more pictures for this article? ARYAN818 (talk) 20:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

<sarcasm>Sure, you might also list the article for featured article removal process right away. :) </sarcasm>. Please see why we can't do so. --Ragib (talk) 22:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok unless I missed it, the link u gave me did say u can have pictures. So why u being sarcastic? 71.106.93.44 (talk) 20:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Aryan. The link that Ragib provided probably doesn't explain we don't have picture galleries so directly but it does say that It has images and other media where appropriate. Most people have interpreted this to mean pictures should only in sections where it is connected to the prose. Eg. The quail is in Flora and Fauna, the Bombay Stock Exchange building is in Economy and the cricket match is in Sports. GizzaDiscuss © 00:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Well is that always true? I mean I could be wrong, but aren't there articles that have pictures that are on the side of paragraphs, even though they might not be particularaly related to the paragraph?........and anyway.....if that is the case, can i create a sectoin that talks about India's palaces and temples and then have pictures on the side? And if the answer is yes, is their a limit of pictures allowed? 71.106.93.44 (talk) 18:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
The answer is no. The country pages are to follow the WP:COUNTRIES guideline for section, and also be written in summary style. But even before going over that, please DO acknowledge first that, Wikipedia is NOT a travel brochure. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 18:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey Ragib u have a wonderful personality 71.106.93.44 (talk) 00:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Aryan, for your "endorsement of my personality". It will still be much better if you learn the wikipedia policies, norms, and guidelines first. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 04:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Good pictures of India are always in demand. But don't put everything about India on India page. Only the 'best' should be put here. You can always have the relevant pictures on the relevant articles. There are so many other India-related articles that lack good pictures. Trust me, if you get the pictures on those poor articles you help everybody - the ones who write them and strive hard for their improvements + the ones who read them. Start your contributions there and it will get noticed (with a big thanks). --gppande «talk» 18:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Ya I understand but I was hoping to put more good pictures here on this article. I mean when people want to learn about India, I think it would be nice to have some pictures. Cant we just have some pictures on this article about places in India, even if they dont relate to the exact paragraph? I mean we can have this thing where we can have pictures while scrolling down the article just as random nice places in India. 71.106.93.44 (talk) 00:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
And, by the way, you don't put pictures on an article, unless you intend to make a hard-copy of the article and place your pictures on it. If such indeed is your intent, I doubt any one here is going to stop you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Gppande makes a good point. The main India page has a lot of beautiful pictures. But because of Wikipedia:Main article fixation many other articles related to India are lacking in good images. List of basic India topics is a good starting place to see which articles could benefit from more images. GizzaDiscuss © 02:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Well why not just put them on both? Why not have pictures here on India and on the other articles too? I mean yes this article has some good pictures. But there are plenty plenty more. I mean i found some of these pics on other articles on wikipeida, and some of them i would think would be great for India. BUt if that bothers people, then how about having a section like "places in India" or "palaces of India"? 71.106.93.44 (talk) 23:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

better pictures

this article seriously needs some better pics of india --60.50.66.130 (talk) 14:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I have wonderful pictures of places in India but i dont know how to put them up....if Someone wants the pictures ill give them to you, and you can put them up....or you can get them from my myspace page....go to myspace.com/India100, and you will have lots of very very nice pictures of India. Please use them! 71.105.82.152 (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Dude, upload them to Flickr, that's what most pics on Wikipedia are from. Tri400 (talk) 13:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Can you help me? My actual user name is Aryan818 but ive been blocked and banned from editing becuase some morons think im a white supremacist nazi or something. But my name is Aryan and i live in the 818 area code, so thats why i put Aryan818. I had other people on wikipedia put in my website that i should not be banned or blocked , and yet there are morons out there who still take advantage of their power and try to ban and block me, even though it clearly says in my page DO NOT BLOCK THIS USER because ARYAN IS HIS NAME, AND 818 IS HIS AREA CODE. So can someone help me? Can someone PLEASE UNBLOCK ME? My user name is Aryan818. 71.105.82.152 (talk) 17:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Is someone going to help me or what? I have tons of pictures I want to load for this website, but I want to load it as a user not as a LOGGED OUT USER....the problem is my user name is banned from editing because some moron thinks im a white nazi or something, even though my page says not to block me. The person who did this was the user Zoe.....Can somebody please lift this stupid ban so I can edit? I want to give nice pictures of India 71.105.82.152 (talk) 18:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Can't you make a new username? That way you can upload pictures and you will be respected. It is a win-win situation. GizzaDiscuss © 07:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Gizza, That would be block evasion. The new account will get blocked too. S/he will have to wait out the block or request for a unblock. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 07:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Just FYI, related block incident and block log. The last block was an indef block on the name. I feel a unblock request has a good chance of success...since Aryan is a common name. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 07:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I feel a new user name is a good option to pursue. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 08:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, sorry I didn't make myself clear. I was familiar with the incident before and knew it was an indef block based on a username, not on any sort of bad editing. GizzaDiscuss © 08:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok so is somebody gonna unblock me or what? My user name is Aryan818 71.105.82.152 (talk) 23:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
That's not an issue to discuss in *this* talk page. Please make your request at Admin's noticeboard. --Ragib (talk) 00:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok im unblocked! Whoo hoo! Ok ill put up pictures sometime soon hopefully ARYAN818 (talk) 21:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
By the way how many pictures can I put up? Becuase I have alot of really good ones! ARYAN818 (talk) 21:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Upload the pictures to commons: and we can comment about it here. If it's seriously good, have a try at putting it up on WP:DP. 07:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Well which one should I give it to? Both? And what about just putting it up on this article? Or should I do it to all 3?71.105.82.152 (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, ARYAN818 WAS CRAPPING ABOUT HIS ALLEGED PICTURES JUST TO GET UNBLOCKED TO CONTINUE HIS NONSENSE. SO FAR NOTHING HAS BEEN UPLOADED BY HIM. ANYWAY, HERE ARE SOME GREAT IMAGES I FOUND ON OTHER WP PAGES THAT WE CAN USED. I DUNNO WHY I CAN'T EDIT THIS PAGE. PERHAPS TO PREVENT VANDALISM? SO SOMEBODY, PLEASE CHOOSE THE BEST AND INCLUDE THEM:

  • Gateway View
    Gateway View
  • Shri Narayan Temple, Jaipur
    Shri Narayan Temple, Jaipur
  • Umaid Bhawan
    Umaid Bhawan
  • Jal Mahal Jaipur
    Jal Mahal Jaipur
  • Palace Gardens
    Palace Gardens
  • Meherangarh Fort
    Meherangarh Fort
  • New Delhi Temple
    New Delhi Temple
  • Exterior
    Exterior

THANKS 60.50.65.243 (talk) 12:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

And people wonder why I sometimes type the way I type....This gets a freaking pass and can telll everyone that I was crapping about my alleged pictures to get unblocked. Well first of all if that were true so what? I should not have been unblocked. And secondly i have tons of pics...I left comments about them and got responses....And if you scroll up i was the last one to comment about this (pictures) and I dont people have replied (at least not here) so what do u want me to do force people to reply? I know i could just upload them. But I dont want to waste my time uploading them if people are just going take them out. And ive been told some things (scroll up) that I didnt understand, so I left a comment about it. 71.105.82.152 (talk) 19:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I am fedup with the Marble Taj Mahal and a temple. No variety at all.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 13:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Time to change the military image. Suggest something.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 13:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, these two rock, esp. the 1st one: [12] , [13] 218.208.204.50 (talk) 15:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

[14] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.70.40 (talk) 12:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

O.K, the PAD test is round the corner, so the PAD image is better suited. I will add the PAD image to replace the Su-30 image.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 13:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Nikkul says he had to tilt his head to view the image and cannot just look at it straight. Do anyone has this problem and oppose the inclusion of it. Then express it here. If there is no opposition, the Pradyumna image will be added.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 03:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Since no one has objection to it, the image has been changed to Pradyumna.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 03:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The sports section need an update. What about this image

. This image is that of a boat race.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 03:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I strongly oppose the inclusion of PAD image. The image has undesirable disturbances, is not of that great quality and does not show the concerned missile entirely. --Emperor Genius (talk) 05:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
@ Chanakyathegreat, let's wait on this. The absence of opposition does not indicate consensus. We should wait a little longer to gauge the opinions of active and semi-active users before making such changes. Thanks AreJay (talk) 06:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Can we do with less building images? PS The GoI image seems to have a suspect licence. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
How can anyone support adding an image which is tilted? The missile is not even completely built, the image doesnt show the full missile and this image is not encyclopedic especially not for an FA. Nikkul (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

There should be Two section for Foreign relations and military

There should be Two section for Foreign relations and military. Even articles like Nigeria have two section when Nigeria hardly has an army as big as India's. Another thing pl. increase the size of this page it is much smaller than articles about much smaller countries like argentina etc., it is also smaller than the german version of the India article Enthusiast10talk18:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You had previously opened the same discussion and based on the responses you got (0 responses) you should understand. This is not a place to voice your opinion about India's foreign policy or what you think of Indian PM. --gppande «talk» 15:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Pl. do not take it so personally, I did get a comment from Nikkul, if u see the history and Nikkul agreed that the section should be made longer. I'm just asking for permission to make it longer so if others agree I would do that. Enthusiast10 talk 21:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
i think its a good idea Gsingh (talk) 03:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
This is a repeated question. Please see the FAQ. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Bush and Manmohan image

I think the Bush and Manmohan image in the foreign relations section should be removed. Why only US is chosen in foreign relations? Why not Putin? It is giving extra weight to the United States. May be the US at present is largest military, but that is not a reason to keep this image, it shows US-centric bias. In general it will be good to have no image showing India's relation with a particular country. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It was included because it was a readily available public domain image. If you have access to similar images of Indian premiers with other world leaders, feel free to build consensus on their applicability and add them to the article. Thanks AreJay (talk) 04:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Inaccuracies in the Topographic map of India

The river in the south of India is Cauvery or Kaveri (not Kasveri) ; The river south of the river Godavari is Krishna and not Tapati  ; The river Beas is missing in the Indus river basin in the North West (not directly relevant) and other minor doubts that I have to verify! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.221.175.34 (talk) 13:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Demographics Section needs to Show Urban Areas

Hi Gentle Folk of India Wiki page,

The demographics sections is showing political jurisdictions by giving a list of cities, for want of administrative effectiveness certain corporations choose to delink their urban nodes as separate municipalities. As a direct result their city limits would be reduced hence a city based estimate of population does not give the actual floating polulation in an urban area neither does it explain the demographics ( urban/rural) of that area. At this outset dont you guys feel that a list of 'urban areas' would give the better projection to this section.

I was able to find an internal article on urban areas List_of_urban_areas_by_population

Cheers, --Mel Vilander (talk) 14:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Per a request, a template for this purpose has been made and is located at {{Urban areas in India by population}} Adam McCormick (talk) 23:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Not sure if another template was needed since this already exists. In any case, I'm not sure how accurate the new template is – it seems to be missing Chennai. AreJay (talk) 23:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes this new template is missing 'chennai ' but it is a human error, it does exist in the original list[[15]]. I would try to request an updation for the template. As for the difference between the ' urban area template' and the list of metropolitan areas[[16]] is the same as cities list. Metropolitan areas are also a list of political juristrictions just that they are bigger groupings formally administred by the government. The significance of urban areas is that it would project the actual demographics of the big cities of india which is more valuble for our article. Ofcourse this is open for discussion.

Greets --Mel Vilander (talk) 14:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Folks please check out the template {{Urban areas in India by population}} it is correct now, if we reach a consensus we can edit the demographics section.--Mel Vilander (talk) 07:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "CIA" :
    • {{cite web |title=CIA Factbook: India |work=[[CIA Factbook]] |publisher=[[Central Intelligence Agency]] |url=https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/in.html |accessdate=2007-03-10}}
    • {{cite web |title=CIA Factbook: India |work=[[CIA Factbook]]| url=https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/in.html |accessdate=2007-03-10}}
  • "English-subsidiary" :
    • {{cite web |title=Notification No. 2/8/60-O.L., dated 27 April, 1960 |work=[[Ministry of Home Affairs (India)|Ministry of Home Affairs]], [[Government of India]] |publisher=[[National Informatics Centre|National Informatics Centre(NIC)]] |url=http://www.rajbhasha.gov.in/preseng.htm |accessmonthday=July 4 |accessyear=2007}}
    • {{cite web |title=Notification No. 2/8/60-O.L. (Ministry of Home Affairs), dated 27 April, 1960||url=http://www.rajbhasha.gov.in/preseng.htm|accessmonthday=July 4 |accessyear=2007}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

About Lacking Content

I am little dissatisfied with article India. It's T20 WC, 8 time olympic hockey champs (gold) are not written but they are present in pak...article. :-(
It's mineral reserves are also not elaborate. Instead the govt. section is very large.
And another query : Does the article need Pictures. I have a few...

  • 1 map (3d).gif but v.v.high resolution
  • 1 monsoon chart....animated (arival/depart) .gif (I like it)
  • Kapil Dev with WC 1983
  • Mountbatten with J Nehru...Transfer of power 1947

File:Partition .jpg Pl tell me the one to upload.
Thanks
;-) By 127.0.0.1 ( Report ) [ Evidence | Block ] On :: 09:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by a 3d map? About maps, svg maps are preferred to gif ones, as technically, SVG do not have any resolution. Are all the other images free ones? If so, you can upload it, we can use it on some other pages. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


3d India map

;-) By 127.0.0.1 ( Report ) [ Evidence | Block ] On :: 13:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Have you made this map? If not, it would have to be deleted as a copyviolation. The current SVG map of India has a higher 'native resolution' (resolution drawn). Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
The map is also POV, and old. See the state of Madhya Pradesh, Bihar and UP.

how is the geographical land of south asia utilised

reference to be made with fallow land,uncultivated lands,forest lands —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.225.76 (talk) 03:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

First line

Shouldnt the first line of this article be the first line of the Constitution ? India, that is Bharat, is a Union of States. That is the fundamental characteristic of India. A country in South Asia is just a geographical detail. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 04:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

That sounds so very legalese, and not very encyclopaedic. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Can we say India is a Union of States in South Asia ? That covers both the federal political structure and the geographical location. Most countries do have a note about their sub-national structure in the intro, see Germany (a FA) for example which mentions it in the third para of its intro. Esp. since we say stuff like multi-lingual, pluralistic it would be good to indicate how some of these identities are accomodated. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 12:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I changed it, see if it works for you guys. I think it gives a lot more info abt India in a succint way. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 16:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I have reverted it for want of grammar and placement. ...federal Union of States.... For one, federal implies a centre-state relationship, so union of states is rendered redundant. Secondly, by replacing country with the above term, it creates an undesired noun stack which would make it a little more difficult to read by a casual observer. Let the word country remain in the beginning. Thirdly, Union of States should be in lower case. If the need be, the political structure can come lower in the lead. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
How about, 'It is a parliamentary federal republic consisting of 28 states and 7 union territories.' as the second line ? I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 01:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
That seems better, but where do you plan to add it? =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
How about either the very second line of the intro (immediately after describing the geographical location) or the first line of the last para (which talks about contemporary India) ? I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 16:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


Wonder if its misinterpretations might play into seperatrist ideals but still sounds better than the present first line.--Mel Vilander (talk) 07:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference largestdem1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:India/Archive_21&oldid=1235503689"