Talk:India

Need help

may you make photos of Indian Plated mail and Mirror armour? especially interested in famous sind-armour (Idot (talk) 03:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC))

Please post request on WP:INB. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

GDP

Hi There,

GDP and Per Capita income need to be updated as in Hindi version. The data should not be different whether one is on Hindi Pages or in English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deep1012 (talk • contribs) 12:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Updated for which year and according to which statistics (World Bank, IMF)? Has the Economy of India page been updated? If not, please post first on Talk:Economy of India and gain consensus there for this edit. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion of other territories of Goa (India)

This is for your kind information that there exist other territories within the territory of Goa. The teritories comprises of village communes called as 'COMMUNES OF GOA'(also called as 'Comunidades' in Portuguese and 'Gaunkaries' in Konkani). There are a total of 223 Communes in Goa. More than two-third of the land of Goa (other than forest)belongs to the Communes and the rest belongs to the Government of Goa. As of today the Govt. Of Goa (India) stands illegally on the Comunidades. A grave error has been committed by not including the same in the 'Administrative Divisions' section. A request has been made to wiki:Goa page too.

Kindly coordinate and edit as follows;

Administrative Divisions

28 states

7 Union territories

223 Communes of Goa

A link on 'Communes of Goa' is desired on the India page.

I request members to be careful before making rude comments especially if ignorant of the facts. Kindly make necessary changes immediately because a comprehensive article on 'The Communes of Goa' is due to be published on wikipedia.

References are given below; For more information; http://www.geocities.com/newagegoa/Chapter8.html?1146661378765 --Gaunkars of Goa (talk) 19:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

India is Bharat

Bharat Ganarjya is only the term for the "Republic of India".

And why do you delete the region informations? --Ultramegasuperstar (talk) 15:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The edit was reverted for the following reasons:

1. Deliberate change to weblinks to incorrect addresses
2. Removal of Official name, that is, Bharat Ganarajya See official gov website

--KnowledgeHegemony ^talk 16:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

reply to 1) I don't understand anything from point. Please give a detailed explanation of it.

2)Ok, that maybe the official name for the "Republic of India". But there is still an official name for India itself, and this is Bharat...--Ultramegasuperstar (talk) 15:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Though titled 'India' (presumably per WP:COMMONNAME - does this apply to local languages as well?), the article is about the 'Republic of India' (hence the ganarajya). The lead is bit confusing because it sort of seamlessly flows between the historical India and the Republic (for example, the reference to the Indus Valley Civilization which is largely in modern Pakistan) but, given the history of India, unavoidable. --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 16:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You got it wrong. There are two official names for India. There is India itself as found in the constitution and the official name for official purposes. Both are official translations of the same country... Bharat is India, and Bharat Ganarajya is India Republic. This article is clearly about India. If you want to write an article about Republic of India, you can start an article and start copyediting. :-) --Ultramegasuperstar (talk) 17:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, the last one was a joke! Here is a serious proposal. India () or Republic of India () --Ultramegasuperstar (talk) 17:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

after several years of watching this, I am convinced that keeping this article at India only gives us grief. "India" may mean several things, depending on context, see India (disambiguation). The scope of this article is the Republic of India ONLY. Now this is made plain as plain in the very first line after the page title, but many people seem still to be unable to to read as far as even that before starting to complain or create confusion. Talk about short attention spans!

I suggest that we should move this article to Republic of India. India would still be a redirect, to save us from link piping hell, but the ambiguous title would finally be the {{redirect}}, while the actual page title will finally be unambiguous. --dab (𒁳) 22:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I wonder how some other country pages manage it. The following should have similar problems: France (fifth republic 1958), Germany (Berlin Republic 1994), Greece (Democratic Republic, 1975). I'm sure there are many others. Whether they are similarly afflicted by attempts to glorify antiquity, would be interesting to know. Your suggestion, Dab, is not a bad one. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

India may be a bit different because of the differences between the historical India and the Republic of India. Much of the history of India is centered around the area that is now divided between India and Pakistan (would Pakistan refer to its historical nation as 'Bharat'!). France and Germany, though their histories are fuzzy around their border regions (and, in the case of Germany, the nation idea is more recent), have relatively well defined historical trajectories. India's historical trajectory is, well, sort of broken. (All nations, IMO, glorify their past, more so when the present doesn't smell that great. That is what nationalism is all about!)--Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 01:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Well spoken, RP. I especially like, "would Pakistan refer to its historical nation as Bharat!" To that you could add Bangladesh; and perhaps southern India, especially Tamil Nadu; eastern India, especially Arunachal Pradesh; Jammu and Kashmir, especially Ladakh; and perhaps even tribal areas such as Bastar. I think some suitably encyclopedic version of this sentiment might be added to the FAQ section to counter the persistent suggestions of adding a boldfaced "Bharat," as a synonym for the subcontinent of antiquity, to the lead sentence. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

India (Bharat) is associated only with the Republic of India. Contrary to this the "Indian subcontinent" as the whole region is called by everybody, may refer to Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Nepal and so on. India is as old as the Indian Republic. Hence the scope of this article should be everything about the Republic only. I searched around the country articles and I found particularly the China way interesting. I think the China article is used like the "Indian subcontinent" as a region, with its history and culture all through the ages, whereas the People's Republic is used to describe all the political stands on the various topics. I don't know whether "China" is the right name to refer to that region, but the "Indian subcontinent" has not this problem. Much content in the current India version would have to be moved to the Indian subcontinent article, such as the history content until Independence, and a direct link should be provided in the first lines to refer to the region page with its whole history. I think, this would be the right way. --Ultramegasuperstar (talk) 17:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Can't we just move this article to Republic of India to avoid all the confusion? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Recent Edits

I have made recent edits to several sections of the India Wiki page. The objective was to present more information and relevant references to enable readers to get a deeper glimpse. This new version was undone with a recession to an older version with the justification that it was a "dramatic" edit and required consensus on the talk page. In view of this, I request active editors/viewers to make suggestions by comparing the current version and older versions and determining whether the new content really needs to be removed. I believe sincerely that the new content adds more detail about the various aspects of India and in addition two sections that had been hitherto ignored - Indian society (as distinct from culture) and Science and technology, which was omitted from previous versions.

Best Regards. --User:Techraj (talk) 13:39 ET, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this on the talk page! The main additions under dispute are the Society and Science and Technology sections you added, which I have quoted below for easy reference.

Society section

Indian society is characterized by the same pluralism and multiculturalism that defines Indian culture. Most Indians living in the rural areas. Indian cities are characteristically densely populated and are home to all the major cross sections of Indian society, although the compositions of the cities change between different locations. Large Indian metropolitan cities are increasingly cosmopolitan and attract visitors and immigrants from all over India, from other cities and from the villages. The income gap between the poor and the rich in India is vast. It is common to see many contrasting economic faces of India in most Indian cities. The advent of globalization and consumerism is evident in most Indian metropolitan cities, such as Mumbai, Delhi, Bangalore, Chennai, Hyderabad and Kolkata. Large Indian cities have recently recorded increased domestic violence, street gangs and crime. Corruption, Terrorism and Communal Violence have also been features of Indian society in recent years. India has seen terrorist attacks on its soil perpetrated by terrorist organizations based in Pakistan and Afghanistan. India has also seen the widespread sectarian violence because of a number of Naxalite groups in in the eastern and northern parts of India. The Indian media is a vibrant Fourth Estate which has emerged out of the relaxed information policies of the Indian government in recent years. Indian newspapers such as The Telegraph, The Times of India and The Hindu have had a long history of reputed news reporters and journalists who have now taken to the television medium as well. India is served by the All India Radio, a government service with news and entertainment, as well as by Doordarshan, the national television channels. With the increase in television ownership in urban and rural homes across India, there has been a proliferation of Indian news channels such as NDTV, CNN-IBN and Times Now in addition to entertainment channels. The Indian news media has recently been involved in several high profile events such as the Kargil war and December 2008 Mumbai terror attacks and has been severely criticized on occasion on account of being sensationalist. A large number of Indian diaspora are present in countries like the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Germany, UAE and other countries in Europe and the Middle East. Diaspora from Indian states like Punjab, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat are commonly represented amongst Indian disapora abroad, especially in the United States.

Science and technology

Main articles: Science and technology in ancient India and Science and technology in India Infosys Media Centre in Bangalore. Science and technology have always been areas where India has made its mark. Indian metallurgists were responsible for the iron pillar of Delhi built 300 years after the Christian era. Ancient Indian texts such as the Vedanga Jyothisha contain elaborate observations of heavenly objects. The great Indian astronomer and mathematician Aryabhata was responsible for several key breakthroughs in furthering the way humans understood the universe and predated Nicholas Copernicus by nearly 1000 years in proposing the Heliocentric theory. India was the only region in ancient times to have perfected the art of diamond mining. Indian mathematician Srinivasa Ramanujan is generally regarded as one of the greatest mathematicians of all time. Indian physicist C V Raman was awarded a Nobel Prize in physics in 1928. Although India started as a poor country after Independence, over the next five decades, it developed into a formidable technological power in South Asia. The precedents that led to this technological rise were an increase in literacy levels, agricultural productivity and the rise of urban centres. Some of the events that chronicle India's technological progress are the launch of its first satellite Aryabhata in 1975 and its Operation Smiling Buddha the previous year, when it conducted an underground nuclear test. The development of telecommunications and nuclear reactors and research stations like the BARC, led by Homi J Bhabha led to development.. India has developed indigenously a capability to launch satellites into low-earth, polar and geostationary orbits. The ASLV, PSLV and GSLV as well as the INSAT series of satellites stand testimony to its successful space program. It has also developed and manufactured the Advanced Light Helicopter as well as the LCA Tejas as indigenous airpower alternatives. India has also progressed on the realty and infrastructure front with companies like Larsen and Toubro, DLF and others paving the way forward. India's first supercomputer to be listed amongst the fastest computers on earth was the Param Padma in 2003 developed at the Center for Development of Advanced Computing. Economic liberalization and the information technology revolution in the 1990s have both led to India taking a centre stage in the world as one of the leading nations in terms of information technology. Leading technology companies around India and the world such as IBM, Microsoft, Cisco Systems, Infosys, Tata Consultancy Services, Wipro and others have set up offices in Indian cities like Bangalore, Chennai and Hyderabad.

Before we re-add these sections to the article, we need to decide:

1. Whether we want such sections in the main article, or if they are undue in a summary style article ? Previous discussions (see archives) have suggested an opposition to such additiona, but consensus can change.
2. What content any proposed new section should include and what references should be used ? I hope that, if we do decide to add a new section, we can compose its content on the talk page (or a subpage) so that we ensure succinct but comprehensive coverage, neutral language and selection of topics, and use of high-quality and authoritative sources.

I could critique the language and content in the additions above, but I think that is premature till we actually resolve the first question and I do appreciate that the additions were done in good faith. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 02:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Abecedare's remarks. Previous discussions have not been kind to the idea of adding new sections. Besides the "parent articles" are the ones that need work; in other words, they should be peer-reviewed and should at least be GAs. As for the additions themselves, here are two quick points.

• The Society addition mentions at the outset, "Most Indians (live) in the rural areas." However, after that, it says nothing about these rural Indians. It talks about the cities, about how diverse they are, about the problems they are beset with, including terrorism, about the media (an entire paragraph!), and (strangely enough) about "diaspora Indians" (another small paragraph). Where does it propose to discuss the large rural segment (two-thirds) of the population of India?
• The Science and Technology section mentions Aryabhata trumping Copernicus. I'm afraid this is the kind of bogus nonsense that patriotic historians of science in India have been routinely foisting upon their readers (after it was initially proposed by B. L. van der Waerden). Aryabhatta did not propose anything that was different from the several Greek heliocentric theories that were widely known in his time. As for Ramanujan being one the greatest mathematician of all time, he was certainly one of the great mathematical geniuses of all time, especially in combinatorial number theory. However because he didn't live long, his output was thin. His work would likely not be included in the top five or six results in number theory of the last 100 odd years (such as Andrew Wiles's solution of Fermat's last theorem, Jacques Hadamard's proof of the Prime number theorem, the Selberg trace formula, Gerd Faltings's work on Mordell's conjecture, Pierre Deligne's on the Weil conjectures, or Enrico Bombieri's on the Large sieve. Ramanujan was great, but we have to keep our perspective. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I can take this article on a dedicated sandbox page on my user pages, and we can edit it there until satisfactory. Just commenting on different points does not improve anything. Nshuks7 (talk) 10:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You must mean the proposed sections. An FA has to be stable, so any proposed changes will still need to be discussed on this talk page; however, before any such edits can be discussed, the need for such sections has to be established. The proposed sections already have their parent articles, History of Indian science and technology and Science and technology in India, which have been greatly expanded as a result of the work of user:JSR. It is there that your offer of help should be directed. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The newspaper section is definitely undue. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 04:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion of Northern Territories

Pakistan does not include Indian administered Kashmir(I.A.K) in its main map. Kindly explain why the main main information box on India has a map including Pakistan Administered Kashmir(P.A.K)? Should the Pakistan wikipedia article add I.A.K in light green as well? Or should the India article remove it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.58.66 (talk) 23:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

See Question 1 at Talk:India/FAQ to understand why the map in this article is drawn the way it is. If you have concerns about the map used in Pakistan article, please raise it at Talk:Pakistan. Abecedare (talk) 00:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

---

public health and religion should be seperate contents like France

Namaskar frieds (hello),this article is very accurate and sublime but,public health and religion in india should be in main page with neat and short information , it will help to readers to know about religion and public life .And like Germany Infrastructure ,Science ,Education content chapters will enfocus the other important aspects if india, aren't they? so i think that will make India very understandable. wqwqwqwq 07:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC) 07:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)Rajvaddhan

Taking a clue out of the above, I suggest that we subdivide the Culture topic into subheadings like France and Germany. It'll make the section much more readable and organized. Nshuks7 (talk) 07:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)