# Talk:India/Archive 6

## Punjabi cinema?

Pardon my ignorance, but will somebody please explain how Punjabi cinema is a 'strong' cinema industry? Or is someone also counting all the 'hindi' movies that come out with liberal doses of punjabi thrown in? And why on earth is the wikilink for Punjabi cinema(??) pointing to some movie? Is that the only movie that's been made in the history of Punjabi cinema? I am surprised that a new ip user is bitten when he/she tries to make some edits and I am given hell when I try to retain them, but many edits over the past few days pass unscrutinised. Somebody please explain. Sarvagnya 05:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not an important industry as yet in India. Rgds--Darrendeng 06:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
It should be removed. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Bro I've learned one thing about Wikipedia...Yes u get info fast....But there are alot of people who go nuts & ku ku if u make changes they dont like....It doesnt matter if u have evidence....or worst.....LOGIC....They just want the article there way....If u dont believe me....Just look down at the next dispute about LAND OF THE ARYANS.... ARYAN818 22:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

## No mention of LAND OF THE ARYANS?

Most Indians, (along with Iranians, Afghans, etc.) are of Aryan heritage. Most of the evidence that Aryans came from India.....is in India.....not Euorope....In ancient times the land was known as Bharat or land of the Aryans,....and yet...this article acts like India's oldest civiliazation was the "Indus Valley" people.....I mean India's history goes longer & deeper then that and I think there should be mention of its Aryan heritage ARYAN818 22:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, why don't you add it then?--SUIT 04:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
No it is not necessary. See the comments in the header. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
See thats why I dont add it...Cuz people like NICHALP are just going to erase it anyway ARYAN818 22:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

## Revolutionary changes to the article

I think it is a bad idea to make revolutionary changes to an FA without consulting other editors, in particular when they are unsourced. Doing so tends to decrease the quality of the article, and as an FA is supposed to be of highest quality, the article may be de-FAed as a result. The same applies to adding on sentences, as it may decrease the flow of the article if not done carefully, and over time will result in a loss of an FA. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

## Military of India

{{#invoke:main|main}}

India maintains the third largest military force in the world. The armed forces of India consists of the Indian Army, Indian Air Force and the Indian Navy. There are auxillary forces like the Indian Paramilitary Forces, the Indian Coast Guard and the Strategic Forces Command. India is a declared nuclear weapons nation. The Indian Army maintains the second largest active troops in the world. The Indian Navy is the fifth largest in terms of manpower and the Indian Air Force is the fourth largest in the world. The President of India is the supreme commander of the Indian armed forces.

Expand it here and later can be added to the main article. Chanakyathegreat 04:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Current draft is too choppy =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

## will scripts be removed from this article as well seeing as they do not help?

Wikipedia:Vernacular_scripts--D-Boy 06:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

## Ayyavazhi Discussion

moved to Talk:India/Ayyavazhi—Preceding unsigned comment added by BostonMA (talkcontribs) 19:02, December 3, 2006

## Repetitive Edits in India Lead and InfoBox

I just wanted to point out that there is one kind of edit that keeps reappearing in the lead on the India page. It is the sentence:

India emerged as a modern nation-state in 1947, when the subcontinental populace expelled all non-native traders in an intense movement of social reforms and forged it into a single nation.

This edit is identical to edits made by user:Himalayanashoka and IP user:202.56.248.6 in September and October. The latter users were also tampering with the info box, inserting "Indus Valley Civilization" instead of "UK", etc., which resulted in multiple blocks for them: user talk:Himalayanashoka and user talk:202.56.248.6. Now the identical edit is being made by a new IP: 202.83.106.103. My concern is that this user (or users) refuse to engage in debate, but keep inserting the same text or making the same info box changes, resulting in extra work for other editors. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC) (Corrected Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC))

I have blocked the user who just tampered with the infobox. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
This line has been put to rephrase the line "Colonised as part of the...." It is pathetic to see that the language used is very Eurocentric and not at all Indocentric whereas the article is Indic. The line "Colonised as part of the...." is highly derogatory and Eurocentric and must be presented in a Indocentric manner wothout changing the meaning and hence the term "expulsion" instead of "colonised". Pls discuss so that it can be changed. User:Himalayanashoka
Why is it derogatory? Please provide concrete proof and not your personal biases. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

## Formation of India Information

There has been lot of edit redits on the formation of India information. This is finally being put here again in the Talk Page. India as a country did not suddenly appear one fine night in the mid of August 1947. It has always been there existing as a continuous territory. Even China and other European countries have had chequered history but they always trace their existence to recorded yore. A country like France which was occupied by Germany does not celebrate its Independence Day from Nazi Germany. "Colonised" is an Eurocentric term whereas Indians called it "Quit India" or "expelling the non-natives". Indic articles should not present Eurocentrism views but present as viewed from India. Japanese history never admits of WW2 atrocities while it is known and studied worldwide. The lexical presentation of a country article must be such that it presents a positive but factually correct picture. I thus strongly feel that the words such as "Colonised" should be rephrased and "Formation" be restored to the earlier one and not just "Independence". Please discuss. Himalayanashoka 13:01, 06 Dec 2006 (UTC)

Where are your sources? Per Wikipedia policy, we need citations, no matter how cogent the argument. Please cite a reliable Indian history book or journal article that uses "expelling the non-natives" and that doesn't use the word "colonised" or "colonial". Wikipedia doesn't take any one view; both the colonized and the colonizer are represented. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
The word "Colonised" or "Colonizer" itself is Eurocentric and derogatory. So don't put Eurocentric views on an Indic site. Indic sites must be interpreted from an Indic point of view or should be fully impartial without derogatory words. Otherwise please agree for an Independence Day for France from Nazi Germany. Wikipedia has always represented an impartial interpretation of history. Textbooks in India (NCERT/State boards) always mention the non-natives/British as occupiers and non-bonafide residents trying to take over the reigns of governance. The word colonizer is not mentioned. The NCERT books also mentions that most Indian kingdoms deliberately gave over the reigns to foster development very much aware of the fact that as in the past any non-natives will be thrown away or absorbed. And this is what happened as always.
To not to divert from the Formation topic, India as a country always existed. Of course the map has not been the same. This is true for China, Europe, NAmerica as well. So there has to be a Formation column starting with the Indus Valley Civilization. The IVC is very much connected to the Indian Vedic culture (pls refer wikipedia article). It was this Vedic culture which gave rise to the Indian writing scripts, languages and culture over a period of 4000 yrs. This did not happen overnight on 15 August 1947. India still follows most national symbology and Hindu laws, derived from the time of Emperor Ashok's reign and not the non-native incursions. So essentially the IVC and Emperor Ashok's empire must be included in the formation part. Himalayanashoka 16:41, 06 Dec 2006 (UTC)
This article is about the "Republic of India". Period. That settles it. Please come back when the Govt of India declares something else as the independence day. Thanks. --Ragib 08:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm definitely NOT saying that India's or Bangladesh's history began when they became independent in recent history. In fact, I have argued about this a lot, and will definitely state again that the history of countries extend to the distant past. However, they did became officially independent on the dates the respective govt recognize as their independence days. You have to respect the Govt of India's decision to observe 15th August as the independence day. Thanks. --Ragib 08:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Now you sound reasonable. Its precisely because of your stated reason, that the formation part essentially needs to be put. Also the concepts of Independence is Eurocentric. France celebrates liberation from Germany in a different way rather than as Independence even though they were nothing short of being governed directly by Germany for quite sometime. What I mean to say is that in both the sites (.IN, .BD) emphasis has to be put on the rich continuing less documented history rather than the immediate visible documented history. I believe the admin should now unprotect the IN site to put in the formation info and rephrase "colonised" with "expelled". Himalayanashoka 17:15, 06 Dec 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia, unfortunately, is only about well-documented history. See No original research. As I said earlier, you can make the most eloquent and heartfelt arguments, but we still need the citations, chapter and verse. Please provide them. Not "NCERT books," but something like the ones below, which, for example, use the word "colonial" on the page numbers given:
• Kulke, Hermann and Dietmar Rothermund. 2004. A History of India. Routledge. 448 pages. ISBN 0415329205. p 260-266.
• Wolpert, Stanley. 2003. A New History of India. Oxford University Press. 544 pages. ISBN 0195166787. p 265.
Again: please provide the citations in the format described; unless you do so, you will be wasting your time and ours. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Himalayanashoka, the onus is on you to cite your sources. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Himalayanashoka:

• Why is colonised a POV?
Colonised is a eurocentric POV because history textbooks in India always emphasizes on expelling non-natives, foreigners, British. So the proper Indic term is "Expulsion" not "Colonised". Do not try to follow whatever European textbooks write. Read some Indian history books and please give their reference, since I see that you are a regular contributor to the India page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Himalayanashoka (talkcontribs). at 03:51, 7 December 2006
Who said I am quoting European text books? And please, there's no need for that condescending attitude. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• India as an independent unified nation-state was never formed before 1947. It existed was a collection of kingdoms before that.
You should say just before the British arrived. Before there was a whole country called Hindustan, a whole Maratha empire, a whole Mauryan empire. Have you read Germany's history that it was known as the Holy Roman empire before becoming Germany? Your above statement is factually wrong.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Himalayanashoka (talkcontribs). at 03:51, 7 December 2006
Agreed, but they were all nations, not a nation-state. Please read the definations of both. In the history section, we have documented the history of India since it was first inhabited by man. I fail to see why you are still agitated. You apparently have not read my comments closely. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• To answer your question, YES the nation-state did appear overnight.
How do you say that India sprang up overnight? Have you read other countries histories how they have come up? Have you ever read the history of India textbooks in your school? Please do not come up with stupid illiterate fingerprint statements. Your statement is factually wrong. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Himalayanashoka (talkcontribs). at 03:51, 7 December 2006
Please remember one of Wikipedia non-negotiable policy no personal attacks. You first need to provide sources to support you view. I stand by my statement, the nation-state was formed in 1947. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Reply - Himalayan was commenting on the content, not on you. There's no need to beat a man when they're down.Bakaman 04:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Baka, Am I not reading correctly? "Please do not come up with stupid illiterate fingerprint statements" is a personal attack. It was not about the content. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 04:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Himalayn was attacking nichalp's statements using "illiterate fingerprint" as an adjective. Anyway, the poor dude got owned in the argument anyway, misquoting wiki policy doesnt seem like a proper gloating technique. Perhaps nichalp could have encouraged him to look at WP:CIVIL, the applicable policy.Bakaman 00:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

=Nichalp «Talk»= 13:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Himalayanashoka: You still haven't given us the citation. Again, the format is: author, year, title, publisher, and page number. I would add that, in general, high-school history text-books, like NCERT books, are not the most reliable sources for a Wikipedia Featured Article. College-level or research-level texts or journal articles are preferable. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, then where's the article for pre-Independence India. Also just remember, this article is entitled India, not Republic of India in a similar way to People's Republic of China as opposed to the China article. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 05:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
This is what I meant to say. When we say the India page it means right from zero to present. Should the France page be separated from the Fifth Republic (1960s), another one with Independence from Nazi Germany. All the facts presented in the Formation part of India page is linked in Wikipedia without requiring further references, and presented in a factually correct manner. In case we decide to change to the Formation part then we should change the pages of China, France, Germany too... Himalayanashoka 06:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
All I'm trying to say on this is that, please take the issue with the Govt of India. As long as it celebrates August 15 as the Independence day, you can't change that in this article. Thanks. --Ragib 06:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
This date of 15Aug47 was never changed in the Formation Infobox. But just as in the China page, France page, Germany page there is info related to formation, India must have a similar info, particularly with documented history going so far. CN, FR, DE were never geographically the same. Similarly India was also not the same. And it need not be repeated again that the whole culture has spawned from the Indus Valley Civilzn (ref Wkpd artcls).Himalayanashoka 06:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Himalayanashoka: Apparently "European POV" authors are not the only ones who use the word "colonial," here are two Indian authors:

"... part of the costs of transition to industrialism in western Europe were paid for by India, China, and the other colonial countries, whose economy was dominated by the European powers. It is obvious that there has been all along abundant material ..." p 300.
"Another feature of the (Natal Indian) Congress was service of Colonial-born educated Indians. The Colonial-born Indian Education Association was founded under the auspices of the Congress." p 151.

Still waiting for your citations ... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler as I have told earlier these references are from a period when Eurocentric thoughts had been imposed on the various parts of the world. This is no longer the truth and is 'not original research'. In any case to satisfy Wikipedia criteria and to denigrate Eurocentric POV.
Gandhi: 'Hind Swaraj' and Other Writings (Cambridge Texts in Modern Politics) by Mohandas Gandhi, John Dunn, Geoffrey Hawthorn, and Mahatma Gandhi (Paperback - Jan 28, 1997) Page 26 "... the revolutionaries' view that physical expulsion of the British from India is the necessary and sufficient ..."
Once again I may say that the India page must follow a Indic view or it has to follow a completely neutral view. Eurocentric views imposed at a certain period in history and thus its documented records, are not acceptable now. The sentence in dicussion should read "India emerged as a modern....expelled all non-natives...a single nation". The non-natives include the UK(GB), PT, FR who were thrown out by both non-violence and force.Himalayanashoka 07:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
The onus is on you to cite your sources. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is getting silly. Himalayanashoka a few points:

• We have cited our sources. We are waiting for you to cite yours. Without that, and it seems you are still to do so despite repeated reminders, what you say will be your personal version, which we cannot accept. If you fail to do so, it will be considered to be trolling.
• Please do not be condescending to other users. Support your statements with credible sources and keep the discussion going without resorting to calling editors disparaging names. Continuing to do so will get you blocked.
• See the defination of colony: In politics and in history, a colony is a territory under the immediate political control of a geographically-distant state. -- how is this statement a POV?
• The history section mentions key events that occured in the territory that makes up the modern nation-state.
• The modern nation-state was formed in 1947. Please see the defination of nation-state vs nation.
• 'Expelled' makes little sense. They weren't forcibly thrown out.

=Nichalp «Talk»= 08:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is important and not silly.
* Appropriate source has been cited (see reply to user:Fowler&fowler above). Its not about you personally have to accept. Nobody is cared about your personal opinion even if you have contributed to the site.
* It was not condescension. It was a befitting reply to wrong words such as "Period" "YES" etc, despite of whatsoever contributions one has made.
* As I have said earlier, "Colony" is a Eurocentric term and highly derogatory from an Asiatic or Indic view. One fails to see it because it has seeped deep. What you have given above is a dictionary meaning. Dictionary meanings are always neutral. It is how one interprets. In an FA Indic page one must write "Expulsion of non-natives" rather than the filthy sounding and derogatory "Colonised by..." The term "British" should also be properly denigrated in an Indic page without any POV.
* History: I once again say that it is the most recent history that's in one's mind. The less documented rich history must be emphasized. So the Formation part should be agreed upon with mutual consensus.
* You are correct about the term nation-state. I fully agree with you that the modern nation-state was formed in 1947.
* "Expelled" is a term perfect for an Indic page. It is to present an Asiatic/Indic view to others, when they read an Asiatic/Indic article. "Expelled" does not mean that one is thrown out forcibly. A diplomat also gets expelled, but it does not mean that he is beaten all the way to the airport.

Himalayanashoka 09:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Himalayanashoka:
Unfortunately, you didn't quote the complete sentence from the book Gandhi: Hind Swaraj and Other Writings completely. The book uses the word "expulsion" on two pages. Here are the full quotes:
• p 28. Footnote: "Here Gandhi attacks the revolutionaries' view that physical expulsion of the British is the necessary and sufficient condition of swaraj."
• p 73. "Editor: ... freeing others. Now you will have seen that it is not necessary for us to have as our goal the expulsion of the English. ..."
Note that in Hind Swaraj, Gandhi is the "Editor" and his interlocutor, the "Reader." Your citation in fact makes exactly the opposite point--that the physical expulsion of the British was not the sine qua non of independence.
Please provide a citation that supports your argument. If you think all writing from Gandhi's time is constrained by the "European POV," then provide your own modern untrammeled sources. But Wikipedia needs sources, reliable ones. Until that citation arrives, all your eloquence, as I have stressed before, will come to naught.
Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I very strongly suspect about your POVs. You seem to be bent towards searching and imposing only Eurocentric POVs to an Indic article to give it a negative and Euro-dominant image. It is also for you to search for Indic views, if you weant to polish up the article in a positive way. Gandhi's views at that time is definitely constrained by Eurocentric POV. I again emphasize that the switch of the terms "Expelled" and "Colonised" does not further need any reference and search for the usage of words in books, since an Asiatic/Indic page must represent an Asiatic/Indic view. An Indic article will not be written from Eurocentric view with highly derogatory sentences such as "Colonised by..." This is not about eloquence, but factual truths required in an Indic page. No references is needed to switch the two words mentioned. The sentence should now be changed to "India emerged...expelled all non-natives....a single nation-state". The term "non-natives" is to denigrate the word "British" without any POV. Himalayanashoka 10:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Himalayanashoka: OK, here are four sources. All Indian authors. All modern. All use words like "colonial" (which occurs on dozens of pages). All books are searchable on the websites. The last quote is lengthy because it makes an important point. Please read it carefully.

"The unprecedented expansion of the scope and scale of the colonial state followed the brutal repression of the rebellion of 1857-58 and the formal incorporation of colonial India into the British crown."
"Noting the successful transplantation of cinchona in the Nilgiris and looking forward to 'similar happy results ... [in] other hill districts of Southern India,' Markham suggests, "Thus will the successful cultivation of the quinine-yielding chinchona-plants confer a great and lasting benefit upon the commerce of the whole world." Here the imperial scientist-explorer is the agent of civilization; through him nature's benefits are conferred upon mankind. The scientist speaks and acts on behalf of nature, and is willing to go to great lengths to defend it against the actions of those less scientifically savvy than himself. Thus we are to understand that the local skirmishes over property rights that mark the initial phase of the chinchona project are fought—although they might contravene the laws of less advanced nations—in the name of all humanity, including the natives of colonized nations, who, although not truly able to know and to nurture nature, are still worthy of receiving the fruits of civilization."

The last quote is important, because although it uses the word "colonized," it is clearly resorting to some form of irony. Merely using "colonized" does not mean that one supports or condones any acts committed in the name of the word. Similarly, the sentence beginning "Colonised by the British East India Company..." does not mean that Wikipedia thinks it was a good thing or bad thing, but simply that it happened.

Now it is your turn to provide some sources for why we should use words like that use the word "nonnative" generically for the British, and "expelled" for the Indian independence movement. I look forward to your citations.Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Fowler, Ragib, please don't feed the trolls. No point continuing with a pointless discussion. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I have unprotected the page. Please remember the 3RR. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't like terms like "non-native expulsion". First of all, I have never heard it used in any scholarly textbook or anywhere until HimalayanAshoka came up with it. Secondly, the term evokes connotations of xenophobia, which the Indian Independence struggle was most certainly not. It was a peaceful struggle largely involving civil disobedience to negotiate the Independence of India from the Raj."Non-native expulsion" sounds like something from a rally of Neo-Nazi skinheads. I do not like it. I am ambivalent about the "colonized" word issue. Hkelkar 11:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Hkelkar, Thanks for your opinions. They are valuable but I strongly disagree with you on the xenophobia and neo-nazi part. In fact the non-natives British were like pre-nazis. You very conveniently forget their inhumanness during the occupation. I still feel that the word "Colonised" evokes feelings of Euro-dominance or Eurocentrism. I would be glad to hear any well-framed sentence which will show a strong Indic view. In any case the word "Colonised" will not be allowed to appear in the India page, and will be have to switch to another word such as "Expelled". "Non-native expulsion" does not sound like something from a rally of Neo-Nazi skinheads because of the fact that the occupiers were tresspassers trying to snatch power. The term "Non-native expulsion" at most could be changed to "Non-native traders' expulsion" or "expulsion of non-native traders" or "expulsion of non-native occupiers".
Hkelkar, This discussion also covers the inclusion of the 'Formation' information in the Infobox. Pls pay attention to User:Fowler&fowler when he is trying to minutely differentiate betwen BritishEIC and BritishCrown in the India page. People do not seem to have any argument over this. As I said, the term British itself has to be denigrated as "non-natives" or even more appropriately "non-natives traders" in the India page without deviating from facts.
Himalayanashoka 05:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

## Tibet

Tibet, which is currenty in control by China, is fighting for its freedom and has never agreed to this takeover. It is relevant to say, that the Tibetan governement in exile considers its country to be its country. Such as India considers Kashmir to be apart of the Indian Union. If we want to respect that Kashmir is apart of India, then we have to respect the fact that Tibet deserves the same treatment. It does not matter that China is in control of Tibet; that does not make it right nor justfied by the power of the gun. So, I claim that India shares a border with Tibet as it should and it could even state it is a so called Autonomous region of China but in order for us not to be overwhelmed by the negative Chinese influence, we need to admit this onto the India page. India shares a border with Tibet as it shares a border with Afghanistan. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jayjrn (talkcontribs) 05:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

We are differciating between a nation-state and nation when listing the countries tha border India. The ground situation is that the nation-state of PRC, which administers Tibet borders India. For his part, the Dalai Lama, the temporal and political head of Tibet has stated that he does not seek independence for Tibet [1] =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Only Hong Kong and Macau can be separated as separate entities from the PRC. Other regions must follow the national Chinese boundary. Thus, India does not border Tibet, it borders the PRC. Also, Wikipedia is not a place for you to promote your personal agenda. And I don't know what world you live in, but the power of the gun and actual occupation is indeed the number one justification of territorial claims. Thus, Tibet's chance of independence from China is several thousand-fold less than Taiwan's. --Mamin27 23:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

## Photographs on the Page

Photographs on the page don't give a balanced picture of mordern India. We should try to bring out the fact that India is such a unique country with so many culture and also that it is on road to progress. According to me, we are missing on visuals on most of topics about india. Can something be done about it? Also i would appreciate if someone can help in understanding how we upload pictures on wikipedia. --sticksnstones 13:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to contribute to the article. There are certain criteria which must be followed before you add images to the page.
1. The image should be free -- viz- free for commercial use, and free to make derivatives without conditions.
2. Image should be of a high resolution >1000px
3. Image should be colourful and be representative of the section that it is placed in.
4. Images should be regionally balanced. All regions of India should be represented on this page.
5. Please note, most of the images on the page are Featured Pictures

To upload picture, please make sure that they are *your* images, and you licence it as I've mentioned it above. Click the "upload" button on the menu to the left. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

## disambiguation

I edit a lot of historical articles, and it is quite unsatisfactory to have India be the article on the Republic of India (rather than geographically India). "Ancient India" confuses a lot of editors into insisting on a term "Ancient Pakistan" (just now, here). I know this was discussed before, but the present situation will not do; see also here: there is enough confusion to make it desireable to implement a solution analogous to China (the article on the cultural region, not the contemporary PRC). It's an English language problem, Bhārat Gaṇarājya (or even just Bhārat) would be unambiguous. This is a historical accident, but it is strictly a misnomer, since Ινδια is the area of the Indus, which is now not even part of the RoI at all. dab (𒁳) 17:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

China is a different case. If the Chinese would decide, their article would probably be called Zhongguo, or Zhōnghuá Rénmín Gònghéguó (the official name for "PRC"). China is a name mainly the foreigners use. The Chinese refer to their country as Zhōnghuá Rénmín Gònghéguó or PRC (see the official site of the PRC, and see the millions of google results for People's Republic of China"). Furthermore, there is also the Republic of China (=Taiwan), which has China in the name. (Pakistan, on the other hand, has not "India" in its name).
India, on the other hand, is usually referred to as India (see the offical site of India [2], see the relatively small number of google results for "Republic of India" (less than half a million), see the site of the President of India [3] (not of the Republic!), see the Prime Minister of India [4] and practically every offical or non-official site calls it India anyway (from the CIA factbook to the Embassies of India to the Yahoo Directory, ...). It's not only the Indians who call it India, its also the foreigners (like the USAID: [5], and the U.S. Consulats in India.) Even the Indian banknotes call it India. And the Russia article is also not at the "Russian Federation". Anyway, there is a disambiguation page, and it's linked from the top of the article, so I don't see the problem. --RF 18:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
That's not true. The Chinese refer to China as China in English. It's not just what foreigners use. No Chinese would say that the name for China should be Zhongguo in English. The Bank of China is called the Bank of China in English, not Bank of Zhongguo. So that's a bad example. --75.31.250.243 07:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
An Internet search also shows that "Russian Federation" has very many results, about 70 million, much more even that People's Republic of China", but the article is still at Russia. And many of the Google results for Russian Federation are not trivial ("Embassy of the Russian Federation", worldbank), unlike the mostly trivial ones for "Republic of India". -RF 21:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Pardon me,but is Maharashtra still a part of India? No mention about Maharashtra in addition with Bombay terminology. No Bombay, its Mumbai now. Have we forgotten that India is not just North or south, East and west Indian states deserve some place here.Marathi film industry is ignored, I hope people remember India's official entry to Oscars was Shwaas,a Marathi movie, 2 years back. Mrtag 07:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This article is about the political entity which has inherited most of the Indian subcontinent after partition, commonly known as India. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

And Maharashtra and Marathi (Bombay?) has no relavance here? Mrtag 08:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


I know, this isn't just about India. Per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countries#articles.27_scope I also suggest keeping the article on Russia at Russian Federation, that's another good example, since Vladivostok is in the Russian Federation but not in what we geographically or historically think of as "Russia". I know the RoI is mostly referred to as "India" just as the RF is mostly referred to as "Russia", but as an encyclopedia, we should be correct and precise, and as I pointed out, both cases lead to perpetual confusion. As Nichalp says, this article is about a political entity, while the term "India" has much wider application. The RoI has inherited most of India, it is true, but, as we all know, not all of it. A comparable case would be keeping USA at America because the USA "are commonly known as 'America'" dab (𒁳) 09:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed.This article is of RoI. But what's Bombay? It has no political existence. Its Mumbai as declared by Government of India along with Government of Maharashtra.
And inclusion of Marathi film industry is absolutely necessary. Indian film industy's foundations were laid by Dadasaheb Phalke.And no he is not a 'Bollywood' director,his movies are part of Marathi film industry. Marathi films are as significant as Bangla or Telugu. India is beyond mindless bollywood movies and North-south masalas. Mrtag 11:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreed Brother Mrtag. But for inclusion of Marathi film industry we first need a page with all deatils created then it can always be linked to main page 'India'. Can you please contribute in creating a new page. Apurv1980 14:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, the same rule should be applied to all country pages. It needs to be consistent. It is not right to single out only a couple of country pages - which will only lead to controversies. A practical rule could be that all country pages must be under the official and full name of the country. Such a rule could be formulated and then be consistently applied to all country pages. --RF 22:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Very true...Unfortunately there aint any page for Marathi cinema. I will find a source for it.Mrtag 04:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Dab, their is no real answer to this. You have some valid points. However, the fact is that you are going to have LOT MORE confused people when you start referring to the term "India" as Ancient India or as a geographical entity because the reality is lot different. In fact, I challenge your position that the current setup causes a lot of confusion (yes I went to the link you provided). I dont think "confused" is the right term - petty might fit better. My opinion is that it really does not matter either way but be prepared for - LOT MORE - confused people along with - LOT MORE - pettiness if this change goes through. So I reject this proposal on the belief that it will make the situation worse and it does not reflect the reality. Someone should check how the other enyclopedias address this before over-analyzing the issue. --Blacksun 15:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

## States and Territories section

Can anyone help me understand why the above section is blank? Sometime back (version) it was named "Administrative divisions" and had a list of the state names. Is there any plan to bring that section back? Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 22:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I have added it. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
See this and the subsequent revert. Saravask 20:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Nichalp, Saravask. I was not sure whether it was vandalism or intentional. That section is really helpful to the article. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

## Aryan invasion theory ?

Care to provide good citations--Milki 19:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I think the Aryan invasion Theory is right!

## Ayyavazhi

Moved discussion to Talk:India/Ayyavazhi.

## Short term "to-do" list.

This is just a minor issue. The to-do list says to FA the India article on the Vietmanese and Hungarian wikipedias. I wonder why this is case since this is the English Wikipedia. Moreover, neither language is Indian so it unlikely anybody regularly editing or discussing the page knows these languages. GizzaChat © 22:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

## Second Largest Muslim Population

Since this is an issue that has vexed the Pakistan and India pages for some time, I thought I'd clarify the numbers by examining the census figures put out by the Governments of Pakistan, India, and the CIA fact book (rather than quote a Wikipedia page that has a "disputed" tag on it!). Here is what I found. (I am adding this to the talk pages of both Pakistan and India). Please read the data and analysis carefully before you write angry or impatient rejoinders.

Data:

• The government of Pakistan did its last census in 1998, but did not include Azad Kashmir and the Northern Areas in the final census numbers, although at least for the Northern Areas, the census was taken (as far as I can tell).
• The government of India did its last census in 2001 and did include Jammu and Kashmir (i.e. Indian administered Kashmir, but not Azad Kashmir or Northern Areas) in the census.
• The CIA factbook is made up of projections from these census figures, using the rates of growth of each population and religious group.

Assumptions:

The most pragmatic approach to evaluate the 2006 (end of the year) numbers would be to:

• Include Azad Kashmir and the Northern Areas in the Pakistan numbers
• Include Jammu and Kashmir in the India numbers.
• Use the rates of growth for each religious community in the census to compute the end of year 2006 numbers.

Note: I know that various Wikipedians will dispute the above assumptions, but in light of current day reality, they seem to be the best assumptions. So here are the statistics.

Pakistan:

According to the 1998 census, the population was 132,352,000. (See 1998 numbers here). For normalizing the computation for both countries, let us assume that these numbers did not include the year 1998 itself. Therefore, in order to estimate the numbers of end of 2006, we will count 1998, 1999, ..., 2006, a total of 9 years. The average annual growth rate for population in Pakistan for the period 1981-1998 according to the government census page is 2.69%. The Pakistani government end of the year figure for 2006 of is 158,946,500 (see bottom of this page). The or the Wikipedia Pakistan#Demographics number is of 165,803,560 (based on the US Government Census estimates, see also: CIA Factbook Pakistan Page). We will use the larger number. Now what about the populations of Azad Kashmir and the Northern Areas. According to the Wikipedia Northern Areas#Demographics page the numbers for the 1998 census were 870,347. Let us give the Northern Areas an average population growth rate of 6% (more than double the Pakistani rate of 2.69%, since it is sparsely populated). Then the end of year 2006 population for the Northern Areas is:

What about Azad Kashmir? Well, no census was taken recently, but according to the Wikipedia Azad Kashmir: Demographics page, it has approximately 4 million inhabitants today. So, the total end of 2006 population of Pakistan is:

i.e. 171 million 273 thousand 960. Now, according to the Pakistan Census Organisation: Population by Religion Page, 96.28% of Pakistanis are Muslim (the Wikpedia Pakistan: Demographics page shows 96%), so the total end of 2006 Muslim population of Pakistan is:

i.e. 164 million, 900 thousand at the end of 2006.

India:

According to the Government of India 2001 Data by Religion], the total Muslim population of India at the end of 2000 was 138,188,220 (See here for the numbers) for 13.4% of the population. However, the rates of growth of population for different communities in India are quite different. According to the 2001 India census Growth Rates by Religious Communities Page, the ten-yearly growth rate for Muslims during 1981-1990 was 34.5 and during 1991-2000 was 36.0. (See: here), This gives an average ten-year Muslim community growth rate (for the period 1981-2000) of:

This gives a yearly growth rate of approximately 3.05% since:

Since the 2001 census give the end of 2000 figures, as in the Pakistan case, we will count 2001, i.e. we will have 2001, 2002, ..., 2006, a total of six years. Therefore, the end of 2006 Muslim population of India is:

i.e. 165 million 490 thousand

This also means that although, Muslims comprised 13.4% of India's population at the end of 2000, they now constitute over 15% of the population.

Conclusion:

The numbers for the two countries are more or less equal. These are the projections from the best sources I can get. I know some Pakistanis will say, what about the Afghan refugees in Pakistan that number approximately 3 million, to which I am sure some Indians will say, what about the Bangladeshi undocumented immigrants in India, etc. These seem to be the official numbers. From my point of view the numbers are close enough that neither country can say with absolute confidence that it has the second largest Muslim population in the world and the other doesn't. Maybe we can say they tie for second place. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

PS. I should add that I am not trying to violate WP:NOR here, but just saying that the credible sources out there, like the Government censuses, don't make a clear cut case for either country (exclusively) being the second most populous Muslim country in 2006. At least this is what I found. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

## Thousand Million

I would like to have a straw poll regarding the use of thousand million vs. billion in articles related to India. Do editors believe that thousand million is less ambiguous than billion? Should one be used in preference to the other in articles related to India? Please express you opinons below. --BostonMA talk 00:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Use thousand million because billion is ambiguous. --BostonMA talk 00:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I understand that "thousand million" is less ambiguous but I have never heard India having a "thousand million" people. If reliable sources use the term billion, I think we should stick to a billion. Most people with a basic general knowledge know that India has a population of a billion. Common sense tells you that no nation can have a population of a "million million!" GizzaChat © 00:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
You make a good point about common sense. That certainly applies to the population of India (or any other country for that matter). However, I cannot resist the urge to allow you the experience of exposure to the term "thousand million people" [6] Not that it invalidates your point. --BostonMA talk 01:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Would it hurt to mention both figures, one perhaps in brackets? One is the American form and the other is British I think anyway.GizzaChat © 01:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
My understanding is that the British switched to the short billion in the 1970's. --BostonMA talk 01:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

In India we are taught that a billion has 9 zeros. So a billion in Indian English would be unambigious. The thousand million equivalence is prevalent mostly in Europe. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's what the OED says: 1. orig. and still commonly in Great Britain: A million millions. (= U.S. trillion.) 2. In U.S., and increasingly in Britain: A thousand millions. (It is interesting that they use the plural millions.) Anyway, in light of what Nichalp says, there should be no confusion with billion on this page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

## Names of India in official languages

As India has 22 official languages, a page similar to Official names of the USSR should be made, I think. EamonnPKeane 12:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like fun (to read), if the English transliteration is there. I won't be much help with creating the page though. Someone will have to round up the various people with knowledge of those languages. I suppose it could be done here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I cannot be sure about all 22 languages but I suspect that, unlike the Russian example, the name stays similar in most of the languages ("Bharat", "Hindustan", "India").--Blacksun 04:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

## Indo-Iranian-speaking Template

I have added the {{Indo-Iranian-speaking}} template and have mentioned it here per the instructions in the hidden text of the article. With regards, AnupamTalk 06:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the point of having the template inserted in any county article. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

## Indian English? Where?

The guidelines ask us to use Indian English. But it is conspicuously missing in the text. How come, all numbers are in millions/billions and not lakhs/crores? Similarly why are all economic figures given only in USD and not their INR equivalents (in addition)? (In contrast, the geographical area is specified both in sq kilometers and sq miles) Sunayana 13:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't know what the official Wikipedia policy is, or if there even is one, but the United Kingdom page is written in British English and, concurrently, its GDP numbers are given in US dollars (and US usage, i.e. a trillion is "one thousand million billion"). It is the same with Australia. I should imagine that other countries do the same, and it is some sort of precedent. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

When writing an encyclopediac article about a country, I don't see why the local metrics cannot be used in addition to the de-facto global metric of US dollars and thousand million being a billion. At least it helps audiences worldwide understand the systems used locally as well. Rather than making the article on India to conform to what UK and Australia are doing; I think it should be the other way round.. Sunayana 05:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know that each time a figure is mentioned in billions of US dollars, a parenthetical transliteration in crores of rupees is needed. I think it may seem a little heavy-handed and confusing to an average reader of that worldwide audience. However, I agree that some mention should be made, perhaps in the economy section, along the lines of: "The legal tender in India is a rupee equal in value to US \$??; moreover, the Indian numbering system is widely used in throughout the country, in both monetary transactions and the press. Commonly used units are a lakh (100,000) and a crore (10 million)." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I guess lets not confuse Language with the measurement units. Even though the above comment is correct in saying that we must mention the Indian units (crore & lakhs) however we must ensure that globally acceptable standards are used. By saying that we should not use millions and miles because they are US standards it like a US person saying that they should not used Decimal System and Zero as they are Indian inventions. Lets use something that every one understands while mentioning the local standards as well. Shashank.aggarwal 06:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It's more like a US person saying they should not use United States customary units (pints, quarts, gallons, etc.) and use only SI units, which they won't do. deeptrivia (talk) 07:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

See again we are taking in to the wrong line, its not about India VS US. Its about Global Standards, this is a website with global audience and should contain articles in format and language that are globally understood. It might not sound good to Indians but its a fact that maximum number of people connected to the internet are Americans and therefore the content should be in a format that is understandable to them atleast till the time some one else (maybe us Indians) have more netizens than US ;-). Shashank.aggarwal 09:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

## Since when is India in the Middle East??

The first thing Wikipedia says that India is a country in the Middle East. It should be changed to South Asia.

Darkness1089 19:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

What Wikipedia are you reading? The first thing Wikipedia says where? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

## Ayyavazhi

Should Ayyavazhi be listed with the religions found in India? Sfacets 22:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Iam citing the source once again,

• For the Autonomous religious Phenomenon: G.Patrick (2003), Religion and Subaltern Agency, Department of Christian Studies, University of Madras, Sub heading:The Religious Phenomenon of Ayya Vali, Page 120-121.
• For Thousands of Nizhal Thangals across South India: Dr.R.Ponnu (2000), Sri Vaikunda Swamigal and The Struggle for Socal Equality in South India, Ram Publishers, School of Historical Studies, Madurai Kamaraj University, Page 100-101.
• For 8000 Worship centers: Tha.Krishna Nathan, (2002) Ayyaa vaikundarin vaazvum sinthanaiyum (Tamil), Chapter - 4, page 83. (This citation was included here from Tamil wikipedia article)
• For the presence of Ayyavazhi worship centres across India, :Dr.C.Poulose(2002), Advaita Philosophy of Brahmasri Chattampi Swamikal, Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit, Page 24.

All above are from University reaserchs. Because of all these, including Ayyavazhi's autonomous nature, vast presence etc. Ayyavazhi should be noted. University papers are the most important and valid most third-party, independent sources than any other personal websites, official views, theological views etc as per wiki guidelines. Hence it wiki format is followed in the article then Ayyavazhi is unavoidable. - Paul 22:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

You have this discussion going on at two different talk pages; here, and at Talk:India/Ayyavazhi. In response to the sources you cited above, I stated the following at Talk:India/Ayyavazhi: Just because something is published by a university does not mean it is valid (as per your claim above, that "Since it is a University publication it is valid."). There is an entire process of peer review that is conducted in order to substantiate scholarly claims. If 33 Ayyavazhi theologians state that Ayyavazhi is a prominent belief system, then, well, what do you expect? It's like asking the College of Cardinals (not a 'university', by the way) to advise objectively on beliefs like the immaculate conception. Is there any significant Western scholarship on Ayyavazhi that would give your push for its inclusion on the India page more well-rounded support? Sarayuparin 22:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I've replied there. - Paul 22:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

## Proposal Re: Religions

The list of religions does not list "others". The census data state that 0.6% persue religions other than those listed. I propose that "others (0.6%)" be added to the list and that Ayyavazhi be removed. I would like a straw poll on this. Please express agreement or disagreement. I very strongly encourage editors to avoid making extensive arguments in this straw poll. I will move extensive arguments to their own section. --BostonMA talk 00:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Agree with above change --BostonMA talk 00:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I suggest "Jews, Ayyavazhi's, Zoroastrians and Bahá'ís" be removed and replaced with "others". I added up the rest of the percentages to be 99.3. Others should then be 0.7%. -- Ganeshk (talk) 00:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Agree with Ganeshk. Compare with Australia#Demographics. Saravask 00:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Paul Raj Disagrees and Objects to this poll. His arguments may be seen below in section Talk:India#Paul Raj On Religion Poll (comment added by BostonMA talk 19:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC))
• Sorry, I didn't realize people were posting their comments here. I have replied below. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Paul Raj On Religion Poll

First of all, please don't remove this discussion to some where else. Because here i opinioned not only for the presence of Ayyavazhi but also that, this matter sould not to be handled in this way (as conducting poll).
I felt that it is a wrong idea to conduct vote here for removing Ayyavazhi. It is as, conducting poll to agree a (sceintific) fact. In other words, It's similar that, deciding by conducting a poll for, weather a fact (a true statement) is to be accepted or not. Ayyavazhi factually exists as autonomous and is cited with valid citations. If so then, here needed a straw poll for each and every sentence of the article that it should be mentioned or not.
Ayyavazhi is a religion and it's a fact but unofficial. The census of India may be official. I couldn't be said that something unofficial is not factual. The factual presence of Ayyavazhi is cited with even university papers repeatedly many, many times. For example see here University papers are not POVs. All of us know that an university paper is published not before get reviewed by a series of experts university scholars etc from various universities span for a lond period of time. (it seems approximately one year review). Apart from this the LMS Reports of the ninteenth century says how Ayyavazhi socially, communally and theologically survived a an autonomous religio-cultural structure. It also says about its fast growth in many parts of Tamil Nadu and Kerala. If i read correctly, the LMS is approximately first and the largest protestant missionary in the world and they in negative view over Ayyavazhi. So thier reports are more valid.
Moreover there goes a series of discussions in which I explined clearly how Ayyavazhi is autonomous and how it varry from the denominations compared (such as Saivism, Vaishnavism etc). I also humbly request all users to find time and read carefully the discussions here before deciding to vote here. If any discussions there is not clear because of my imperfect english I will explain once again. Also, polls would n't make good results than concluding after discussing some thing.
Then the notability. It is unavoidable to mention a religion with 8000 worship centers across the country. Especially, So long as Jews, Zoroastrians and Bahai'is are noted, Ayyavazhi which is much notable than them, definelely find a place here. - Paul 18:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Dear friend Paul, it is unnecessary to repeat your arguments so often. You could write an essay in your talk space and point editors to your essay. I have moved your comments into their own section, because I don't want the poll to degenerate into a protracted discussion. There has been continuous reversions of the India article, I think we need to find a way to stop these.
You object to the poll, because a poll cannot decide the truth. However, the poll is not deciding anything about the nature or status of Ayyavazhi. If the proposed change to the article is made, it would not answer one way or another the points you have raised. For example, you state that Ayyavazhi is a distinct religion. The proposal does not assert or deny that Ayyavazhi is a distinct religion. It states that there are religions in India other than those which are explicitly listed in the article and those listed in the census summary. I have read the census report, and it states that as many as 1700 names of religions have been reported in census data. Surely you agree that we cannot list them all in an overview article on India. It is certainly notable that there are 8000 Ayyavazhi worship centers in India (assuming the factuality of the claim). However, at this point, I do not know what percentage of those who worship at these centers responded to the census questionaire that they were Hindu. That is about all I wish to add to the discussion at this point. However, I will once again encourage you to attempt to articulate back to me, what you believe is my argument. --BostonMA talk 20:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
The situation of the vast number of followers? Please see here.
Example,
• Akilam the holy book of Ayyavazhi with 15000 verses, seems to be one among the top-ten (quantity) tamil books by a single author.
• Ayya Vaikundar and Ayyavazhi is the chief obstacle for LMS,(supposed to be the largest Protestant missionary in the world) in their mission in Travancore, (the most succeded zone of LMS in India).
• Ayya Vaikundar is viewed sociologically as a pioneer of social reformers in india by independent historians (Iam ready to cited those books if needed).
All these are forgotten and Vaikundar finds just a mere mention as crusader of Hindu Nadar here in wikipedia once. Likely, this is because of the poor social and economical condition of Ayyavazhi demographics. They are too poor and illeterates to preach or even aware of their religion. But deep on their faith, only worship Vaikundar. Beleive only Akilam etc... This facts are clearly visible while undergoing personal observations to worship centers, rituals and festival . And hence the original structure of Ayyavazhi is clearly visible to university reserchers than any others else.
My opinion in keeping Ayyavazhi: It is unavoidable to mention a religion with 8000 worship centers across the country. Also so long as Jews, Zoroastrians and Bahai'is are noted, Ayyavazhi which is much notable than them, definelely find a place here. Thanks - Paul 20:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Does this mean if we remove Jews, Zoroastrians and Bahai'is, you are okay with Ayyavazhi to be removed? Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 22:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but only from this article and at the present layout of the article considering notability. Inturn my this statement doesn't support removing Jews, Zoroastrians and Bahai'is etc... - Paul 22:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Also if Jews, Zoroastrians, etc are now removed and after some period if those find a place in the article, then automatically Ayyavazhi should be included (as per the citations) without making route-cause to repeat the above citations and comments. Thanks - Paul 22:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree both with Paul R's rambling document (which I didn't read, but can divine) and with Ganeshk's proposal. Jews and Zoroastrians in India are in a completely different category than the latter-day faith Paul R. is obsessively promoting. To paraphrase Saul Bellow: "Where are the Tatas, the Dadabhai Naorojis, the Phirozeshah Mehtas, the Godrejs, the Homi Bhabhas, and the Sassoons of the Ayyawazis? I will gladly include them." Someone above mentioned the Australia (demographics) page, but the Australia page also mentions special groups that are small in number but are a part of Australia's heritage. Jews and Parsis would fit in such a category; the Ayyawazis, unfortunately, won't. I think Nichalp's approach is best. When the Census of India recognizes Ayyavazis as a separate religion, WP should include it too. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Census of India is not a guideline in WP. But since it is official in India it is notable. But here in the matter of Ayyavazhi it is Factual existence vs Official recognition. Ayyavazhi exists factually. If something is unofficial it couldn't be argued as not factual. And this factual existence is cited with the most valid third party sources for it's notability, autonomous nature etc seperately. Also demographics is the section tell about the population of the people not of culture or heritage.
This straw poll here is not needed which is in a tone that, Weather Valid sources should be considered or not? - Paul 18:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Fowler&fowler. There are many religions and many faiths. Many of them are known to exist and references can be found. What is the criteria for them to be listed here?

1. University papers
2. Government of India/Census

IMHO, the second option is far more credible and dependable. First option is just a race to find University references.--æn↓þæµß¶-ŧ-¢ 09:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I've told this same thing to how many users???? how many times??? which I am repeating once more.
It is Factual existence (University papers) vs Official recognition (Census of India).
If something is official it may be factual. But at the same time, If something is unofficial it couldn't be argued as not factual. Ayyavazhi exists factually. And this factual existence is cited with the most valid third party sources (reserch papers from leading universities in India) for it's notability, autonomous nature etc seperately. - Paul 18:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
So? Some thing exists and is factually proved does not make it worthy of addition. Because if it is, it IS called recognition. Since the data we are handling with is not a frequently updated one, and is factually collected by GOI, we should stick to it than adding our own interpretations. -My .02 contribution.--æn↓þæµß¶-ŧ-¢ 08:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
"Some thing exists and is factually proved does not make it worthy of addition." Sure But when it is notable too, it's worthy adding. Also since the Indian govt doesn't recognise Ayyavazhi it is impossible to find Ayyavazhi in COI. But it exists factually, and notability is strenthened by quoting the large number of followers and worshipcenters across the counry from even University papers. A religion with more than 8000 worship centers is definitely notable than Zorastrians, Jews etc... which are definitely less in number of followers in India than Ayyavazhi's.
Over all a Govt's official view in not important than results of an University reserch, which is third-party and independent sources which is less affectable to POVs, especially from such a credible University from india, University of Madras. - Paul 18:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Paul Raj: You keep repeating "notable references" or "university papers." Only one of your references is to be found in the COPAC On-line Catalogue of British Research Libraries and here are the search results: COPAC search results for Religion and Subaltern Agency. None of your sources show up on the Library of Congress On-line Catalogs. BTW, you have been less than forthcoming in providing the full title of the book by G. Patrick. The title is: Religion and subaltern agency : a case-study of Ayya Vali : a subaltern religious phenomenon in South Tiruvitankur If the author, Pastor G. Patrick, had thought Ayya Vali was a true religion, he would have titled the book "... a subaltern religion ..." All the quotes you have provided use the word religion only in quoting Ayya Vallis, for example: "... they describe their religion ..." The author says:

Notice the carefully chosen words "religious phenomena" or "religio-cultural" form. This can hardly be taken as evidence that the author thinks Ayya Vali is a religion in its own right. You are welcome to create a page on "Religious Phenomena in India" and add Ayya Valli to them. Please don't start the refrain of "notable university papers" again, and next time provide complete titles, when you cite references. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The discussion now seems worthy since it goes through the consideration of sources.
First of all, the referenced sources don't go unworthy merely because it was not found in the so called COPAC On-line Catalogue of British Research Libraries websites. Millions of books are published even without ISBN. Even this book a publication of Madras University lack ISBN. That is the condition of most of Indian books. See this.
Then the title of the book, Mind you that book is from an Indian University. It was controlled by India, and the University had to run as per the Indian Constitution and it has no right to accredit XXXX as autonomous, officially. But it can reserch and tell, what XXXX is, clearly?
So the Title may call this as 'Phenomenon'. But the contents of sunc book is the result of a reserch study. The reserch study say that XXXX as autonomous and Singualar. Also read the conclusion of the study, [7]. Then if you belive that the conclusion I coppied there is not geniune, I will scan that page as an Image here.
Then how university papers are called unnotable sources. It was independent, valid and third party sources, especially when from such a credible University from India.
I also wish to tell that, The title of the book is "Religion and Subaltern Agency" and the rest is a second section heading not found in the wrapper or Front page.
"Religion and Subaltern Agency
G.Patrick
Department of Christian Studies
Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005."
No texts other than the above was found on the front page of the book. Iam ready to scan that book. - Paul 23:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
You don't need to provide any more evidence. From everything you have written, it is glaringly obvious that you don't understand the concept of a "notable" or "credible" source. Pastor Patrick's book is notable, but it doesn't endorse the notion that Ayyavazhi is a religion in its own right. You don't even know what the COPAC or Library of Congress Catalogs are (confusing them with Google books): the catalogs have nothing to do with Google, Amazon, or ISBN numbers. They are academic catalogs of collections of research libraries. You can find not only contemporary books printed in all parts of the world without ISBN numbers, but also all editions of books published as long ago as the 17th century, long before ISBNs came along. Given the number of research libraries in the the U.S. and Great Britain, anything that is noteworthy is found in some library or the other. For example, there is not one single topic (other than Ayyavazzi) on the India page for which there aren't at least several citations in these catalogs. Here are the COPAC search results for "Jews India". There are 271 hits displaying books going back to the 18th century. Here are the search results for "Parsi India"—there are 50 hits. On the other hand nothing shows up for "Ayyavazhi India." For "Ayya Vali" there is only one result and that is Pastor Patrick's book.
Paul, You have not shown even by a long shot that there is anything notable in your sources. The only source that is perhaps notable (a Ph.D. dissertation by Pastor Patrick which studies in one district of Tamil Nadu) treats the Ayyavazhi as a "religious phenomenon." You have not delivered what you had promised. I'm very sorry, but I'm done with engaging you on this topic. Ayyavazhi does not belong to the India page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
What I promised?
Then Ayyavazhi is a religion and it was cited with the most valid source from probably a credible university. Then, "Ph.D. dissertation", do you consider this a silly thing? Do you know how a theisis is reviewed by different proffessors of several universities before accrediting the author a doctor? How do you conclude yourself that the study is made in only one district? It was studied from theologians across from Kanyakumari district to Chennai. It was even noted in that book. Then the LMS report (which means the report of the first and the largest Protestant missionary in the world):Do you consider that a report from an international organisation about another religion's growth is invalid? Then another set of Historian views. All these are not valid? Then with the COPAC are you telling that the books cited in Ayyavazhi article are not at all published? I can't understand your logic on finding this as reasons and concluding something.
"Pastor Patrick's book is notable, but it doesn't endorse the notion that Ayyavazhi is a religion in its own right." I don't understand this sentence; Friend this is not a POV, but a reserch accredited and published by an university. Also this only is the the source to support Ayyavazhi as a Religion But a series of LMS Reports, also. One good example, LMS called Ayyavazhi well outside Hinduism, Calling it as Muthukuttiyism wile it don't call the other so called denominations with diefferent names (saivism, Vaishnavism etc..) but instead the whole collectiveluy called Hinduism. They call, Muthukuttyism, Hinduism and Christianity as the religions in Travancore. Beyond all these a set of long describtions here - Paul 18:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Let us return to the point. Ayyavazhi is not a large part of the population. <- Fact. Regarding 8000 worship places, there are more than 8000 temples in Varanasi itself, and still growing. I don't see what is this overkill over including a name in the article explicitly and not making it a part of others. Jainism etc. are not only small, they are significantly older and have significant visually apparent effects on the current India. Ayyavazhi may get there, but not now! Also, there are many many religions in India, and they will be researched for many generations to come, does not make them worthy enough to include in India which has size limitations of some kilo bytes.--æn↓þæµß¶-ŧ-¢ 19:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree 100% with Anupamsr. This entire section shows some of the limitations of Wikipedia: one POV warrior with an obsession can hold up the discussion of more important issues in a featured article. Paul, I don't need to be enlightened by you about the rigours of the Ph.D. granting process. As I said, this discussion is over. There is no place for Ayyavazhi on the India page. Enough is enough. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
You are deciding yourself, that discussion is over? Good, but for only yourself. Here in wikipedia 'valid citations' are 'valid' as per it's guidelines. And not the Ayyavazhi centers are limited to any cities as in Varanasi, but across India and was cited with University Papers earlier. And also Bahai, Jews and Zorastrians are also small in number and it found a place then why Ayyavazhi? How many times I've told this, to how many users??? - Paul 20:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

## disambiguation

I edit a lot of historical articles, and it is quite unsatisfactory to have India be the article on the Republic of India (rather than geographically India). "Ancient India" confuses a lot of editors into insisting on a term "Ancient Pakistan" (just now, here). I know this was discussed before, but the present situation will not do; see also here: there is enough confusion to make it desireable to implement a solution analogous to China (the article on the cultural region, not the contemporary PRC). It's an English language problem, Bhārat Gaṇarājya (or even just Bhārat) would be unambiguous. This is a historical accident, but it is strictly a misnomer, since Ινδια is the area of the Indus, which is now not even part of the RoI at all. dab (𒁳) 17:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

China is a different case. If the Chinese would decide, their article would probably be called Zhongguo, or Zhōnghuá Rénmín Gònghéguó (the official name for "PRC"). China is a name mainly the foreigners use. The Chinese refer to their country as Zhōnghuá Rénmín Gònghéguó or PRC (see the official site of the PRC, and see the millions of google results for People's Republic of China"). Furthermore, there is also the Republic of China (=Taiwan), which has China in the name. (Pakistan, on the other hand, has not "India" in its name).
India, on the other hand, is usually referred to as India (see the offical site of India [8], see the relatively small number of google results for "Republic of India" (less than half a million), see the site of the President of India [9] (not of the Republic!), see the Prime Minister of India [10] and practically every offical or non-official site calls it India anyway (from the CIA factbook to the Embassies of India to the Yahoo Directory, ...). It's not only the Indians who call it India, its also the foreigners (like the USAID: [11], and the U.S. Consulats in India.) Even the Indian banknotes call it India. And the Russia article is also not at the "Russian Federation". Anyway, there is a disambiguation page, and it's linked from the top of the article, so I don't see the problem. --RF 18:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
An Internet search also shows that "Russian Federation" has very many results, about 70 million, much more even that People's Republic of China", but the article is still at Russia. And many of the Google results for Russian Federation are not trivial ("Embassy of the Russian Federation", worldbank), unlike the mostly trivial ones for "Republic of India". -RF 21:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Pardon me,but is Maharashtra still a part of India? No mention about Maharashtra in addition with Bombay terminology. No Bombay, its Mumbai now. Have we forgotten that India is not just North or south, East and west Indian states deserve some place here.Marathi film industry is ignored, I hope people remember India's official entry to Oscars was Shwaas,a Marathi movie, 2 years back. Mrtag 07:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This article is about the political entity which has inherited most of the Indian subcontinent after partition, commonly known as India. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

And Maharashtra and Marathi (Bombay?) has no relavance here? Mrtag 08:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


I know, this isn't just about India. Per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countries#articles.27_scope I also suggest keeping the article on Russia at Russian Federation, that's another good example, since Vladivostok is in the Russian Federation but not in what we geographically or historically think of as "Russia". I know the RoI is mostly referred to as "India" just as the RF is mostly referred to as "Russia", but as an encyclopedia, we should be correct and precise, and as I pointed out, both cases lead to perpetual confusion. As Nichalp says, this article is about a political entity, while the term "India" has much wider application. The RoI has inherited most of India, it is true, but, as we all know, not all of it. A comparable case would be keeping USA at America because the USA "are commonly known as 'America'" dab (𒁳) 09:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed.This article is of RoI. But what's Bombay? It has no political existence. Its Mumbai as declared by Government of India along with Government of Maharashtra.
And inclusion of Marathi film industry is absolutely necessary. Indian film industy's foundations were laid by Dadasaheb Phalke.And no he is not a 'Bollywood' director,his movies are part of Marathi film industry. Marathi films are as significant as Bangla or Telugu. India is beyond mindless bollywood movies and North-south masalas. Mrtag 11:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreed Brother Mrtag. But for inclusion of Marathi film industry we first need a page with all deatils created then it can always be linked to main page 'India'. Can you please contribute in creating a new page. Apurv1980 14:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, the same rule should be applied to all country pages. It needs to be consistent. It is not right to single out only a couple of country pages - which will only lead to controversies. A practical rule could be that all country pages must be under the official and full name of the country. Such a rule could be formulated and then be consistently applied to all country pages. --RF 22:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

### "India" vs. "RoI"

In view of the constant gripes at Talk:History of India, we need to make absolutely clear that "India" is just an informal (albeit very common) abbreviation of the correct term "Republic of India". dab (𒁳) 10:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you please give a source that says that Republic of India is the official name of the country? The Etymology of India article says:
The first Article of the Constitution of India, which deals with the official name, states that "India, that is Bharat, shall be a union of states." Thus, not only in usage but officially India and Bharat are both accorded primary status.
This is from Article 1 of the Constitution, which says
Article 1 Name and territory of the Union
(1) India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.
The official name of the country is by the constitution "India". Where is there any source that the official name is "Republic of India"? -RF 10:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
India is a word of the English language. The official name in Sanskrit is Bhārata Gaṇarājya. The official name used in diplomatic contexts in the English langauge is "Republic of India" (as has been noted on this very article for months on end). The constitution of India is certainly notable here, but it doesn't have defining power over the English language. But if the constitution allows "India" being used as the full name, I agree we shouldn't say "informally". dab (𒁳) 11:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed Bhārat as unidentified (what language is it) -- but if the Constitution introduces "Bharat" as a name to be used in English, we can restore it in this spelling (not as a transliteration of Hindi, but as a "prescirbed" loan into English).

According to the CIA factbook[12], we should distinguish:

• conventional long form: Republic of India (English usage)
• conventional short form: India (informal English usage)
• local long form: Republic of India/Bharatiya Ganarajya (prescribed English usage)
• local short form: India/Bharat (prescribed English usage)

In the case of ambiguity (which is given on Wikipedia), the conventional long form should be used. dab (𒁳) 11:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

But where is the source that the "official name" is "Republic of India"? It was on wikipedia for months, but also unsourced for months. We need another source than Wikipedia. India, the country, is of course a Republic, just as it also a Democracy, and a Liberal, Secular, Social country. It may well be officially a democracy, republic and so on, but that is different from the "official name". The CIA factbook is not an official source. The CIA factbook is a handy reference to get a reasonable overview, but it is not a primary source and is not without errors. We need an official source, like the Constitution.
There is no country other than the RF in a region known as "Russia". I disagree. "Ancient Russia" and Soviet Russia is not equivalent with the modern Russian Federation. There were also some disputes about whether to include the WikiProject Russia in articles that are not anymore part of the Russian Federation.--RF 11:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
The CIA factbook is a notable secondary source, and we are using it as a guideline on many, many country articles. The geographical region of "Russia" includes no contemporary states other than the Russian Federation, unlike "China", "Congo", "Ireland", "Cyprus" or "India". Looking for a solution, we should look at China, Congo or Ireland, not Russia: The Russian Federation, conversely even extends beyond geographical "Rus". Look, we completely agree on the facts. "India" in a modern context almost always refers to the RoI. The context on Wikipedia, however, is not always "modern". This leads to ambiguity, and to perpetual complaints by Pakistani editors (see Talk:History of India) that "History of India" should really read "History of South Asia". Obviously, the context of the phrase "History of India" is historical, and thus "India" here does not refer to the RoI. dab (𒁳) 13:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I hate the China solution. EVERY single time I have typed China in Wikipedia search bar, I have meant to go to the PRC page. I am sure this is also true for most people. I dont really know how the "China solution" came about but I reject your notion that it fits the glove here. In "China solution" you have two parties which both claim the same name or something akin to that. This is not the case here at all. Pakistan is not claiming that it is India. We have arguments about historical references. If any changes are warranted then they are at the history pages itself. Proper care should be taken to make sure people understand the context and NPOV is maintained. "China solution" to this page is down right silly and overtly pc. Their is no need to add an extra layer of confusion and making wikipedia LESS user friendly as vast overwhelming majority of the people who ever type India in the search bar will want to come to this page. Say no to ever increasing in-your-face disambiguity pages in Wikipedia. --Blacksun 13:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Response to above comment. Even if article were name were Republic of India, there is no need for the a article India to be a disambiguation page rather than a link to Republic of India. That is, users typing in "India" would still go to the current page. --BostonMA talk 13:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
That is not what I understand when dab speaks of using the solution used with Ireland, China, etc. What about other articles that link to this article? I really dont see how what you suggest would change anything? It just seems like a complete waste of time but ok... I guess dab needs to more clearly state what he is suggesting and what he hopes Wikipedia would gain from it before we can give feedback. --Blacksun 13:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

my proposal has two scenarios:

a), cheap, but inferior: -- move the present India to Republic of India India (disambiguation) to India. This will help avoid confusion between modern and historical usage of "India".
b) expensive, superior: move the present India to Republic of India. Create a new article at India, on as it were India (term), parallel to China: discuss the historical, geographical and political meaning of the term.

dab (𒁳) 16:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Ya, so I did not misunderstood your proposal and I have already outlined the reasons why I hate the idea and why comparing this to the way China is handled is flawed logic in my previous posts. I am extremely surprised you seem to think it is a clever solution. If their are any issues regarding historical references they should be dealt with in articles pertaining to historical topics - not impose illogical disambiguation on present-day topics. It makes no sense. --Blacksun 01:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

modelled on China:

India is a historical cultural region of South Asia, corresponding to either Hindustan or the Indian subcontinent as a whole. Greek Ἴνδια is first used by Hellenistic authors (Apollodorus, Flavius Josephus) to refer to the region of the Indus river. Iron Age India is the origin of many cultural and spiritual developments that exerted influence far beyond the Indian subcontinent, such as Buddhism or early Indian mathematics. The classical kingdoms of ancient India were the golden age of Hinduism and Sanskritic culture. Early Modern India was dominated by the Mughal Empire, succeeded by colonial British India. Since 1947, Greater India is divided between the Republic of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, and "India" is usually taken to refer to the Republic of India exclusively.

dab (𒁳) 16:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a reason that the China article is handled that way: there are two modern countries with the name "China". Both states are still officially claiming to be "China". But there are not two modern countries with the name "India".

The CIA factbook can be used as secondary source, but when it is contradicted by a primary source like the Constitiution, then we need a primary source. The Constituion names India as the official name. The CIA factbook also says Russian Federation or Federal Republic of Germany. Almost all country articles begin with the shorter common name, like the Russia or Germnany article:

Germany (Template:Lang-de IPA: [ˈdɔɪtʃlant]), officially the Federal Republic of Germany...

The problem in talkpage of History of India should be dealt with in that article. I don't see how the ramblings of some Pakistani nationalists on another page are relevant for this page - these nationalists don't even complain about this India country page. They are deleting "India" from pages about Ancient India [13], not from pages about modern India.

I don't think this would lead to less confusion. As Blacksun said: Their is no need to add an extra layer of confusion and making wikipedia LESS user friendly as vast overwhelming majority of the people who ever type India in the search bar will want to come to this page. India happens to be the most common name for the modern country. I think that the most common name, which undoubtedly is India, should be used, or that a consistent rule for all country pages should be made.

We should strive for consistency. All country pages should be consistently named with the same rationale (eg. move *all* country pages to the "long name"). If we would make such a change, we would need a bot that is intelligent enough to distinguish between Republic of India and pre-Republic of India. Because, for user-friendliness and less confusion, we would have to change all the thousands of links to modern India to link directly to the "Republic of India". It would be difficult to program such a bot to work without errors. --RF 09:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Blacksun and RF. When someone types the name India into the search box, they should go directly to the page on modern day India. That is almost certainly what they are looking for. In the China case, Wikipedia is taking a neutral stance on a political controversy. India is different because there is only one modern day state that claims the name India. --BostonMA talk 11:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Really, this is much ado over nothing. India is the common name to the successor state that was once India-Pak-Ban. The word India directly implies that the subject is about the Republic of India. Such granulated refinement India vs RoI is not necessary. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)