Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:04, 6 September 2011

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

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

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

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

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

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

Template:VA Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

	India is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 3, 2004.
Article milestones Date Process Result September 16, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted April 11, 2005 Featured article review Kept May 6, 2006 Featured article review Kept July 28, 2011 Featured article review Kept Current status: Featured article

Template:CollapsedShell

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

view · edit Frequently asked questions Q1: Why is Bhārat Gaṇarājya not rendered in Devanagari script? A1: See this discussion (from 2012) and this discussion (from 2017), which are codified in WP:INDICSCRIPT. Q2: It's "Bengaluru", not "Bangalore"! A2: This article uses the name that is most commonly used by English-language reliable sources. See WP:COMMONNAME. Q3: Why was my content removed? A3: The India page adheres to summary style, sticking to core topics and skipping excess details. To update economy figures or other content, cite credible sources. See WP:V. Q4: Why aren't there sections on science and technology, education, media, tourism etc? A4: New sections require talk-page consensus. In archived discussions, it was decided to keep them out. Consider expanding their respective daughter articles, such as History of India, instead. See WP:WPC. Q5: Why was my image or external link removed? A5: To add or remove images and links, start a thread on this page first. See WP:FP?, WP:IMAGE, and WP:EL. Q6: The map is wrong! A6: The map shows the official (de jure) borders in undisputed territory and the de facto borders and all related claims where there's a dispute; it cannot exclusively present the official views of India, Pakistan, or China. See WP:NPOV. Q7: India is a superpower! A7: Consult the archives of this talk page for discussions of India's status as a superpower before adding any content that makes the suggestion. See WP:DUE. Q8: Delhi is a state! A8: To create an Indian state, the Parliament of India must pass a law to that effect—see Articles 2 through 4 of the Constitution of India, full text here. The Sixty-ninth Amendment, which was enacted in 1991, added Article 239AA to the constitution. It proclaimed the National Capital Territory of Delhi, gave it a legislative assembly, and accorded it special powers that most union territories lack. But Delhi was not made a state. Several crucial powers were retained by the central government, such as responsibility for law and order. Delhi also does not have a governor; instead, a lieutenant governor presides. Unlike Himachal Pradesh, which gained statehood in 1970, and Goa, which gained it in 1987, Delhi continues to be listed as a union territory by the First Schedule. Q9: Add Hindi as the national language/hockey as the national sport! A9: Hindi is the official language, not national language. There is no national language, but there are constitutionally recognized languages, commonly known as Schedule 8 languages. English also serves as a subsidiary official language until the universal use of Hindi is approved by the states and parliament. Field hockey is not the national sport as per this article "In RTI reply, Centre says India has no national game", Deccan Herald, August 2012.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on August 15, 2004, August 15, 2005, and August 15, 2011.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: "The 50 most-viewed Misplaced Pages articles in 2009 and 2008". The Daily Telegraph. August 17, 2009.

National Anthem

Isn't the length of India's National Anthem 52 seconds? Then, is the song being played on the "National Anthem" link wrong? Can we please have a better(and probable, correct) version of the same? Jobin RV Jobin RV 11:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

About Religions in the introduction

I find the line quoted below to be a bit misleading. It conveys the idea that the present day Indian culture is cleansed of Indian originated religions, and that Zoroastrianism, Christianity and Islam played the important roles in shaping the culture. Almost every major religion in the world has arrived in India not long after it was founded including Judaism and Bahai faiths. I personally think undue importance is given to the arrived religions in the introductory part as distinctiveness of Indian culture is well contributed by the Indian originated religions. I am not able to make any edits since the page is locked. I request people with those privileges to look into the matter.

"Four of the world's major religions—Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism—originated here, while Zoroastrianism, Christianity and Islam arrived in the first millennium CE and shaped the region's diverse culture." 209.239.114.70 (talk) 02:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Well I added the suggested changes but the edits were reverted without discussing anything here to incorporate changes and requiring more sources, etc. thus letting it be and look like indigenous religions have done nothing to add to distinctiveness of the culture, which was the main point. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 13:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Do forgive me for reverting, but we all went to a lot of trouble with this sentence, starting around Talk:India/Archive 30 I believe. I see your and the IP's issue, although the same implication did not come through to me. Would it be fixed if the word "shaped" was preceded by a word such as "helped" or "further"? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I think 'helped' was there originally and am not sure when it got removed. An alternative formulation: Four of the world's major religions—Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism—originated here, while Zoroastrianism, Christianity and Islam arrived in the first millennium CE and are also a part of the region's diverse culture? --rgpk (comment) 14:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

May be something on the lines - The region's diverse culture is shaped by Four of the world's major religions—Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism- originating from here as also by Zoroastrianism, Christianity and Islam arriving in the first millennium CE.

Just suggesting ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 15:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I think if you change "shaped" to "also contributed to", it looks good. Indian culture is "diverse" even before religions from outside arrived. So - "Four of the world's major religions—Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism—originated here, while Zoroastrianism, Christianity and Islam arrived in the first millennium CE and also contributed to the region's diverse culture." 209.239.114.70 (talk) 18:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Didn't the Jews arrive before the CE, the community is so old, that they aren't called Jews but Sons of Israel, Bene Israel.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Cochin Jews arrived in 6th century BCE. But i guess their contribution to Indian culture is so small. There are cultural elements in Central and Southern Kerala where their influence is felt though. Arjun 12:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps India provided a safe haven for the Jews is notable too. The place where there were no ghettos and pograms.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

If there is no objection to my suggestion, please add it on my behalf 209.239.114.70 (talk) 14:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Have added "also helped shape" per RegentsPark's post of 2-25-11 (see archives) and per IPs request. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Well we have a notable emic source Swami Vivekananda who says that ...History accordingly turned gory with the coming of Islam to India...Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Why all this talk about "golden age"? The term isn't on this page at all, at least currently. Also, it seems to me that this term "golden age" is fraught with problems and is probably best to be avoided. One person's golden age is another's dark age. Pfly (talk) 11:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Islam has definitely shaped modern India. So I think let's not get into that. 30% of India's population is Muslim. So let's not put anything that hurts anyone. India should be proud that it is one of the countries where Jews were treated with great respect. Tata is a zorastrian. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 23:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

:Not 30, but 13 percent.Madstat (talk) 14:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Regardless, Islam has been incredibly influential in India. But I am concerned about the factual inaccuracy that says that Islam arrived in the 1st century CE when in fact it wasn't even founded till the 7th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.55.19.169 (talk) 00:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Replacing Su-30MKI image with HAL Tejas image

I suggest the replacement of Su-30 MKI image with this beautiful image of HAL Tejas.Touchtheskywithglory (talk) 07:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Replaced. --rgpk (comment) 16:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Object to the change as per the comment when this was raised by the same user a few weeks ago Talk:India/Archive 34#Replacing Su-30 MKI image with Tejas. MilborneOne (talk) 17:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I oppose as well, per reasons given by MilborneOne in previous discussion. Lynch7 17:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't see particularly controversial to me, but I'm easy either way. (Nice photo - the tejas one.) --rgpk (comment) 17:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

If the image is supposed to be placed in Foreign relations and military The su-30MKI image is good but at first place I don't find combining these two things foreign relations & military a very good idea. I suggest what was suggested by Humour Thisthat2011 we should get two different sections on India page. We can talk about that on talk page.

Cheers!!!
Nitish.game (talk) 19:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

What difference does it make - Tejas or SU? Let's drop both and use PSLV or Prithvi. If everyone agrees. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 19:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The SU-30 is a good example of co-operation between India and Russia in what is a Foreign relations and military section, the Tejas was home-grown and hasnt really entered service yet. Nothing wrong the Tejas as an example of Indian technology etc but the Su-30 is better suited to foreign relations.

MilborneOne (talk) 20:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Just noticed this. I disagree, the Su-30 MKI is basically a SU-30 tailormade for Indian market - no credit to India there. The Tejas represents Indian aerospace industry development, and is notable for that part. If India-Russia cooperation had to be shown, then the BrahMos is the correct example, not Su-30.

I meant: I would disagree slightly.. India is not Russia centric. America is the new ally that Indians trust. Though Russia still supplies major hardware, but Israel, US, France, etc have also proved to be trusted partners. In that sense the nuclear deal between India and US is the biggest gamechanger for India. India should be happy to have US as an ally. There is more people to people contact with US than with any other nation. Let's have something related with US then. Or else Arjun tank or someother home grown technology would be more reflective of present day India. I am wide open to suggestions. Tejas in that way looks more suited, but it is yet to prove itself. Let me know if I am wrong with Tejas yet to prove itself. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 22:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that foreign relations and military should be split into two. F&F, what's your take? Nameisnotimportant (talk) 08:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I removed the caption under the HAL Tejas that said it is the world's lightest supersonic fighter. That statement is not correct. The Saab Gripen is a supersonic fighter that weighs almost a ton less. Marshallj25 (talk) 17:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Marshall, source please. From what I know Tejas is lighter than the Gripen. Empty weight of Gripen is 6,800 kg, whereas that of Tejas is 6,560 kg. Tejas weighs 140 kg lesser than the Gripen.Touchtheskywithglory (talk) 02:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Touchtheskywithglory, can you provide refs for your weight figures? As such Tejas, being a major Indian R&D effort has intrinsic value to be present on the page whether it is the lightest fighter or not. The case made for the Su-30 can be made for the Mirage 2000 or Jaguar also. AshLin (talk) 04:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Touchtheskywithglory (talk) 16:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Any aircraft guy will tell you that comparing just the empty weights of planes makes no sense whatsoever. Especially for a fighter jet, there are loads of other performance parameters (service ceiling, thrust vectoring, rate of climb, turn radius, etc etc. I can go on listing). It is important to comprehensively look at the planes than just considering the empty weight. Lynch7 05:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

True. Can all those comparisons can be listed in that small space? So rather than make comparisons, better to state the factor of Tejas being the lightest fighter aircraft in the world.Touchtheskywithglory (talk) 16:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Mike for different reasons, whether Tejas is lightest or not is irrelevant, what is important is that it represents an Indian endeavour to develop a world-class fighter indigenously to the extent possible. So cut out the lightest fighter part from the caption and retain the Tejas. Su-30 MKI image does not warrant a place in this article. AshLin (talk) 05:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree with AshLin. If it is included, it should be because it is an indigenous development in the Aerospace field. Lynch7 05:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Suggest a change of caption : "] is a light supersonic fighter developed by ] and manufactured by ] (HAL).<ref>{{citation|url=http://en.rian.ru/world/20110110/162090932.html |title=India gets its first homegrown fighter jet |accessdate=1 April 2009 |author= |date=10 January 2011 |work=RIA Novosti |publisher=}}</ref>]]". Any objections. AshLin (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Now why you want light if you cannot have lightest? if light can be there then surely lightest is not a problem at all. three more letters.Touchtheskywithglory (talk) 16:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support AshLin's proposal. Lynch7 13:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• Touchtheskywithglory, I personally have no issue on adding "est" but have no time for the reference-hunting. It could be that some existing fighter in the world may be lighter. As such I'm sure you will agree that Tejas is important as being India's first "successful" attempt at making a modern supersonic fighter, not because its the lightest. However, if you can hunt up the references and show why lightest is a good thing/notable, then my proposed change can be amended to include that, once you get consensus here. Till then, do you have any other objection to the caption change that I suggested? AshLin (talk) 04:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I could proceed to show you theoretically why empty weight is not a very important factor, but until we get some sources saying why empty weight is a notable factor in fighter aircraft design (as AshLin said), any superlatives should be avoided. Lynch7 05:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Categorical statements such as lightest, biggest, first, etc. should be used only with impeccable referencing. I support not saying 'lightest' unless an impeccable reference with a statement that leaves no room for doubt is provided. I like the Tejas image and support its inclusion.--rgpk (comment) 05:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I take it that there are no violent objections (= consensus imho) for the proposed change. Am making the change on the article page. If anyone feels otherwise, feel free to revert but in that case, continue the thread here with your reasons. AshLin (talk) 17:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

About an issue raised at AN

Hi,

I would like to suggest a few measures as per concerns raised at AN board .

As I understand, the page is amongst the most visited, and as such has somewhat stringent, like may be a few more other pages, standards of including substance.

Of my 'tendentiousness', I would like to point out a few things I observed. As I see it, when I raised certain issues, there is a tendency to not form a consensus. I don't see it as a completely good/bad terminology though( regardless of personal opinion), but if effective it is to ensure that users such as Fowler and more do attend to the queries, with efforts to check the most-clear/least-controversial source, then this should be clearly reflected in some policy on such pages.

What I suggest here, is that may be on this page, there could be a policy where certain changes need not be done for say a 4/5/6/7 days, may be pointed out by admins topicwise. This would give an acknowledgement of some kind that the matter is given some time in which it can be addressed, some breather in general, and avoid 'tendentiousness'/no-consensus-exercises and other unnecessary behavior (and following reactions/re-reaction-cycles) that comes out by default, according to me, in absence of such a policy.

A policy as such could be a kind of guideline for other such pages too, where users like Fowler and others on various topics can give valuable suggestions to the policy about considering what sources on what topics, how, the attitude on it, etc. That would be valuable addition (only)to good practices in general about various topics as well in light of such a policy.

This is a suggestion. One can accept it or reject it. ..ईती ईती नॆती नॆती.. Humour Thisthat2011 07:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The changes to the Lead

This refers specifically to the changes in the two words "Annexed, Colonized", in the lead, used to refer to the EIC & direct British rule. I'd like to draw a consensus before such a change can be made, especially considering that this phrase has been there for over 4 years (and has thus "survived the test of time", so to speak). Note that I'm ok to a rephrase, but not the kind that has been made by user: F&F.

I therefore request all to please provide your opinion, suggestions, and lets close this accordingly. I've reverted changed by F&F until then.AJ-India (talk) 17:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I think AJ-India is right on process here, as far as I know those were the words used when the lead was discussed, and it wasn't mentioned in the FAR. Talk:India/Archive 31 seems to be the most relevant. However, I think Fowler has made an improvement in the text with this. A company can not annex a body of land, so controlled would be better there. As well as this, India was not really colonised, at least not to the extent that other areas such as Australia and Canada were. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict):It was changed in the FAR, and I thought it was being watched by many people, not least two admins and many FAR regulars. The India page, after all, is not the province of only the India page regulars. There were specific objections in the FAR to that sentence (which quoted "Principle of least surprise"). The sentence in question is:

Gradually annexed by the British East India Company from the early 18th century and colonized by the United Kingdom from the mid-19th century, ...

"Colonized" is POV and inaccurate. Here are a few reasons:

• The history section of this article says that the "colonial period" of Indian history began in the 1820s, which is not the mid-nineteenth century.
• "Colonize" can mean settled by Britons, as Chipmunk says as well, as in the settler colonies of Canada, Australia, or South Africa. That never happened in India.
• "Colonize" is a gradual process; it doesn't happen overnight or "from 1858."
• "Colonize" is linked to the British Raj page, but that page says nothing about "colonization," "colonize," or "colonialism."

"Direct rule," or "direct administration" is widely used by scholars to refer to the period of British rule that began in 1858. Moreover, the British Raj page talks about direct administration in its lead. Similarly, historians refer to the control by the East India Company. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be re-worded with words like "egalitarian" and "philanthropic" rule. There is so much the British did. What say? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.83.25.189 (talk) 18:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, am not disputing the "direct rule" part. Thats pretty well established (post the disolution of EIC, Britain ruled directly). The point is: both "controlled" & "administed" apply to both phases of the British rule: Via EIC, and later the Crown. Both controlled, and both administed. Thus the sentence sounds redundant (as if EIC controlled, and Britain adminstered).

Also, that India was a British Colony, is also pretty well established (see this). Thus, to say India was colonized, isnt a POV, but merely stating a fact. Same applies to the annexing part.AJ-India (talk) 03:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

There's a couple of different meanings to the word colony. One is, as you say, a description for some territories under the rule of different Empires (distinguished from, say, protectorates). Another meaning is that of a settlement, made up of people from one area but established outside their territory. Now when I read something was "colonized", it sounds to me like it was settled by people. On the whole in India, this did not really happen. That is not to say it was not a colony. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Like most words, colony too has multiple meanings. Maybe we can rephrase that sentence, to convey the intended meaning. I think there's scope for simplification.AJ-India (talk) 08:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

You are the one who wants to change it. You propose something definite. And no major changes. Just those two words. No one here has an appetite for major discussions. We spent over two months on those, and it came to nothing. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually ok with the current version. Its you who changed it. Hence this discussion. So, if I have to suggest a version, it could be "Gradually annexed & administered by the British East India Company from the early 18th century and administered directly by the United Kingdom from the mid-19th century..."AJ-India (talk) 11:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a good resolution. It's accurate and it's clear. (Sorry, we get so many POV warriors on this page, I had thought you were looking to put something else in.) If there's consensus, you can change it to that after a few days, after others have had a chance to weigh in. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Fowler. This is good. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Am glad we have a consensus (amongst us at least).Thanks AJ-India (talk) 18:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Change required in the economic section

I noticed two statistical changes that is required in the Economic section. 1. India was the world's fifteenth largest importer in 2009 and the eighteenth largest exporter. be changed to India is the world's eleventh largest importer and the seventeenth largest exporter. 2. India's consumer market, currently the world's thirteenth largest be changed to eleventh largest. Similarly if other statistics are found to be outdated, they need to be updated as well.Madstat (talk) 14:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Nano image

The Tata Nano image has to be replaced. The kind of hoopla that it created when it came is not there any more. Tata is not able to sell large number of Nano's either. That image is there for a long time. So why not have the image of Mahindra Scorpio, that's the SUV that's sold successfully in India as well as abroad.Desertcharioteer (talk) 04:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the Nano image is definitely not representative of the Indian automobile industry, the initial hype notwithstanding. I don't think the Scorpio is representative of the industry either. The highlight of the Indian auto industry (per RS) is Maruti Suzuki and the 800/Alto segment in particular. —SpacemanSpiff 08:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Super-sized center-aligned very pertinent British India map image

Wow what a sexy map! I love it! The queen will be proud. Can somebody make it larger!? Please. Sincere request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.219.48.10 (talk) 12:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Fixed to original orientation. —SpacemanSpiff 12:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

New title for creation

A new title named 'Science and Technology' has to created under the section of economy. (This has to be a specific section not immersed in ther article as everyone gets lost into it. Specific countries have done this so India should too.) The country has invented and has good immense work under science in a lot of things. I was seeing China's article (I believe even the US and UK article has it) the other day, they have it and it details a lot of detail in science over years they have worked on. India should hav it as India also has a list of long inventions under science and technology. Do include List of Indian inventions and discoveries. Thanks. Hope to see this section included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.178.185.250 (talk) 11:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Upload any panorama Image

I think we need some Cityscape panorama Image for the article like this

thats all PumaPerumal 08:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

India is the world's largest, oldest and oldest continuing civilization

Kindly go through the Author's notes and the introduction page of the following book!! I am flabergasted as to why my edit was deleted!!!

http://books.google.com/books?id=Tmn91va2e4UC&printsec=frontcover&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false

Here is the link to the official Indian government website that says that India is the world's largest, oldest and oldest continuing civilization!!

http://india.gov.in/myindia/facts.php

Realhistorybuff (talk) 18:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Plenty of reasons have been given: issues with copyright, POV, but I'd like to go with using sources of variable quality and not representing them accurately. In this edit "Amazing Facts about India and Indians!". NRIOL. Retrieved 31 August 2011. was given as the source for the statement "With a continuous history of over 10,000 years, India is the world's largest, oldest and oldest continuing civilization." NRIOL seems to be akin to a travel website and is certainly not a high-quality source.

Then there's the claim that "A 66 million year old fossil was found in India on November 8, 2007 and this indicates the possibility of India's history being much more ancient than currently estimated." The reference given (Handwerk, Brian. "Mystery Mammal Fossil Found in India". Retrieved 31 August 2011.) is talking about prehistory so there's a clear failure to understand the source there.

For the statement that "India was the wealthiest civilization and possessed the most advanced economy throughout most of human history" you quoted a news article. The foundation of an article is its sources and so they must be good quality, especially in a Featured Article. Nev1 (talk) 18:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Also see WP:RS to understand our threshold for reliable sources. The superpower bit has been hashed out here quite often and consensus is to leave it out as it is undue --here, here. —SpacemanSpiff 18:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The largest and oldest living civilization is dubious. The largest civilization would be the British Empire (total land area) or the Mongol Empire (contiguous area). In terms of worldwide influence, that would be the US and/or Europe particularly the UK. The oldest civilization is considered by most people to be Mesopotamia (now modern day Iraq), hence why it is termed the cradle of civilization or the Fertile Crescent. In terms of oldest continuing civilization, that is disputed. There's clear POV issues in the edits. Elockid 20:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

That india.gov.in page "Interesting Facts about India" is amazing. The very first "fact" is "India never invaded any country in her last 100000 years of history." One hundred thousand years? Really? No invasions? Come on. Another fact claims that "detailed knowledge of...genetics...is found in many ancient Indian texts." Genetics? Really? Another claim is that the English words "navigation" and "navy" are derived from Sanskrit words. Curiously, all the dictionaries I can find say they come from Latin. Etymology online says the Latin and the Sanskrit, and many other branches, come from Proto-Indo-European. Then there are odd things like the claim that the "world's first granite temple" is in Tamil Nadu, and was built 1004-1009 AD. So...before 1004 no one had ever built a temple out of granite? Um.. citation needed? Anyway, it amazes me, the kind of stuff one can find on india.gov.in pages. Boggling. This is from the federal government? Reads like boosterism. Pfly (talk) 06:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's some other ones that caught my eye. "Varanasi, also known as Benaras, was called "the Ancient City" when Lord Buddha visited it in 500 B.C., and is the oldest, continuously inhabited city in the world today". Damascus, Syria is the most commonly accepted city as the oldest continuously inhabited city in the world. Martial Arts were first created in India, and later spread to Asia by Buddhist missionaries. That one is just no. There is no one definite "fact" where martial arts came from. Elockid (Alternate) 17:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

@plfy Sanskrit is the mother of all languages. It has been proven time and time again that Sanskrit was the first language to originate. In fact, the word "Navigation" DID originate from two Sanskrit words "Navi" and "Gaath".

@Elockid Your information regarding Damascus, Syria is not verifiable, and slightly comical (sorry if that was rude :-)).

And can someone please explain to me why some of the edits regarding India's history were deleted. I just went through some of the previous versions and it seems to me that everything was in order. The reference was good. The links provided at the beginning of this article are credible sources. I understand that this is a featured article, but I feel that the edit made by "realhistorybuff" was legit. The user seems to be blocked. Thabks :-)

Jackiepurr (talk) 20:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The oldest civilization(s) are usually said to be those of the Ancient Near East. It is there we have the oldest known examples of writing, agriculture, and other aspects of civilization (which is a somewhat vague term). The oldest known religious structure is Göbekli Tepe, in Turkey, about 11,000 years old. The idea that Indian civilization is the oldest is an exceptional claim, so requires exceptional sources. I'm not saying it is not true, just that the idea that the Near East is the oldest seems to have more and better sources, as far as I know. Also, "Sanskrit is the mother of all languages"? The "first language to originate"? That's extremely hard to believe. Tasmanians had no language until Sanskrit people came by (somehow)? Or is Sanskrit over 40,000 years old? Pfly (talk) 21:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The mother of all languages is Sanskrit and the first language to originate? That is just pure POV and boosterism. Considering that the Out of Africa theory is the most accepted theory, what you're saying is that people did not speak a language until they started to arrive in India? That requires an outstanding amount of sourcing to the degree of worldwide conference. Or, are you suggesting that Sanskrit is in fact the world's first language which actually did not originate in India. The source regarding the information with Varanasi I think has already proven to be an a very unreliable source. Our inclusion for such material in Misplaced Pages is that the source must be reliable. Dictionaries such as Dictionary.com even say it's reputed as the oldest city. UNESCO (go to Long description) or copied directly: Damascus is considered to be the oldest city as well as the oldest capital of the world. Under criterion III: Historical and archaeological sources testify to origins in the third millennium BC, and Damascus is widely known as among the oldest continually inhabited cities in the world and along with the previous description, this would make Damascus as the oldest continuously inhabited city in the world. Columbia Encyclopedia (Encyclopedia.com has a copy of the article). Since primary sources seems to be what you're going with, let's also use BBC. BBC reporting that Damascus claims to be the oldest continuously inhabited city in the world. Here's article 1 and article 2. Google searching "what is the oldest inhabited city in the world" shows a lot of Damascus results (haven't even found one Varanasi). Do I need further proof? Sorry, but we don't go with POV filled history here. Elockid 23:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

(To Pfly and Elockid) The India page has a long history of drive-by appearances by trolls such as Realhistorybuff (talk · contribs) and Jackiepurr (talk · contribs), who materialize out of thin air and push various agendas frenetically for a while and then vanish or get banned. Its best not to pay them too much attention. There's not even a snowball's chance in hell that the garbage they're peddling will ever make it into the India page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Shakuntala

I'm asking permission from you folks to replace the rotation template with the Shakuntala image.

I saw the page. The Tagore portrait was showing. It doesn't evince "mystic India"—timeless, borderless. It is a rather nice headshot. Nothing more.

There's something about the colours, the gestures in that painting that warms the page. Warms it in a way that the plaster of recent statues, or parti-colored temples and ghats, headshots dour and colourless, cannot. They are particular places, merely certain faces.

I have nothing against Tagore or the other subjects, and nothing against rotation ... elsewhere. I am familiar with the fissiparous image wrangling in the archives and have no interest in resurrecting it. But we should do service for our readers by showing them a kindly enigmatic image, a sort of Mona Lisa's smile pertaining to India's own most ancient past. I'm commenting, years later, because I regret it not being there every time I purge the cache.

Regards. Saravask 01:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Delighted to welcome back to the India page, one of the members of the page's original Featured Article (FA) team, the principal author of the FA Rabindranath Tagore, and the creator of the Template:Indian image rotation. I'm happy to support Saravask's proposal.

PS Even if others don't agree on a single replacement, they might want to reduce the number of images in the rotation template. Since Saravask is here, this is also the time to ask any questions about the template (which I seem to remember some people had a few months ago.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the Shakuntala image would be a wonderful addition (if I remember correctly this was discussed before too). However, I also believe that the rotation serves a valid purpose -- I just think that the pics we have in the rotation are not the most representative. If we can reselect the images that would be best IMO. —SpacemanSpiff 05:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Well how if then take it as a friendly suggestion. As I've said I've no stomach for rebarbative pic tussling. Gawdy or not, images should compose an equivalence class. Headshot was the odd one out ... Saravask 00:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

If Chamberlain were alive, India page would be his favorite... Not just this issue. Every language is "Official". Every regional tongue is "Classical". Every festival is "notable". Every template is "informative". Every freedom-struggle leader is "mention-able". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.219.48.10 (talk) 12:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

1. "India gets its first homegrown fighter jet". RIA Novosti. 10 January 2011. Retrieved 1 April 2009.

• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• Misplaced Pages articles that use Indian English
• Selected anniversaries (August 2004)
• Selected anniversaries (August 2005)
• Selected anniversaries (August 2011)
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists, unused