Jump to content

Talk:India/Archive 23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25→Archive 30

No one has answered my points about Aryans

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This is one of the reason's wikipedia is so frustrating. I mean I brought up the issue about Aryan's being mentioend in this article. ANd I guess some of you who control this article don't want more info about the Aryan's mentioned. One user seemed to want facts. So I typed in some facts.....I TYPED IN SOME FACTS......and no one has told me weather they agree or disagree with my facts......So now do you people understand why im frustrated? I mean you want facts, and I gave some facts, and no one has answered me about them. So it's like if I try to put some info about Aryans it will get erased. And when I try to give some facts about why there should be some more facts about Aryan's in this article no one will answer them? ARYAN818 (talk) 18:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

You have received an adequate response every single time Aryan, but you just seem to ignore their advice. You have been told on countless occasions that Wikipedia is not based on the truth or facts but is based on Verifiable information contained in Reliable sources. Furthermore, this information has to be presented in a Neutral manner.
Yet in your posts about Aryans, Swastikas and whatnot, you have not explained where your information can be verified, you have not provided even one single citation to support what you say and you have not convinced any of the other editors here that this glorification of Aryans, etc. is unbiased and neutral. If you don't read the three fundamental policies of Wikipedia, which are blue linked above, you will never understand how Wikipedia works and will never progress in anything here. GizzaDiscuss © 01:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I have recieved an adequated resposne every single time? Every single time? ARe u sure about that? Go to that other section I created about the Aryan's and there is no response after a while......And im not ignoring their adivce.....I gave SOME facts. I mean on WIKIPEDIA there are information about some of the stuff i've said lol. I mean has anyone bothered to check anything I said ARYAN818 (talk) 21:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay, here's a problem: you expect us to see every little comment you make when, in fact, sometimes we don't! There's a lot of discussions, so BE NICE and STOP FREAKING OUT. Or none of us will WANT to respond. BlackPearl14[talkies!•contribs!] 20:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF HOW FRUSTARTING WIKIPEDIA IS.....One person says to me "you have not provided even one single citation.....and yet.....another user says "Okay, here's a problem: you expect us to see every little comment you make when, in fact, sometimes we don't!".......That is one example of how a person can get frustrated with wikipedia.......You tell me to "BE NICE and STOP FREAKING OUT. Or none of us will WANT to respond".....Well sometimes no one does respond weather im nice or "freaking out". ARYAN818 (talk) 21:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

lol ;) the thing is: right underneath your comment, someone will add something new, and then another person - and we think that your comment is an older one! Here's a suggestion: I would go on Fowler&fowler's talk page and ask him about things you would like entered there. Be sure to provide your own sources, though, because we can't cite wikipedia ourselves. If it's on wikipedia, copy and paste: we're pretty busy people! I hope I helped out ;) I was just saying, instead of acting immaturely like you did, act more mature. BlackPearl14[talkies!•contribs!] 21:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


(unindent) Guys, seriously, don't feed it. AreJay (talk) 21:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Now you guys understand? I mean I just mentioned how one person told me I dont put any evidence, and yet how another person tells me I expect them to go over all my evidence.....THAT IS A CONTRADICTION PEOPLE AND A VALID POINT........and yet this user says "dont feed it" like im the bad guy?.....THis is one of the reasons why wikipedia can be so annoying.....I mean I just gave a valid point......and this user ignores my point and say "dont feed it".......Hey user did u not understand that two user's gave me a contradiction? ARYAN818 (talk) 17:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

If you have a problem with Wikipedia, you're free not to edit. Respectfully, please quit with the rants. If you want to do something useful for Aryans, get the Aryan article up to featured status. 18:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.8.123 (talk)

Thank you!!!!!!! (no, really haha) BlackPearl14[talkies!•contribs!] 18:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Why did you say thank you like you just proved some point? What did you prove about me that I am not getting? I mean didn't you and another user give two implications about my not having evidence, and me having evidence? Thank you !! ARYAN818 (talk) 21:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Both of us told you to provide evidence, as in sources. Which one of us didn't? And Arejay called you a troll because after months and months, you have still not bothered to learn about Wikipedia's policies. You haven't even clicked on these links, have you? (WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:OR) I think the last one is most important for you because your additions resemble original research more than anything else. GizzaDiscuss © 22:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
THis is really weird how you guys are sooooooo technical that everything has to be sourced. I mean if I America is the name of a country am I supposed to source that to? I mean seroiusly some of the things I mentioned are on wikipedia lol........I mean are you people telling me that there should not be more mention of Aryan's in this article of INdia? ARe you teling me that there should not be more mention of Aryan's in this article? ARYAN818 (talk) 00:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, verifiability is the sad part of Wikipedia. But don't lose hope. Try this encyclopedia. --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 16:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
So someone explain to me why there are so many articles on wikipedia that are not sourcing everything? And someone tell me why there are certain things on wikipedia that are allowed to stay in the article with the words ciatation needed, but that can't be done here on India? And someone tell me if there should not be more mention of the Aryan's in this aritcle? And someone tell me why there are mentions of Aryan's in Iran's aritcle but they don't seem to be mentioned in this article? Valid questions. I wonder if someone is going to answer them, or just make me seem like an annoying user? ARYAN818 (talk) 21:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Aryan, you really need to start reading rather than asking here again and again. Please reer to WP:V, WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:S etc. --Ragib (talk) 21:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I wouldnt keep asking if people would answer the question. I mean you have just proved my point that instead of answering my questions you just make me seem like an idiot who keeps asking for no reason. HOw bout just answering what I asked Ragib?....by the way im not being disrespectful by asking this am I o great one? ARYAN818 (talk) 19:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, i was just going to suggest that. Sorry to be blunt, but hi ARYAN818! I find your arguments and edits more naive than annoying. Docku:“what up?” 21:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
O really? Any examples you want to give? Or are you another user who can't admit when im right and making good points? Give me some examples of how my edits are more naive then annoying? (here is another user who can't answer the question) ARYAN818 (talk) 19:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Aryan, look, the articles that don't have citations STATE, somewhere on the page, that there need to be citations, or, on the discussion page, there will be a dispute just like this one. No, I'm serious. Now PLEASE, start READING the encyclopedia first before posting like this, pleeeeeeaaaasseeee. *end begging session*. Right, point made. BlackPearl14[talkies!•contribs!] 01:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
You dont understand do you? Some pages, dont have citations, but still KEEP the info there with somethign like CITATION NEEDED. SO why cant that be done here? ANswer the question if you can, right, point made. ARYAN818 (talk) 01:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
This is a featured article. Featured articles must conform to all official wikipedia policies. Consider your question answered. Now, if the article has sentences that require a citation, it can be challenged and removed. Do your homework on the policy links above. If you ask one more stupid question, I'll flag you on the WP:AN. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Fact template is used to request citation and contents where such request was not adequately met can and should be deleted.
By the way, could you please propose the information you would want to add to the article with citations. Pls also let us know which section in the article would you want to add it. Docku:“what up?” 19:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I want there to be more mention of Aryan heritage in India. I mean Aryan's used the swastika sighn (linked to India) Aryan's spoke Sanskrit (linked to India) Aryan's practiced Hinduism (linked to India) Aryan's have evidence of being in India, and according to some information, over 70% of the country is considered Indo-Aryan. And yet people here are argueing with me about this? I mean shouldn't their be more mention of Aryan heritage in India? I mean some people think the Aryan's came from India! ARYAN818 (talk) 01:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
To answer your question on why pages have those citations needed tags, well since you refuse to read up Wikipedia policies, see this image and come to a logical conclusion. We won't help you deduce the meaning. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
LOL BlackPearl14[talkies!•contribs!] 01:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
You know we may be kind enough to allow you to add a few sentence and then the citaion needed tag and we can keep the tag for a few days. But it is still up to you to eventually find the sources because you are the one who added the information. Someone else can do try to do this for you but nobody has to, it is your responsibility. Also, if you found reliable sources but don't know how to them with the correct format, we will gladly help you. Even on non-featured articles, citation needed tags are only temporary so the person can take some time to find and add the sources. If they cannot, the sentence will go. GizzaDiscuss © 02:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Im not sure how to do the sourcing thing. I was hoping someone can do that for me. My issue is not sourcing everything. My issue is why is there not enough stuff mentioned about the Aryans in India? I mean some of the stuff that I mentioned above about how Aryan's have links with India, you can learn about on Wikipedia! ARYAN818 (talk) 01:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Why are people still reacting to ARYAN818 (talk · contribs)? Seriously, this section is a waste of screen real estate. Can we make it collapsible or move it to user talkspace? See also WP:DENY. --dab (𒁳) 11:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

If it's a waste of time then don't waste your time here. ARYAN818 (talk) 01:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Lemme rephrase what this person is saying: your work on this talk page? It's a waste of time. Because you refuse to work with WikiPolicy. Your info is no doubt interesting but do the work. 'Nuff said. BlackPearl14[talkies!•contribs!] 03:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

No actually im willing to work with it. But some of you aren't willing to work with it on me. I had one user on a different page say that I start Frivolous debate's about how things started in India {RAGIB USER}....I had another user say how "This is why no one likes to help you" {Flowanda user}......I had one person on my user page just say "unbelievable" when I asked for examples.......I mean come on......do all these user's seem like there trying to work with me? No!........I mean the examples I have just given you are from different pages, if not this page......I mean I type and type and type and type and type and type and try to be logical and sometime's these are the kind of response's I get. It's like people on Wikipedia want it there way, and if anyone else tries to change thing's they just start putting you down. I have given you examples. Now give me an example of how im not trying to work with people. I gave you examples, now give me some. If you can't give me example's then don't make me seem like im someone who is not willing to work with Wikipolicy. I am willing to work with Wikipolicy. ARYAN818 (talk) 18:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me remind you how this catagory started. I started it by saying "No one has answered my points about Aryans"..........I mean that is the name of the catagory for a reason. I didn't put that as the heading for no reason. I labled it like that because I felt that way. I mean I type and type and try to give example's to prove my case and/or to give logic, and sometime's I don't even get a logical response? ARYAN818 (talk) 18:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Let me be honest with you. I find your arguments absolutely illogical and this answer from you makes me think that you dont have an objective understanding of the subject. Now, either get it or get over it. Docku:“what up?” 18:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
May I be so bold as to say that if you (ARYAN818), continue to fight with us instead of reading the rules/policies and writing in accordance with them, any further protest against it will be ignored and all work reverted without need of explanation? You seem not to get that we are trying to help you and you are not working in harmony with us. BlackPearl14[talkies!•contribs!] 05:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

BlackPearl14, I am afraid it is you who is perpetuating this. You said "nuff said" on 30 September. More than enough had been said at that point, and there is no reason at all to react to this any further. You are just encouraging it. This is the wisdom behind WP:DENY/WP:DNFTT: some people have a certain infantile streak of character that will make them to continue to "not get it" as long as it buys them attention. When they stop getting any attention, they eventually stop their disruptive behaviour. --dab (𒁳) 05:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Aryan818, please read relevant policies before starting a new thread. I am closing this. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References

The Reference section uses the Harvard reference template, which is depreciated. It should be replaced immediately with the cite book templates. I am going to indulge in a few edits to correct this. So do not worry. Thanks, Kensplanet (talk) 17:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

User {{inuse}} to avoid edit conflicts. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Photo caption

The photo captioned North Block in New Delhi looks like the Supreme Court (also in New Delhi) to me - please correct me if I am incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.9.227.162 (talk) 05:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

No, though the architecture is similar. --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 14:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The anon has a point. Unless the picture is taken from the northern end of North Block (the part not visible to public), I'd say we have an investigation on our hands. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Population

Did you know, India has the highest population of gay/lesbians? Well it's true! There's an interesting fact to tell people! They have special rights for gay/lesbians that not many other countries have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Happy olive 123 (talk • contribs) 12:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

With 1.2 billion population, i would expect everything to be high in India (higher number of males, females, children and so on). WP is not a forum unless you want to make a point here. Docku:“what up?” 14:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
"Interesting facts", ie. trivia, needs to have more value as well as reliable sources to back the claim for it to be included in this article. And I'm a little confused by your second statement, since homosexuality is illegal in India. In any case, we can't deal on this subject in great detail on a summary article, so Homosexuality in India is the best place to develop this discussion further. GizzaDiscuss © 22:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

non proliferation record

Is this really POV? Is there an alternative opinion of India? Docku:“what up?” 13:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The White House, rather the United States, is not a certifying body on non-proliferation. The White House can say anything, that does not make it a reliable source. IAEA, or similar organizations would be better suited to comment. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25→Archive 30

Query

This change to the infobox makes it look tidier (IMO). Should we implement it? It was undone as it was not discussed. --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 08:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Should I go ahead and make this change? --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 14:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
The link you provided is quite confusing. I am still trying to understand what the difference is. Sorry. Docku:“what up?” 16:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
The official languages and official scheduled languages are differentiated by a line. Thus when "expanded" ([show] is clicked) the distinction is more clear. I know the change is minor and silly but I thought of discussing it here as this page is an important one where nothing is "minor"! --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 17:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, the line distinction looks better. Docku:“what up?” 17:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Can we add Ganesh Chaturthi in the list of festivals?

Ganesh Chaturthi is a popular festival in western India. I wanted to get the vies of other editors on this? --Anshuk (talk) 18:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Ganesh Chaturthi is the celebration of the birth of Lord Ganesha, one of the most important Gods of the Hindu Mythology. According to the Hindu belief Ganeshji is worshipped first on all auspicious occasions, whether it is a marriage or a religious function. Ganeshji is the foremost god of the Hindu Pantheon.This festival is not only celebrated in India but outside India also -- like nepal,srilanka,Mauritius, UK & US etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by It labs (talk • contribs) 02:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Um? I think it's no problem... but not sure what It labs was trying to say. BlackPearl14[talkies!•contribs!] 02:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Support: One of the most worshiped deity in nation and Hinduism. --gppande «talk» 14:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Commonwealth of Nations edit

I have reverted the edit "although it remains a member of the Commonwealth of Nations." because

  1. The sentence is too specific for the lead. See WP:LEAD
  2. although implies contradiction. The although bit does not contradict the previous sentence, or the summary of the second paragraph.

=Foreign relations= is a better alternative. =Nichalp «Talk»= 20:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

religious violence

I removed this edit as I believe it carrys undue significance to the article. There is a lot of information about India not covered in the main article in detail and I believe this clearly falls in that category. Docku:“what up?” 00:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It should stay in some form. It is too significant to India right now due to the pre-eminence of the issue of this violence in the main stream media right now. I agree that it should be dramatically shortened from it's present form, and perhaps merged elsewhere in the article. Sandwich Eater (talk) 02:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

A lot less notable and enduring than floods and earthquakes that occur almost every year. And it doesn't happen on a continual basis unlike some insurgencies. YellowMonkey (click here to chose Australia's next top model!) 02:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you're correct. A section covering all ongoing insurgencies in India with links to separate pages describing them would be more appropriate for a nation wide article. Sandwich Eater (talk)
There is already an article titled Religious violence in India. Details about specific incidents should go there. Per summary style, this article is to contain only summary information about various core issues of India. --Ragib (talk) 03:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
It also doesnt follow Wikipedia conventions. All nation articles should be uniform since this is an encyclopedia. Nikkul (talk) 06:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

This refusal to allow the conflicts of India to be summarized in the article is nonsense. Have a look at the WP page for Georgia. Clearly WP does capture current events within the context of the encyclopedia article, which is one of the great things about wikipedia. It is a one stop shop to get up to speed on an issue, but with a context that is more informative than a news article. Methinks some of the Indian nationals have a biased point of view.Bilbo of Andover (talk) 11:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

History section, 6th paragraph, first line. Since independence, India has suffered from religious violence, casteism and insurgencies in various parts, but has been able to control them through tolerance and constitutional reforms. Expanding on religious violence is clear WP:UNDUE. Docku:“what up?” 13:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Georgia is NOT a featured article, where as India is and has been for a long time. I think we should work on the Georgia article more than adding something from the Georgia article to this one. Also, India is a country of a billion people (unlike Georgia) where such small incidents aren't relevant to the larger populace. Your proposal of adding a section on religious violence on this page is like adding a section on Hurricanes on the United States page. Totally undue. Nikkul (talk) 05:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Hindustan as a separate article: Keep

Keep 'Hindustan' was and still remains important in the Indian subcontinent as a popular word for the land 'India'. If intention of Wikipedia is to be an importance knowledge resource, Hindustan should be an independent article, in my humble opinion. But info in it should be NPOV, give past history in one para or two and should admit that the present usage of the word may die away with time for various reasons, including the sensitivities of some sections which may also be mentioned. Info may be duplicated in brief in the article on India, I feel. My two cents: Wiki dr mahmad (talk) 17:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

How different is that from India, and why is that not considered a Fork? =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


Keep I just read the Hindustan article and it provides valuable information on the meaning and its use throughout time. This information would never be able to be added to the India page, especially given the Summary Style of this article. I think it's best to keep the article with NPOV. Nikkul (talk) 05:41, 30 October 2008

(UTC)

Dear Nichalp, I see that this 'merge/keep/delete' discussion is ON in quite a few India/Pakistan related articles/topics. My intention is to have Wikipedia as an easily accessible knowledge resource (using Wikipedia search engine) on all topics of relevance to past and present, but in a good faith NPOV language, away from any nationalistic or other negative ramifications. The West has done it admirably for their lands! How to achieve this in the Afro-Asian region , I leave to wiser contributors than me. Wiki dr mahmad (talk) 22:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep WP:FORK says A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject. While article India deals with India as a country, Hindustan just talks about the word "Hindustan". Of course, it could be redirected to Names of India, but having it as a separate article should provide a vivid picture of Hindustan for someone who is specifically interested to know its meaning. Docku:“what up?” 22:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Etymology of Name

What is the literal meaning of "Gaṇarājya"? Rajya look like "kingdom" or something like that...but then what is "Gana"? Le Anh-Huy (talk) 22:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Gana has many meanings in Sanskrit (e.g., as a prefix for Ganesha – Ganapathi, Ganaraja, etc.), but can also mean community or number. Thanks AreJay (talk) 23:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Le Anh, Rajya means state, Gana means Union or Collection[1], so Ganarajya means Union of States. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 01:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Ganrajya means "republic" if you go by this Republic of India; Bharat Ganrajya. This is also pointed out in the infobox (see non-numbered footnotes). But after reading Arejay's and Fmt's comments, I guess there is a mistake!! --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 07:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
In terms of Sanskrit defination, Gana also means people. Rajya also means rule. So Ganarajya also means - place where there is rule of people symbolizing republic and democracy. Other famous words with use of Gana as said above by Arejay are
  • Ganesh which is made of Gana and -ish or -esh means Lord. So Ganesh is also called as Ganapati or Ganaadidesh. Pati in some ways means owner and adhidesh means ruler.
  • Ganavesh which is made of Gana and vesh means clothing. So Ganavesh means Uniform.

Many more words of Gana... --GPPande talk! 18:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

No, you are right, but I believe Le Anh was asking how the word Ganarajya (which, as you point out is republic) is derived. Fmt and I were just pointing out what the word Gana means, since Rajya means kingdom AreJay (talk) 14:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Images for 'Geography'

I added two varied photos for the geography section, but for some reason they were deleted. I do believe that the geography section should have an image, because of India's varied landscape. Samantha555 (talk) 08:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Maybe have a rotation of images from different landscapes. This has worked well for culture and flora sections. Nikkul (talk) 17:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I added two photos to the geography section. I believe they show a good example of the variety of the landscape in India. Samantha555 (talk) 09:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
lets add them here first Nikkul (talk) 05:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Commonwealth or American English?

Hi - I'd like a clarification here, of whether this article is to be written in Commonwealth English or American English. I think it should be the former, but I want to ask before I make the necessary change. S h i v a (Visnu) (talk) 20:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

First, I have to admit I dont know much about the difference. Nevertheless, does it matter? Can we not have both mixed? Docku:“what up?” 21:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Well it comes across as weird. At one sentence, you have "civilization" and the other you have "characterised." Worse, you can have the same term spelled differently in the same article. I am pretty sure it affects the quality of prose and the article, which is supposed to be one of the best here. S h i v a (Visnu) (talk) 22:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I like "s" more than "z". :) Docku:“what up?” 22:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
It's an issue of inconsistency. Spelling on all Indian articles should follow British English spelling. AreJay (talk) 23:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately there is no consistency in British English when it comes to "ize" endings. The Oxford English Dictionary uniformly favors "ize." Thus their primary entries are: "characterize (also -ise)," "plagiarize (also -ise), etc., whereas the Chambers's Dictionary favors the "-ise" endings (if I remember correctly). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I use the -ize spellings for scientific works. Amateur radio in India uses the -ize spelling because that's what the Wireless Planning Commission of the Ministry uses. For as long as its consistent within the article, its ok. For general India topics use -ise. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Removing edits based on "discuss first"

I am a bit uncomfortable about the tendency here to flat-out remove someone's edits if a discussion has not taken place. The principle is good and should be the way to work, but I don't like this practice of actually removing the edit on that excuse. If there is a question or a problem with an edit then that can be discussed immediately, but I don't think anyone should have the right to remove edits without discussion as it should be avoided to make significant edits without discussion. I feel it kinda violates the idea of Wikipedia being a free encyclopedia, and policies I've read, such as WP:BOLD.

I'm not trying to question anyone's intentions or blame anyone and I respect that this article is a WP:FA, but its just uncomfortable and a bit annoying to find one's edit un-done citing "discuss first," when in fact a 2-3 day discussion had already taken place on the talkpage which the person reverting neglected to see. And in one case, where actual spelling mistakes were restored because of a question over the modification of sentences. My opinion is that the person with the question can easily raise and discuss the same point before actually un-doing the edit. Unless its vandalism or something radical, what is the need to flat-out remove edits like this when you can actually discuss that very edit at that point? On the other hand, such a removal is justified, as the edit in question raised a major content and policy dispute.

This article is also semi-protected so new people and IPs cannot edit. Now if this flat-out removing of edits occurs, it makes one very uncomfortable in contributing when the edits do not change the article in a major way. S h i v a (Visnu) (talk) 00:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Such reverts were the subject of a long RfC on this page. The majority decision was that reverts are reasonable in such a "highly trafficked" (if that's the word) feature article, as long as they are polite and ask the editor in question to bring up the issue on the talk page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Maybe f&f is pointing to Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-06-10_India along with the subsequent discussion on this talkpage earlier this year. Shiva browse through the archives and you would get it. --GPPande talk! 14:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
The RfC was held in January/February 2007 and is summarized here. (section 4). Obviously, this applies to substantial edits, not to routine corrections of grammar and spelling. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
The RfC is interesting, but my point here is that if just 2-3 sentences are being edited, there is no reason to remove the edits outright. You can initiate the discussion at that point and then remove if the consensus allows it. Unless a whole para is being added, or a statement making a major assertion is being changed - like the cause of partition or Muslim conquest or war with Pakistan - it feels like over-policing. S h i v a (Visnu) (talk) 18:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Shiva(Vishnu) - Your observations are spot-on. This kind of misplaced and many a time uninformed vigilantism has been the bane of this article for over two years now. Please feel free to make any edits to this and any article as you see fit. Only make sure that you adhere to WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE and you will be fine. This is the encyclopedia that anybody can edit and there is no rule or guideline on wikipedia that requires you to discuss every edit on the talk page. This article is no exception. And as for the RfC linked above, don't you waste your time reading the nonsense. For one, the RfC was nearly two years ago, secondly, it is not a vote around here, thirdly the purported summary there is a joke and fourthly and most importantly, like I said, there is no rule or guideline on wikipedia that requires you to discuss every edit on the talk page. Sarvagnya 16:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Those reverts never ill-intentioned, but I do feel there should be restraint in the removal of new contributions - it is more respectful and constructive to do so. S h i v a (Visnu) (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Sports section

I have a couple of suggestions - shall we merge it with the "Culture" section, given that it is barely 3-4 sentences and very brief in discussing the topic? If not, (2) shall we add details about India's sporting history in the Olympics, Asian Games and Hockey World Cups, etc.? The current section is a bare-bones discussion of sports in India. S h i v a (Visnu) (talk) 02:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree Sports section should be improved. --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 13:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree the sports section should be updated-Wacky Zingoz 11/03/2008

But please refrain from adding any individual players into this summary style article. --GPPande talk! 20:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes. I totally agree with Gppande. Don't want any more controversies. --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 17:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I partly agree as regards to cricketers, football and hockey players, but I feel that it undercuts the description of the non-team sports where Indians have shown interest and achievement. It seems a bit odd that we can mention India's World Cup wins in hockey and cricket but not Anand's World title win or Abhinav Bindra's Olympic gold, which is equivalent of a world title. S h i v a (Visnu) (talk) 20:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Again, please try to understand this is summary style article. Mention of sports is all that is required. Naming a particular person is giving undue advantage to a person and not sport. Instead, focus on improving Sports in India. --GPPande talk! 08:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


"Islamic Golden Age"

"The massacres perpetuated by Muslims in India are unparalleled in history, bigger than the Holocaust of the Jews by the Nazis; or the massacre of the Armenians by the Turks; more extensive even than the slaughter of the South American native populations by the invading Spanish and Portuguese." - Francois Gautier Rewriting Indian History by Francois Gautier, Chapter 4 - Islam and the Muslim Invasions —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinacrine (talk • contribs) 04:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of change

Hi - as I have been requested to do, I am explaining the following change I am making to this article - it is mainly editing, correcting of spelling mistakes and awkward grammar. If you are giving precise dates, you don't need "three years later" or "finally" (which sounds like someone telling a story). There aren't any particular changes in content, except I do want to change the "as per the wishes of the Muslim League" statement in regards to explaining the partition of India - it is quite misleading by itself and raises more questions than it answers. It would be more concise and accurate to say "at the same time Muslim-majority areas were partitioned to form a separate state of Pakistan." I hope this meets with approval - I will make the amends if there are no objections. S h i v a (Visnu) (talk) 06:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, I am assuming that this article should be written as per Indian English or Commonwealth English, in which case words like "characterized" should be "characterised." S h i v a (Visnu) (talk) 06:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Why have you deleted "India has suffered from religious violence, casteism and insurgencies in various parts, but has been able to control them through tolerance and constitutional reforms"? --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 08:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I rewrote the sentence because the latter part is awkward and unlike the rest of the article, the fact has not been cited. I found myself asking what is meant by "control them," given that violence always had terrible fallout in every case, "tolerance" can be directly disputed by the mobs involved. I'm not sure which "constitutional reforms" have been attempted and attributed to stop violence. What happens if something new happens tomorrow? Was that "controlled" through the "constitutional reforms" stated? Such an assertion would require a direct citation in my opinion. The more general statement I wrote of "India facing challenges from religious violence, casteism...." is much better in giving fact without inviting dispute. S h i v a (Visnu) (talk) 20:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I forgot to mention that I changed "parliamentary republic" because the usual, correct term is "parliamentary democracy." "Parliamentary" refers to a form of "democracy," not a form of "republic." Both India and the U. S. are republics, but only India is a parliamentary democracy, whereas the U. K. is a parliamentary democracy that is not a republic. S h i v a (Visnu) (talk) 20:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I Support your edits. Thanks! --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 14:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. S h i v a (Visnu) (talk) 14:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Shiva, if a statement is made in summary style article like India, about a phenomenon which has it's own article like Religious tolerance in India then no citation is required. Reader can drill down to the individual article and get the citations. For more info - read Wikipedia:Citing_sources#When_to_cite_sources. Constitutional reforms used to curb violence are many - like reservations for castes. Example: special category was given by Rajastan government to Gujjars to stop violence/blockades. It's fine later part of constitutional reforms was removed because it lacks comprehensive child article but religious tolerance part can be reinstated into the article based on explanation I have provided. What do you say? --GPPande talk! 14:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi GP Pande - I welcome your feedback because I was initially of the same opinion as you and didn't consider this a big deal, but reading WP:NPOV gives me a different point of view.
The principle problem with that sentence is that it makes an assertion that India has suffered from such violence but has been able to control it through constitutional reforms and tolerance. This is making a very definitive assertion about a very serious issue. How can one claim this to be so without appropriate sources backing this assertion up? Whether or not India has been able to control such conflict through tolerance and reforms is a live debate in the country that sharply divides people. Religious tolerance in India itself speaks of many episodes of violence that question the extent and ability of tolerance in controlling violence.
A reader may ask what is "control?" The riots in Gujarat, Delhi (1984) and Ayodhya were stopped when the Army was deployed, and thousands had been killed by then. While most Indians back religious harmony, there are those who do not. About "constitutional reforms," I first thought of the very kind of example you wrote of above, but then it occured to me that the statement is speaking generally of the kinds of problems that India faces. And again, the question of how such reforms have "controlled" violence arises - how did reforms help stop the Ambedkar statue desecretion riots? Was the official abolition of untouchability able to prevent the beating up of Dalits in a village somewhere, who tried to enter a temple to pray, as has happened, albeit infrequently?
Yes, both tolerance and reforms have helped in a big way to resolve problems. I remember reading of a village in Gujarat where Hindus and Muslims stood together to keep out rioters. But for every one example of tolerance there is another of intolerance.
That sentence to me conveyed a clear assertion about an important issue - without citation, it comes across as a bold opinion. It will immediately invite controversy - on this talkpage there has been a debate about a subsection to record an episode of violence. The problem cannot be said to be solved by thinking that a reader will go to the specific article to get the full picture - meanwhile, this authoritative article on India is making a definitive assertion about a national problems. A reader may not see it necessary to go beyond an article that is authoritative about the subject of the country and considered a WP:FA.
Saying "India faces challenges" keeps it open to both sides - some major problems were resolved through tolerance, but some were not. India will have to deal with future problems that it may or may not be able to control. I read Wikipedia:Citing sources#Qualifying sources, which relays the point about identifying exactly who is making the assertion and how Wikipedia must not advocate one opinion. S h i v a (Visnu) (talk) 18:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I get your point, the control is not complete but only limited. So now I propose below changes to current statement (modified earlier by me) -
If I may modify your nomination: Since independence, India has faced challenges from religious violence, casteism, naxalism, terrorism and regional separatist insurgencies, especially in Jammu and Kashmir and Northeast India. India's secularism, freedom of religion and major reforms have helped towards resolving conflicts.
Adding the law enforcement/intelligence agencies is too controversial - many have criticized the failures of police and intelligence, human rights abuses and police complicity in riots. S h i v a (Visnu) (talk) 19:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
major qualifies as WP:PEACOCK term and so is discouraged. Constitutional reforms is most apt here. Using only reforms word could confuse the reader on weather the reforms were social like Dalit buddhist movement.
I will add this to the article if no concern is raised. --GPPande talk! 20:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with mentioning the reservation system, given the 2006-07 protests and other noted protests. Also, "maintain control" is debatable as I pointed out earlier. I prefer - ... have helped towards resolving conflicts. S h i v a (Visnu) (talk) 20:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Now - protests, strikes and blockades have always rained in India. In your proposal, you had mentioned secularism and freedom of religions, which both mean almost the same. It is a repeating concept. In above proposal, religious violence have been counteracted with religious tolerance and casteism by reservation system. Naxalism and terrorism were counteracted with intelligence and Law enforcement agencies but somehow you rejected it citing some tiny reasons. See, criticism is always going to be there. But they are negligible compared to otherwise good work done by them. Look at the entire history since independence, not few incidences. This is entire 60 years of history and without law and order agencies no country would have survived so long. I have provided enough explanations from my side so adding it to the article. --GPPande talk! 20:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, criticism will aways be there, so it is hardly a summary-style or generally-accepted statement if it will be disputed easily and is without a proper citation. I again point out Wikipedia:Citing sources#Qualifying sources. You don't need to mention law enforcement agencies as keeping control - its implied, its what they do. Nobody is talking about India being "without law and order agencies" - we are not questioning the existence of them. The failure of these agencies to stop the parliament attack, Mumbai train bombings or these August attacks, killings in Gujarat and Delhi, possible complicity and inaction by police in Gujarat and the continuing Naxalite insurgency are not "tiny reasons" but subject of much heated debate. Obviously the law enforcement agencies fight terrorism and naxalite insurgency - its what they do. Reservations are subject of much controversy and episodes of violence, and many criticize it as actually aggravating caste divisions. Reservations have been there since the '50s and were supposed to end after 10 years, but they continue and these protests, riots have continued for 50-60 years.
The point is you are simply opening up a broad debate by this poor summary - each and every point can and eventually will be disputed by credible arguments. You cannot summarize India's history like this, given the many significant historical events that point otherwise. The summary must encompass the broad scope of the topic. Lastly, I don't appreciate this overriding of the discussion. In the past few days, I have willingly participated in discussions of what I consider to be not-so-significant changes, but I proceeded only after receiving agreement. You wrote above that you would add your sentence if there was no concern, so I think you should at least wait until I, or another editor(s) agrees with you. However, I am not going to undo your edits as a courtesy to you and for Wikipedia. S h i v a (Visnu) (talk) 21:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I've been asked to weigh in by user:Shiva (Visnu). I am taking for my example the sentences, "Since independence, India has faced challenges from religious violence, casteism, naxalism, terrorism and regional separatist insurgencies, especially in Jammu and Kashmir and Northeast India. India's secularism, freedom of religion and major reforms have helped towards resolving conflicts." (I don't know whose version this is.) Personally, I don't see any reason for the second sentence. Readers understand that any democracy tries to battle these problem as best it can. However, I would defer to Nichalp on this, and suggest that we wait for him to weigh in. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) May I suggest "attempted to control" since, without a credible source, we cannot say has controlled. (Though, I sort of agree with f&f that this is unnecessary. The main article should, with citations, explain how the government has attempted to control that sort of thing.)--Regents Park (sink with my stocks) 21:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Fowler and RegentsPark. The second statement can and prolly should be removed. However, "attempted to control" is not a good idea - it implies a state of instability and further complicates the summary. S h i v a (Visnu) (talk) 21:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I was just going to agree with "attempted to control". Let us leave it out. The sentence really stands out kind of "odd". Docku:“what up?” 22:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm okay with the first italicized sentence in F&f's discussion above. I don't think there's a need for a second sentence on the subject (i.e., like the proposed attempted to control sentence); we should just stick to reporting facts and not opine on the subject. The degree to which the government attempted to control some of these conflicts is debatable, especially given some episodes of violence such as Delhi'84 and Gujarat'02. Thanks AreJay (talk) 22:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I was just trying to avoid this but it got into limelight. The original statement has survived for more than 8~10 months without a single word raised on talkpage. Then Shiva manipulated the statement starting debate.
Statements

I would list down why I deem the current statement most apt considering India's vast history put down in so little words in such a high level summary article -

  1. In just 4~5 words major problems that have plagued India in terms of stability and peace are listed down. All words have their own child articles which put down in detail the problems.
  2. The second part lists down what Indian government has done to tackle the problem. Religious violence --> Religious tolerance. Casteism --> Reservation system. Naxalism --> Intelligence agency. Terrorism --> Law enforcement agencies. All the four words describing the methods used by India also have child articles.
  3. Now police is corrupt (during riots) or politicians are corrupt (for reservation politics) then all that can go into these child articles. No need to put all those things here. Whenever there are such politically sensitive things involved criticism always follows. This is not the place to list down them. As f&f had mentioned in past, develop these child articles instead of this summary article.
  4. The second statement not only allows the user to know more by the official policies/work done by government to tackle these problems but also helps him understand in more the problem and solutions offered in India. All government policies and work have always attracted critism. That doesn't mean they should be eliminated completely. Do you think reservation system should be avoided from Indian history segment with no mention of it all? That would not be complete coverage for a FA status. It is an important part of Indian history (both pre and post independence).
Initially none of the words were linked to these articles and I had added more links and statement stood as it is for so many months. Not all words should be linked as excessive linking takes the attention away but if we have 10k child article then link should be given here. Also some changes have already been done in the statement based on valid points raised. But using words like secularism and religious freedom which almost mean the same that too in a single sentence is not good style. I believe that in such highly summarized article each word should be used carefully and should provide maximum possible ways to inform the reader. --GPPande talk! 09:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I'd been asked to weigh in on this discussion. I looked at the draft and do not support the second paragraph. The first paragraph needs to be tweaked for prose and relevance for inclusion. For now I think it's listy and needs to be pared down to summary style. Give me a day to think of something. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I have never wanted to offend GPPande or anybody else:I have never wanted to offend GPPande. I do not understand his statement "Then Shiva manipulated the statement starting debate". I have always respected his views. When User:KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 first removed my edits, I waited until I got his agreement before restoring them. I understand that this statement may have been here for 8-10 months, but does that prohibit improvement or discussion? I have not dismissed Pande's arguments as "tiny," nor reverted his edit overriding this discussion despite his promise to edit only if there were no concerns. I have never been rude to anyone and I will never engage in a revert war. I request Pande and everyone to remain civil and respectful and wait until this discussion gives a consensus. S h i v a (Visnu) (talk) 20:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
For a similar text posted on my talk page - I have replied on your talk page. --GPPande talk! 20:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
And I have replied on yours. Let's resolve this properly. S h i v a (Visnu) (talk) 21:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
To sum up and clarify my opinion, I do not think those 2 sentences should (1) include examples, like reservations, law enforcement agencies, which become inherently debatable and with questionable accuracy, (2) assert, assume, opinionate that tolerance, law agencies, reforms "have been able to control," exercised "some control" or "attempted to control," since these sentences become inherently debatable. (3) Accomodating either of the above assertions/examples will need a clear citation from a proper reference. The Wikipedia policies that I think are violated by (1) and (2) are WP:NPOV, WP:QS, WP:PEACOCK and in general what I have come to understand about WP:WIAFA, especially about brilliant prose.
What I favor is either removing the second sentence, or more preferably acknowledging that "India's freedoms and reforms have helped towards resolving conflicts" - this suggestion does not carry an assertion of "control" (nor the lack of control), nor does it tie down specific issues and examples that can be disputed straight away. S h i v a (Visnu) (talk) 09:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
"India's freedoms and reforms have helped towards resolving conflicts" is very vague. Any reader will ask in mind what freedoms and reforms India has? Putting up the top problems and solutions (with links to child articles) does provide the answer but appears much like a list as noted by Nichalp. Lets wait for Nichalp's proposal first. --GPPande talk! 15:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Ok, its been 3 days this discussion slowed down, so is it fair to just remove the 2nd part of the sentence (both the ones suggested by me and GPPande and the current one) as is the consensus opinion of F&f, Docku, AreJay as well as the broader opinion of Nichalp, RegentsPark and me? We can definitely keep the discussion doing and work on improving the whole section as Nichalp recommends, but I think we can make this change. S h i v a (Visnu) 00:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

"Official Classical Languages" Segment in Box

I think, it's about time to implement a collapsible "official classical languages" segment. They should be listed in alphabetical order: Kannada, Sanskrit, Tamil, Telugu. The segment should be beneath the official languages and above segment 8th schedule, since it has national character. Please do it. Thanks. --Kalarimaster (talk) 20:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Classical language status is awarded by Government of India. I wonder if there is any international non-partisan non-political language body awarding such status. As such, I find it difficult to attribute much relevance and value. Docku:“what up?” 14:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter, whether you give this importance. Maybe you are simply jealous. Also this is no "truth" question. India declared them so, so this is highly relevant. Please don't talk much about it, DO it. --Kalarimaster (talk) 15:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
What? Docku:“what up?” 15:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Surprising! You ask for an opinion and when the opinion is "not favourable" you call people "jealous"! Why should we stop discussing and simply DO it!? Sir, this attitude is simply not acceptable. --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 15:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I didn't ask anybody for any opinion. I requested a change in the box, because i couldn't do it myself somehow. --Kalarimaster (talk) 15:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Kalarimaster, we use the talk page to discuss the suitability of inclusion. Docku was questioning the necessity of attaching WP:UNDUE importance to classical languages in the infobox. Please stop with making personal comments on fellow editors with the use of terms such as jealous. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Why it shoulnd'nt be important, what India declares it's classical languages? It's an integral part of India's identity. Classical languages were given national importance (they get more money than normal languages also to get known abroad), so it is relevant for the infobox. --Kalarimaster (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Classical languages of India can detail the scope. 1. Do you have a citation that they receive more money? 2. By declaring a language "classical" what really changes? Please discuss. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, you are not going to muscle your way into adding anything here. You would rather want to hinge your arguments on reason.
I based my argument on this article from TimesofIndia. Politics had the last word as despite serious differences within the expert group, culture ministry on Friday said Telugu and Kannada have been given status of classical language. A source in the expert group said, "It was a forced decision.".
I dont know the events which led to the recognition of classical language status of Sanskrit and Tamil. But reading this news report, I have every reason to question the value and significance of such a status. Well, we dont go around adding every piece of verifiable information to articles. Docku:“what up?” 16:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I encourage your healthy sceptisism, but we have to put in the facts. Of course, there will be political fights forever, even among the Indians themselves, but this is not the point. When the Indian experts confirm it, we have to take it, if we like the results or not. --Kalarimaster (talk) 16:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I think it's fine the way it is. Having two collapsible lists for "Official languages" and "Classical languages" is going to confuse the average reader. It's ok for it to be included in some form in the Demographics section, but not as a field in the Infobox template. Thanks AreJay (talk) 16:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
They will not confuse anybody in my view. It will be another useful and important information for the readers. --Kalarimaster (talk) 16:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I might be okay with there being some sort of notation in the "Official Scheduled languages" collapsible field (similar to the Urdu notation), indicating which languages have classical status, but I don't agree with the current proposal of having a separate field just for Classical languages. Thanks AreJay (talk) 17:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is what happens, when a classical language is declared so by financial measures and what will change by the declaration to the language itself:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Cities/Hyderabad/Telugu_gets_classical_status/articleshow/3660521.cms

An elated A B K Prasad, chairman of the official language committee of Andhra Pradesh, said according classical language status would greatly boost research, preservation and spread of the language. “To begin with, the state would be given Rs 100 crore annually. With this, we will set up chairs in universities inside India and abroad, conduct research, encourage studies in Telugu, modernise and preserve ancient Telugu texts as well as encourage scholars to undertake widespread research into the origin and history of Telugu,” Prasad told TOI.

--Kalarimaster (talk) 16:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

No one's saying don't have it on Wikipedia. It's just that the classical status is cultural, rather than the standard political, geographic and demographic information we put in the infobox. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
First you were trying to tell me, that classical languages of india were just political bullshit. Then you requested detailed explanation, what the classical languages would make so special. Now you're arguing that there is no place for the classical languages in the box, because "this is not normal", "it's just cultural". When i say, that the listing of scheduled languages "was not normal", because there is usually the official languages list exclusivly, then you will say anything else. When i say, that the classical languages were introduced by a constitutional decree, then you will say something else. India is not the same as other countries, because of it's cultural, political, and whatsoever plurality. I really dislike this Anti-behaviour, because it tells me, that you are completely involved in this political fight. I even go further, and say, if your mothertongue was listed as classical language, you would strongly advocate for the right treatment, and that's what my purposal stands for. --Kalarimaster (talk) 20:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I have followed this classical language topic for a few years now and read through this discussion. This is my humble opinion,
  • The classical tag is very prestigious.
  • All the languages that have been awarded the status so far are highly deserving of it. Kannada and Telugu had to endure the close examination of a committee setup by the culture ministry–a committee not comprising of a single Kannadiga scholar.
  • Yes, it is well known and there are enough articles to prove that these 4 languages will be funded to the tune of 100 crores + 5 crores per year, in addition to setting up learning/research centres in India and abroad, international awards etc. A centre for study of classical Kannada is already planned in CIIL, Mysore.
  • Whether other users think it is deserved or not is immaterial. It is official and it is administered by the central government. Thats all that matters.
  • I agree with Arejay that this classical info could be mentioned in the demographics section. Classical languages are India's pride.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 20:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate your participation. Could you tell me, why the classical info should not be listed in the infobox, while it's an offical matter of India? --Kalarimaster (talk) 21:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I am fine either way.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 22:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
A classical language according to Wikipedia's own page, "is a language that has a broad influence over an extended period of time." A classical language is a cosmopolitan language, a literary lingua franca over a large historical region in which many different vernaculars were spoken. A classical has influence on other languages by way of borrowing of a large number of words and roots, and a classical language usually is a dead language or a highly diglossic language. Classical Greek, Classical Latin, Classical Chinese, Classical Sanskrit, Classical Persian, and Classical Tamil all show these characteristics.
Kannada, like Telegu, and later Marathi, Hindi, and Bengali, was a vernacular, a local language, in the same way that English, German, and Norwegian were. Beowulf, for example, is older than Kavirajamarga, and unlike the latter was not largely based on a classical text (Dandi's Kavyadarsa composed in Sanskrit). Similarly Cædmon's Hymn is at least of the same vintage as Kappe Arabhatta and has both more poetic value and influence. Furthermore, there is nothing in Old Kannada like the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle in Old English. Similarly Middle English is older than Middle Kannada, and through the Canterbury Tales and Wycliffe's Bible has had a great deal more influence; however, this doesn't make English a classical language.
The Encyclopedia Britannica article on South Asian Arts says, "Of the four literary Dravidian languages, Tamil has been recorded earliest, followed by Kannada, Telugu, and Malayalam. Tamil literature has a classical tradition of its own, while the literatures of the other languages have been influenced by Sanskrit models." Perhaps, Kalarimaster would like to write to Britannica and persuade them to change their text. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your information. Please convey this pathbreaking knowledge to the expert committee (wih the exception of Kolandai Swamy) and lets see if they will change their mind.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Conditions for the tag: http://www.telegraphindia.com/1081101/images/01language.jpg I don't really care about this. I think, I'm not able to persuade them in any way. But obviously the common notion, that Kannada and Telugu were not independent, was heavily wrong. --Kalarimaster (talk) 14:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Kalarimaster, please dont bother to argue and waste your valuable energy. There is nothing anyone can do to change things as they are. Kannada/Telugu have far better things to do now that they have received the recognition they so richly deserve. Remember, we are not here to make everyone wiser than they actually are.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it's better to lay this thing down. Some even experienced people here really hate to see such changes in the article to the death. We have better things to do. --Kalarimaster (talk) 15:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Kalarimaster will you please STOP your hostile remarks and assume good faith? Your persistent twisting of our statements is not going to help your cause in anyways. By calling things "political bullshit", it really demonstrates an unwillingness to deal with the topic that is the notability and suitability of the inclusion into the infobox. You fail to address it. Sorry. See WP:CIVIL before replying to my post the next time. Thank you. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Kalarimaster and Dinesh that the classical languages have to be mentioned in the infobox. The notion that they are "cultural" and not "political" does not fly because they are not merely "understood" to be 'classical' languages but also officially deemed so. Just like we note all the "Official" languages, we will also have to note the official "Classical" languages. And we could surely do with a little less of "pathbreaking" uninformed OR from participants here. If "official" languages and "Scheduled" languages can be in the infobox so should "Classical" languages. Sarvagnya 19:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

By marking it as "classical", it does not make in any ways more important than other languages. More patronage for the fine arts yes, but not in no ways it has the status of an official language. If the UN marks languages as classical, does it achieve the same as the official languages as far as the functioning of the UN goes? No. The same case here. It does not change the way India as a nation functions. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
No 'adornment' will make any language in the world more "important" than any other. We're not debating about the "importance" of any language. Every language is a part of world heritage and is equally important. However, on wikipedia we only report the facts and if the UN were to officially decorate these languages with a tag, we will report that too. Right now, the GoI in its infinite wisdom has by constitutional decree recognized these languages as "Classical" and we we report that. Just as we report the "Official" and "Scheduled" languages. Sarvagnya 19:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Reporting facts is one thing, but we also follow WP:UNDUE and WP:SS. By the same logic we can also add India-specific information such as amateur radio callsigns, ITU prefixes and so on. Classical languages mention was present in the article since 2004. We *are* reporting it as is. There's no question of not reporting. The issue is WP:UNDUE. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I didn't realize that the Government of India had made this pronouncement. (See, this news story, which seems to indicate that the decision was political and that the two languages failed on all the counts I mentioned above.) Regardless, the reason why the official and scheduled languages were put in the format they are in, was not just what the Government of India had stated, but how major secondary sources had interpreted what the Government had stated. See, for example, the list of focused 15 secondary sources, which was a part of the RfC that resulted in that decision. When similarly reliable secondary sources (Encyclopaedia Britannica, Encyclopedia Encarta, United Kingdom Foreign and Commonwealth Office, United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, UNESCO, US Library of Congress, US Department of State, UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Ethnologue) begin to report on the classical status of Kannada and Telegu under "Official languages of India," we will add them here. Besides, Tamil and Sanskrit, I gather, have had this official classical status since 2004 or 2005, but, for the preceding three or four years, no one had been clamoring for this new infobox. What has changed? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Look at this news report. India, apparently, has an unique way of doing things. Academic decision forced and made by politicians. Shame on Indian politics and academics. Docku:“what up?” 21:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Political unity has been the corner stone of cultural developments from the beginning of mankind. So what!!Dineshkannambadi (talk) 22:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

::::::PS. Which version of Kannada has been deemed classical? Is it Old Kannada? If people are considering adding Old Kannada to the demography section and looking for speakers for a head count, I would like to volunteer G. S. Gai and A. N. Narasimhia, whose pages I had the privilege of creating (if they are still alive). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)Scratching previous comments resulting from misinterpretation. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean which version? Please read the news papers. "Kannada Language" has been deemed classical.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 22:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Your article claims no such thing. The political pressure by the Ktaka and AP governments was only to protest the inordinate delay by the central govt (The committee had recommended three months ago that both languages fulfil the criteria laid down by the government for recognition as classical languages.)... not to force their opinion on the linguistic experts group.
And the delay, according to common knowledge and this report(lest you jump at me) was because of the "sabotage" of "Tamil enthusiasts". And talking of qualifications, both Telugu and Kannada have been accorded the tag after they met the revised and more stringent requirement of an antiquity (of literature) of 2000 years as against the only 1000 year antiquity that was required when Tamil was conferred the tag. So yes, something did change in the years since Tamil was conferred the tag. It is that the criteria became more stringent. huh. Sarvagnya 22:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) These two reports from The Hindu and The Telegraph together seem to suggest that the reverse is true: the antiquity requirement had been reduced first from 2000 years to 1500, and it is only 1000 years now. Report 1 and Report 2 (see The Conditions on left). At any rate, as I have already stated above, when reliable secondary sources (Encyclopaedia Britannica, Encyclopedia Encarta, United Kingdom Foreign and Commonwealth Office, United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, UNESCO, US Library of Congress, US Department of State, UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Ethnologue) begin to report on the classical status of Kannada and Telegu (or for that matter Tamil and Sanskrit) under "Official languages of India," we will add them in the infobox. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Official Classical Languages (discussion part II)

@fowler&fowler When similarly reliable secondary sources (Encyclopaedia Britannica, Encyclopedia Encarta, United Kingdom Foreign and Commonwealth Office, United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, UNESCO, US Library of Congress, US Department of State, UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Ethnologue) begin to report on the classical status of Kannada and Telegu under "Official languages of India," we will add them here. Besides, Tamil and Sanskrit, I gather, have had this official classical status since 2004 or 2005, but, for the preceding three or four years, no one had been clamoring for this new infobox. What has changed?

This is the type of conversation i never wanted here. You stick to something, that is not near to relevance. India has its own measures and its own scientists. They don't have to ask the US, UK, UNO for any "authentication" or "certificate" to declare their own classical languages as so. This is why it is labeled "Offical" Classical Languages OF INDIA. I myself thought about the infobox edit, because I just recently got known of the financial benefits for these languages by the news reports. These languages shall get more attention in India and abroad. And of course, Tamil and Sanskrit are well known for their classical status, but Kannada and Telugu are far from that. This would be by the way another good argument to use the infobox.


@ALL: PLEASE stop argument about, whether the languages is classical or not. This is a decision made by India. Stick only to the facts. --Kalarimaster (talk) 23:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry I don't see any precedent for "Official Classical Languages" on any other country page. Italy doesn't have Classical Latin in its infobox, nor Greece, Classical Greek, nor yet Syria, Aramaic. Why this special dispensation for India? And since when did Wikipedia become a conduit for financial benefit? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry, but why should there be a precedent? How many countries have 4 classical languages? What surprises me is one user says "classicalness" is cultural and hence does not deserve inclusion, another says its "politically motivated" and hence does not deserve inclusion.?Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Do they have any constitutional instruction for it? Any official declaration? Oh...--Kalarimaster (talk) 23:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Kalarimaster mentioned an important point. I think the debate here is not whether any of the four languages are classical or not, the issue is their inclusion in this article. So lets not try to throw digressions by running to the UN, the UK or the USA. Let us now consider the case of Konkani in the schedule 8 list. Was'nt the several decades long battle to have Konkani recognised as the official language of Goa, both a cultural and political effort. Was'nt the formation of the states themselves politically and culturally hard fought? Anything and everything concerning language is both cultural and political. This is how India's great classical languages (it should someday be six including Pali and Prakrit) have developed. You cannot ignore them in this article for either reason.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Status of official languages, linguistic separation of states are political decisions. Would you have wanted them to be academical? Classical language status, on the other hand, should have been purely academical. Having made that political is certainly unique to India. But, may be you are right, it probably doesnt matter. Docku:“what up?” 01:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Schedule VIII is a different story. It is a part of the Constitution of India (or its amendments). As far as I am aware this official classical status is awarded by the government of the day, but is not in the Constitution. I'll double check in a few minutes. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)I just checked. Where does the Constitution of India say anything about official classical languages? The Constitution of India says only (Article 351):

The special status of Sanskrit in the Constitution long predates this bogus "classical language" status that was awarded by the government of the day starting in 2004. I just checked all the amendments of the Constitution: here they are all up to the 94th and last amendment. The last language amendment was the 92nd amendment (date of assent: January 7, 2004, which added Bodo, Dogri, Maithili, and Santhali to the Schedul VIII languages. Where is the Constitutional amendment that says anything about official classical languages? Perhaps, Kalarimaster, Dineshkhannambadi, or Sarvangnyna can find it for us? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

A constitutional Decree was introduced, not an amendment. A constitutional decree in India is sacrosanct, the classical languages are backed by constitutional law and hence are treated like the constitution itself. --Kalarimaster (talk) 02:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't find any official source, including this announcement, stating that this declaration (whether a decree or not) had anything to do with the constitution. Care to give me a Government of India source that uses the expression "constitutional decree" in this regard? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Let us see the swing and trajectory of Fowlers opinon's (as always).

  • You first wrote above A classical language according to Wikipedia's own page, "is a language that has a broad influence over an extended period of time." A classical language is a cosmopolitan language, a literary lingua franca over a large historical region in which many different vernaculars were spoken. A classical has influence on other languages by way of borrowing of a large number of words and roots, and a classical language usually is a dead language or a highly diglossic language. Classical Greek, Classical Latin, Classical Chinese, Classical Sanskrit, Classical Persian, and Classical Tamil all show these characteristics. From this I gather you categorically accepted these languages as classical, without any constitutional decree, just because it was written so in some wiki page, perhaps cited by a few foreign scholars of your interest.
  • Then you said you had not read the newspaper announcements
  • Then you said it seem politically motivated
  • Then you said it is bogus
  • Now you are asking for a constitutional decree.

Fowler, you are fast ruuning out of excuses here.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I can show some entries in this article which are not enshrined in the constitution.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

That probably means that this edit has too many problems and none of them has been convincingly addressed. Docku:“what up?” 03:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Dear Kalarimaster, Since you made an important issue of what the Government of India had stated, here are the Google search results among all India sites (.in) for the exact expression "constitutional decree": Search all five results. I doubt that this declaration (and that's all it is) has anything to do with Article 343, 351 or Schedule VIII of the Constitution of India, the basis of the official languages infobox on this page. As I have already stated, neither Kannada nor Telegu pass the usual test for a language to be classical that I enumerated in my first post. The "criteria" for classical languages, which is much quoted in Wikipedia's page on Classical Languages, is actually only incompletely quoted. Here is a longer quote, which I'm gratified to find, repeats what I have already said:
1.Statement in support of Tamil as classical language.
I'm sorry but your efforts to create an official classical languages infobox, in my view, (and I agree here with Docku) will not pass muster on this page. All the best and Good Night. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't offer an offical document either, that the classical language category was introduced by a constitutional decree, but there are many notifications, that are not published on the internet, like the official notification, that Tamil was declared "Classical language". However, there are newspaper reports, which confirm, that the classical language category was introduced by constitutional decree. So this is enough to prove it:

http://www.deccanherald.com/CONTENT/Aug142008/editpage2008081384442.asp

Also i found a conversation of the Indian parliament, which illustrates the importance of the classical language status for India, where Mr. Shivraj V. Patil compares the status of the scheduled languages to the status of the classical languages:

SHRI JANARDHANA POOJARY: Sir, the demand for declaring Kannada as a classical language is pending before the Government since 2004. The same answer has been given earlier also. My submission before the House is that the Kannada text and recorded history belongs to 252 BC. The first Kannada literary work Kavirajamarga was created in 850 AD and it refers to some writings earlier than that. The 12th Centaury Kannada Bhakti Movement in the form of Vachana or oral expression is unparallel. In contemporary kirtana which subsequently became Karnataka Sangeet is an enduring contribution to Indian music. Sir, the epigraphical material in Kannada, numbering over 25,000 inscriptions in stone and copper, are rich in style and contents, which are not found even in Tamil inscription. The UNESCO records Kannada amongst the prime scripts of the world. Sir, Kannada is among the first living languages of the world in the history of continuous writing system spanning three millennium like Hebrew, Chinese and Tamil.

SHRI JANARDHANA POOJARY (CONTD): Sir, the recognition was given to Tamil. We do not grudge it. Now, Sir, when the world recognises Kannada, in India...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please, put your question.

SHRI JANARDHANA POOJARY: ...step-motherly treatment is being given to Karnataka. Agitations are going on in Karnataka. About three days back, about one lakh people gathered. Everyday, it is going on. Has the Government recognised this? Is the Government going to take any action on this, and by what time?

SHRI SHIVRAJ V. PATIL: Sir, Kannada is a very rich language, ancient language. The matter is before the Committee of Linguistic Experts constituted by the Ministry of Culture. This matter is now with the Ministry of Culture. They are looking into the matter. There are demands made by one other section of the society with respect to their language. Now, these demands are being looked into by the Expert Committee, and after the Expert Committee comes to any conclusion, the Ministry of Culture will take a decision in the matter.

SHRI JANARDHANA POOJARY: Sir, in reply to Unstarred Question No. 1381, it was stated, "The Ministry of Culture had received presentation from various quarters for declaring Kannada as classical language. A Committee of Linguistic Experts has been constituted to examine the claims of any language classical language status. This Committee will advise the Government in the matter." This answer was given on 6.3.2006. Subsequently, to me also, the Minister of Culture has replied saying that it has been referred. Now, the question before the House is as to how long it will go on like this. There is a limit to the patience of the people also. They are losing their patience. You may not believe, but they are condemning and criticising the Parliamentarians and saying that Karnataka M.P.'s are dormant; they are inactive.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please, ask the question. Don't make a statement.

SHRI JANARDHANA POOJARY: How long will the Government take a decision? After being referred to the Expert Committee, there has been a lapse of one year, what action is going to be taken by the Government?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Poojary, this is a supplementary question. Please, ask the question. Don't make a statement.

SHRI SHIVRAJ V. PATIL: As a matter of fact, this question should have been sent to the Ministry of Culture. But, because, the notice was given to us, and the notice was given at the last moment, the question was accepted and we are replying to it. As a matter of fact, it is only the Ministry of Culture which is in a position to take a decision with respect to this, and I would like to say that the language should unit; language should not divide. Many languages in our country are rich languages and they should be a source of our unity rather than division. So, it would be necessary for all of us to tell our brothers and sisters in the States that on the basis of language, division should not be created. Because the languages are rich; because the languages are ancient; because...(Interruptions).

SHRI JANARDHANA POOJARY: There is no...(Interruptions).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please, let the hon. Minister complete his reply...(Interruptions). Poojaryji, please, don't interfere.

SHRI PENUMALLI MADHU: Sir, the question is different.

SHRI SHIVRAJ V. PATIL: There are forces in the country which would like to use these kinds of things. The Government is quite sensitive to this matter. The Government has been looking into this matter and that is why, two languages in India have been recognised as classical languages. If there are other languages which have to be examined for this purpose, it will be done. But, then, before the decision in this respect is taken, it is our responsibility to see that it does not become a divisive factor.

DR. K. MALAISAMY: Thanks a lot, Chairman, Sir. While we are very happy that Tamil has been rightly recognised as the classical language, our grievance is that Tamil happens to be a very rich language and in spite of that, it was belatedly recognised. I am inclined to ask as to what is the reason for recognising Tamil language so late.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Question, please.


DR. K. MALAISAMY: Is it due to want of pressure or want of taking cognisance by the Committee...(Interruptions). It ought to have been recognised long-long back. It is an ancient language.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not relevant.

SHRI SHIVRAJ V. PATIL: May I very respectfully submit to this House that the concept of classical language is not as ancient as the language is?

SHRI SHIVRAJ V. PATIL (CONTD.): It was accepted in 2004. That is why that language has been recognised as a classical language. You should not find fault with it. If you say that it was not recognised in time, again, it becomes a divisive factor. Please don't do that.

SHRI M. V. MYSURA REDDY: Mr. Chairman, Sir, the hon. Minister had replied to Unstarred Question No.2292 on 22.3.2007. The same reply was given regarding Telugu language that the request for declaring Telugu as a classical language had been forwarded to the Sahitya Akademi. The same answer was given. I want to know from the hon. Minister whether the Committee has recommended to recognise Telugu as a classical language. If not, I want an assurance from the Minister to fix a time-frame for the Committee.

SHRI SHIVRAJ V. PATIL: Sir, the demand for recognising the Telugu language as a classical language is also before the Government. But, as I have already said, this matter is not with the Home Ministry. This matter is with the Ministry of Culture. As it was wrongly referred to us, we have not just thrown it out and we are answering the question. I am not in a position to give any kind of assurance.

SHRI PENUMALLI MADHU: Sir, the straight question to the hon. Minister is that a request has been made to the Minister for Culture and to the Minister for Home Affairs that Telugu should be recognised as a classical language. The Minister had answered this question in last March that they were going to refer it to a Committee of Experts. The Committee has been constituted. I would like to know from the Minister by which time this assurance will be honoured and whether there is any time-frame for that. Or, does he go on referring to the same thing? I request the hon. Minister to answer this.

SHRI SHIVRAJ V. PATIL: Sir, I think, I have replied to this kind of questions.

SHRIMATI BRINDA KARAT: There should be a straight answer.

SHRI SHIVRAJ V. PATIL: No, there can't be any straight answer. Let us understand that we are all very responsible Members sitting in this august House. Each one of us appreciates the value of culture and language and that is why we shall have to take a considered view. It is true that Telugu language is a rich language; Kannada language is also a rich language. There are 22 languages included in the Eighth Schedule and there are 37 demands pending with the Government for their inclusion in the Eighth Schedule. Now, these issues are real issues. If we don't handle these issues in an appropriate manner, instead of uniting, it will become a divisive force. That is why I request that it should not be done. (Interruptions)...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please. Your question is over. (Interruptions)... Please, hon. Member. (Interruptions)... No. (Interruptions)...Please, hon. Member. (Interruptions)...If the Members wish to have a discussion on this, that is a separate matter. (Interruptions)...But it is not in the Question Hour.(Interruptions).. Q. No. 283. (Interruptions)...

I'm pretty sure, that this and a 4 year long decision process is convincing enough for an infobox notification, besides the newspaper source, which confirms the constitutional decree claim. --Kalarimaster (talk) 05:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Once again, I dont think wikipedia gives credence to Fowler's opinions as to which language is classical and which is not, and what the opinions of scholars outside the expert committee is. Is it official or not? and is it notable or not? is all the matters.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

Let's put a footnote next to the four languages name in the infobox. Alongside each language, we add the dagger symbol (†) that leads to a footnote that says that these languages are marked as classical by the GoI. Too much of an issue is being made about a trivial matter. The scope of the infobox is to present information in the most simple manner for a reader to understand, not confound a user on the vagaries of classification of Indian languages by the Government of India. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Amen to that...I support Nichalp's proposal. AreJay (talk) 15:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I will go along with this as long as the footnote says, "These languages have been declared to be classical by the Government of India, but not by the Constitution," since the information box is about languages (both official and schedule VIII) that are in the Constitution. I do this very reluctantly, since under no definition of "classical language" can Kannada and Telegu be considered even remotely classical. They are irredeemably vernacular and no political decision will change that. Wikipedia, I believe, should not be putting out incorrect information, even in an infobox footnote. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I would never consume a medicine invented by a phony pharmaceutical company and forced by ignorant politicians (with apparent stakes in such a decision) to be recognised by FDA. Having said that, I will go with the majority in the final decision. Docku:“what up?” 15:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Support Nichalp's idea. Seems reasonable, but let us not allow ourselves to add clutter about constitutional details and such in the footnote. BTW, wiki cares two hoots for personal opinions about vernacular vs classical, which is why we have a nine member expert committee.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Foot note is important to let the readers know that classical status is based on Indian sub-standard. It is just fair enough. Docku:“what up?” 16:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
You can continue railing but no such footnote is going to "pass muster". Dream on. Sarvagnya 16:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
@Docku, just to clarify, the footnote is important because it distinguishes between what was written in Schedule VIII vs. what was put forth by GoI – not because something is par standard or sub-standard. It isn't for us on Wikipedia to opine on whether something is or isn't par standard, regardless of how we feel on the subject. Most decisions in India are politically motivated, and it's a reality that we have to live with. Thanks AreJay (talk) 16:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Oppose This dagger suits for languages only, which are currently not spoken anymore. This is a totally misleading suggestion for readers. Among the classical languages of India, there is only Sanskrit, which is considered dead. Instead of the dagger there should be provided a Classical Languages of India label which is referenced with the official requirements for this recognition to tell the people, that this classification is India-specific. Suggestions of Fowler should be ignored, because he couldn't provide any references for this individual's claims, that the classical languages category isn't linked with the constitution.
For me your suggestion seems to be much more complicated and misleading. Therefore i'm considering to start a petition for my purposal. --Kalarimaster (talk) 16:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
A Footnote that it is declared by the Gov is important. India is a free republic. We are not here to prove that the decisions taken by her intelligentsia (literary in this case) is standard or sub-standard.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
@Kalarimaster: There's no need to be exacting here. The languages names are declared to be classical. Detailed information can be detailed out on Classical languages of India (IMO should now have a separate page). Also, what "petition" do you propose? =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the distinction in terms of Schedule VIII. But, isnt it also important to note the different criteria used in India in order to avoid the readers confusing classical latin, greek and other world classical languages with Indian classical languages. Remember, there was a loosening of standards from 2000 years to 1500 years to 1000. Docku:“what up?” 17:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
The section will be pipelinked to Classical languages of India just as we have a link to the Eighth Schedule. Beyond that, we cannot help people's stupidity or ignorance.Sarvagnya 17:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the statement. We really cannot help people's stupidity or ignorance. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
@Fowler, @Dinesh, #Docku: How about this draft: Note: These languages have been declared to be classical languages of India by the Government of India but not by the Schedule VIII of the Constitution? It's more wordy, but its less ambiguous since the label is about Schedule VIII of the constitution.
@ Kalarimaster, your suggestions are too precise and exacting for an article written in summary style. We do have the option of detailing out the exact information you wish to display on Classical languages of India. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Revised draft: These languages have been declared to be classical languages of India by the Government of India. Note: They are not listed in Schedule VIII of the Constitution. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
(ec)The pipelinkng part I agree with. In fact, I made the exact same suggestion above. But no "...but not by the Schedule VIII of the Constitution?". That would at once be violation of WP:NPOV and a classic case of WP:SYN. The fact is that the GoI declared these languages classical and that is it. Sarvagnya 17:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Sarvagnya, its not OR. A government declaration needs a simple majority (usually 51%). A constitutional amendment normally requires a 66% majority. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
And precisely why do we need to go into those details? Do any secondary sources go into that? Of what relevance is it? And if the GoI "declares" languages as classical, it is only because of the power vested in it by the Constitution. Just because something is not in the constitution does not mean that it is any less binding. Like I said, if this declaration has been without a constitutional amendment, it is because there is no need for a constitutional amendment because of the very constitution you're talking about. There is nothing in the constitution that is against this classification of the government. This entire "not in constitution.." thing is irrelevant. There are several things in the article which may or may not be in the constitution.. it doesnt mean we go around adding qualifications to every second sentence. Sarvagnya 17:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Take a look at the infobox: The left label is Scheduled languages: and the header of the corresponding data column is 8th Schedule: The two terms are part of the Indian constitution. We do not want a casual reader to gain an incorrect understanding that the designation of classical languages is a part of the 8th schedule. Having said that, if we do not have the extra term, the words "Government of India" in the footnote would be redundant wording, as of course the Government of India only amends the constitution. So by giving an extra sentence that classical languages is not part of the Indian constitution clears all ambiguity. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
What you say sounds good to me Nichalp. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Oppose: Why have any details regarding -- whether or not a language has a "classical" status by GoI in the infobox? Its simply UNDUE. I oppose any mention of classical "status" in the infobox. We have to draw a line somewhere as to how much detail does a person eager to have concise info on India should be presented. How is the knowledge of any "classical" status accorded to certain langs going help him/her? --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 17:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Having a footnote can't hurt much. What do you think? Is it still undue? =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment: What amuses me is that the entire debate is about the inclusion of a list of four languages that is, by default, going to be in a collapsed state. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Support - I support Nichalp's suggestion of adding the footnote in the infobox. Neither Wikipedia nor GoI cares whether some xyz with some xyz opinion consumes medicine or poison or whatever and decides to die. The fact is that Classical languages are "Official classical languages", recognized by Government of India and they should be mentioned in the infobox as such. India has Official languages, Scheduled languages and now Classical languages and it is fair that it goes into the infobox. Gnanapiti (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree it is WP:UNDUE. I believe so especially because this status has no academical value due to the loosening of standards. Docku:“what up?” 18:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
You can take that up with the nine-member committee of linguists who had the gall to disagree with you. Sarvagnya 18:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Docku, you need to make up your mind in debates. Can't dilly dally around. BTW, who said the standards were being slackened. On the contrary they were made more stringent, from the source I read. Anyway, thats not the issue either so lets focus on the dagger footnote.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
The reason I am dilly dallying is because I can be reasoned with. I did not start this conversation with an outcome in mind. Besides, If you read the end of the conversation here, you will see F&F showing citations for the loosening of standards. I guess you are talking about the Deccan Herald report earlier shown by Sarvagnya which was later debunked for its mis-information. Docku:“what up?” 18:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
"Debunked"? How? fwiw, my source is as recent as Nov 2008.. not 3 years old. And fyi, Tamil was declared classical because DMK was part of the UPA and it was in UPA's CMP to declare Tamil classical. This was done in spite of the expert committee recommending against it. Kannada and Telugu, especially Kannada enjoyed no such leverage. Sarvagnya 18:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I guess you didnt read the link i provided. Docku:“what up?” 18:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Dineshkannambadi, its NOT a debate, its a discussion! Please! --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 18:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
KH2 thanks for seeing the fine difference.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
There are two parallel discussions here: 1. If classical languages are notable enough to have in the infobox. If so, then is the footnote system good enough? That's where the confusion lies. No one is dilly dallying IMO. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Let's move away from the iterations around questioning the validity of GoI's decision. Dinesh, F&f, and Docku (correct me if I'm wrong) seem to agree with Nichalp' initial suggestion of adding a footnote. Here's my draft for the footnote:

These Scheduled languages of India have been awarded classical status by the Government of India.

Some of words can be changed (I don't like the word awarded but can't think of a more NPOV term atm), but hopefully the structure conveys the difference between the distinct processes through Scheduled Languages and Classical Languages were established. AreJay (talk) 19:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

yes, for the symbol next to the language (dagger) with a footnote.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
It's better, more succinct, and addresses the issue on constitution. I like it. I would suggest a rewrite to active voice: something like: The Government of India has designated these scheduled languages as classical languages. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi AreJay, Thanks for your effort, and I mean this sincerely; however, I'm afraid this doesn't help. You might as well say: "These languages have been awarded the Classical language status by the Government of India," since readers will already know that they are Schedule VIII languages, having clicked on the Scheduled languages box. Also, unless it is stated clearly that classical language status is a "declaration," by the Government of India, and that it is not in the Constitution of India, it will create the mistaken impression that it is, when it occurs in the Scheduled languages box, especially when all other references there are to the Constitution. Saying that is not original research; we can cite the pdf version of the Constitution with page numbers if they are demanded; besides I'm sure I can soon unearth a real secondary source that will say the same. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Ok, how would you draft/redraft the footnote to make the distinction more explicit? Personally, I don't have an issue with it not being explicitly mentioned that it isn't in the Constitution, since "Scheduled languages of India" will be internally linked to the actual article, which will indicate that that status of classical language wasn't conferred by the Constitution. IMO, if a user is willing to click on the external references to the Constitution to review the actual verbiage in the source, they would be just as willing to click on internal links to the Wiki article where the distinction will become apparent. AreJay (talk) 20:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
"These languages, starting in 2004, have been declared to be classical by the Government of India, a status, however, not mentioned in the Constitution of India."
The alternative, of course, is to bag this infobox idea altogether and mention the declaration in the Culture section, in the same way that the Classical dances have been mentioned there. The classical dance edit, at that time, drew a lot of ire from the same people who are now extolling the virtues of Government declarations. user:Sarvagnya, for example, was then heard saying, "A govt., body 'bestowing' an art or a language the status of 'classical' is ludicruous and doesnt belong in this article." (see here 18 October 2007 (right hand column paragraph 8) Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
No, I don't see how I can agree with that. I think a footnote such as that is going to overwhelm and confuse the casual reader. I would just as soon not have any references to classical languages in the Infobox. Like I've mentioned before, I'm not opposed to a summary of some sort being included in the Culture section instead, if agreeable to all. This will allow us to better explain the difference between Scheduled languages and languages that have been classified as classical languages. AreJay (talk) 07:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) With all due respect, this whole thing is a little silly. If the infobox is to include a classical language listing, then those languages should conform to the generally accepted definition of classical languages (as defined in Classical language) rather than to what the government of a country decides is classical. Anything else would add an inconsistency to wikipedia pages. Would we, to take a ridiculous example, campaign to include Spanglish as a classical language if the government of the United States decided to call it so? (If we do decide to include a government sanctioned list of languages as classical languages then we should do it without fuss, perhaps with the simple active voice note outlined above 'as designated by the Government of India' without recourse to constitutions or section VIIIs.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RegentsPark (talk • contribs) 20:26, 4 November 2008

With all due respect, page you link to is largely uncited except for the solitary opinion of a known Tamil enthusiast ..which he quickly put together when asked to comment on Tamil's classicalness. From all accounts, the GoI seems to have adopted those very measures in deciding upon the 'classicalness' of languages. Also, please note that the GoI has only acted upon the recommendation of a 9-member panel of linguistic experts. So it would help things enormously if only some people here would stop pretending to know better than those experts. As for Spanglish or whatever, feel free to add it to the US page, if and when a panel of scholars pronounces it "classical" and the US govt., acts on such a pronouncement. Sarvagnya 00:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Dear user:Sarvagnya: In light of your support for giving credence to the Government of India declaration of Kannada as a "classical language," perhaps you will explain your remarks on this page of 18 October 2007 (right hand column paragraph 8):
Perhaps you will also cite the publications where Kannada is stated to be a classical language of India. A search on Google Scholar, among all publications between 1800 and 2008, for "Kannada" and "Classical language" turned up empty: all the links there were to Sanskirt, and the same was true for Telegu. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
You might find it convenient to overlook the minor fact that this is a tag the government "bestowed" on the languages following the recommendation of a panel of linguists. By many accounts this was not the case in the case of Tamil where, atleast a couple of reports I remember from back then noted that even though the panel of experts had recommended against awarding Tamil the tag, the government had gone ahead with it because of the "arm-twisting charm" of the DMK. You can continue to hold on to your own fanciful understanding of the term and history, but I suggest you take your protestations to the panel of linguists who recommended the tag. This is not the place to debate that. Sarvagnya 16:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
wow. Docku:“what up?” 01:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I still oppose the footnote suggestion. I wonder where were the supporters of "classical" languages before the announcement of inclusion of Kannada and Telugu? Nobody made a hue and cry about the mention of Tamil and Sanskrit, when Tamil (in 2003) and Sanskrit (in 2005) were accorded the status. I am sure the same people would have opposed this mention of "classical" in infobox then! --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 06:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
KH2, let us not take the path of accusations because some of those opposing this today, may have well agreed then.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 12:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes. I struck it. Regards. --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 16:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Poll: Regarding inclusion in infobox

A straw poll to determine the opinions. Please let's restrict this to only editors who have lent their opinion on the subject in the above discussion. We do not want ballot stuffing.

Option 1

Adding classical languages information to the infobox is UNDUE
  1. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  2. KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 07:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  3. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  4. In the article, not in the infobox. S h i v a (Visnu) (talk) 12:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  5. Docku:“what up?” 13:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Option 2

Classical language is UNDUE, but we can accommodate it in footnote style

Option 3

Adding classical language status is not UNDUE but support the footnote style
  1. Dineshkannambadi (talk) 12:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Option 4

Classical languages need a separate row

Option 5

This poll is a fraud effort by partisan intention (for instance 3 times the word UNDUE, calculation of existing opinions to put own propaganda agenda first)

--Kalarimaster (talk) 10:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Poll: Regarding inclusion in culture section

Option 1

Don't add classical languages to the Infobox, but mention them in summary style in the Culture section
  1. AreJay (talk) 08:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  2. Mentioning classical languages in the article in the demographics or culture section is the right idea. Doing so in the infobox is using a template made for swift-reading/noting of the basic, essential information - allowing the reader to immediately identify the location, population size, capital, main language used, system of government and currency. The language info is used to identify what is most commonly spoken and used in India for official and general communication. You can argue what importance a "classical language" carries, who recognizes it or not, but it is not for a basic infobox. Having so many "footnotes" is also not a good idea and cannot be said to satisfy either argument - it only complicates the infobox against its basic purpose. I don't think the infobox should look like a family tree that branches and sub-branches into various topics. S h i v a (Visnu) (talk) 09:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  3. Dineshkannambadi (talk) 12:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  4. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  5. Docku:“what up?” 13:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  6. --Regents Park (sink with my stocks) 16:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  7. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Option 2

Neither in the infobox nor in the culture section
  1. KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 18:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive Edit

This edit by User:Kalarimaster is totally unwarranted. I have reverted it. --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 10:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Consensus is one of the five pillars of wikipedia. If Kalarimaster chooses to ignore the opinions of the community, and and does not Assume good faith on the part of other editors, he might just as well stop wasting his time editing wikipedia. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
At least, there are now officially 3 classical Dravidian languages and just 1 foreign language. This is something we can be proud of. The dravidian race is the last classical civilization on earth. And everybody should know that. --Kalarimaster (talk) 18:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
By this remark, are you suggesting that you want to portray Dravidian languages to be superior? =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean foreign language? How do you plan to substantiate [t]he dravidian race is the last classical civilization on earth with any sort of valid citation? AreJay (talk) 19:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Kalarimaster, please dont make damaging statements. Remember, Pali and Prakrit are also classical. There are multiple versions of Prakrit. Calling Sanskrit foreign is a real blow to this article, considering it has influenced every language, just about every folk art and classical art of India.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Dear Kalarimaster, Strange as it may seem, I find your post above refreshingly different from your earlier edits. Remember, though, that humans left Africa only 40 to 60 thousand years ago, and that ultimately Dravidians (i.e. speakers of Dravidian languages) are foreigners too, as are the Adivasis (i.e. speakers of Munda languages) who arrived in India long before the Dravidians did; in other words, it is not the just the speakers of Indo-European languages (such as Hindi, Urdu, Assamese, or even English) or of Mon-Khmer languages (such as Khasi) that are the foreigners in India. Remember too to help out the next time someone on this page is trying to claim everything in India for the Indo-Aryans. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
This is a wrong interpretation of history of mankind to maintain the myth, that foreign languages of India aren't that, what they are, foreign. The first settlers of India are Dravidian people alongside perhaps Austro-Asiatic languages. These people are the first people. It's notable, that people accorded Adivasi rights and status, are also belonging to Dravidian language family. Hence all other language families are definitely foreign to the original people. Through the mix of the foreigners languages and the native languages, Sanskrit and all the other north indian languages evolved. I don't care about these Indo-Aryan speakers as long as the Indian government does the right choices. 95% of Indo-Aryan peoples are f**** freaks, definitely trying to play down the dravidian race. --Kalarimaster (talk) 20:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Can some admin please block Kalarimaster for open racial abuse? It will also put an end to this. --GPPande talk! 21:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I find your post above refreshingly different from your earlier edits I somehow thought, this type of honesty is requested. Sorry for any inconviniences to our poor Northies wikipedians. I love you all. --Kalarimaster (talk) 21:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
No that's not what I meant. I meant when everyone is a foreigner, no one is a foreigner. But, c'est la vie, il est dommage. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I won't say, that Sanskrit is not influential to any language in India. Anyway, Sanskrit as everybody knows is just a mix of this foreign language and the local populations (of dravidian race, brown skin). However, Sanskrit in a whole is not purely native. I don't like that. Of course Dravidian Languages are, as the government recognises, very special among all languages of the world. They have a long recorded history, and they are still spoken by 200 million people. Therefore they are somehow superior. Other languages didn't survive as spoken languages. These are facts. And that's why, i assume, people here try to suppress our heritage to the world. They are jealous about our ancient civilization, the last surviving in the world and angry about the government of India, because they made this official! These people are evil. We should get rid of them. --Kalarimaster (talk) 19:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
^^ This is something we can be proud of! --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 19:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Boy. You are totally uninformed. Read up on other languages and you will change your opinion before it gets dark tonight. Till then, I guess, we will ignore you. Docku:“what up?” 19:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

←These people are evil. We should get rid of them. I leave this discussion. Thanks. --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 19:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't buy your false sense of jingoism and belittling of languages. Great or not, classical or not, official or not, we do not belittle languages as you suggest. "You mention that you assume we are suppressing our heritage, and are therefore evil." That's a fallacy known as begging the question. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


Absolutely preposterous. Perhaps you don't realize the impact that Sanskrit has had on Kannada. If this is how you plan to go about achieving whatever it is that you're planning to achieve on this article, then it's safe to say that yours is a lost cause. As for These people are evil. We should get rid of them., you're in the wrong place spewing such venom. You don't want Wikipedia, you want an Internet consipracy theory and hate forum. AreJay (talk) 19:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

DFTT folks. DFTT. Sarvagnya 20:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Result

It seems we have the support of seven people for option 5 (four of which have also supported option 1). This tells me that option 5 has the majority. Since everyone who was a part of the discussion has spoken, I believe that when Nichalp returns to the discussion, we can go ahead and make the edit in the culture section (and get this money off our backs). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, KM is now blocked for a while as his account was originally created to avoid a block....ComingPresident (talk · contribs) YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 05:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Yup lets close it and end the discussion once and for all. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Ok. Please go ahead with your edits at your earliest convinience.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Why can't I contribute to this page?

I am new here and would like to contribute to India page but I do not see edit button anywhere on top of this page? How do you guys edit this page? I can edit only talk page not main page. Do I need to request permission somewhere? --Kokar (talk) 15:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Presently, only WP:AUTOCONFIRM users can edit the India article. Continue contributing to other Wikipedia articles, and you will be autoconfirmed soon enough. Thanks AreJay (talk) 15:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
My new friend Docku told me to post this question here. Sports section says ICL and IPL. Then why not Premier Hockey League? Someone please add it too. --Kokar (talk) 15:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Welcome ! Excessive details should not be added but deleted. See the thread above. --GPPande talk! 16:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I dont know so much about hockey and not sure about the popularity of Premier Hockey league. But I wouldnt object its inclusion if it is popular enough. Docku:“what up?” 16:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Google hits. ESPN is carrying it, which is significant, but as such not many reputed sites covering it and its popularity is questionable. Still, just adding the name after ICL and IPL is not a big deal - no need to say anything more. S h i v a (Visnu) (talk) 17:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
From what I hear, it is atleast as "popular" or "unpopular" as ICL. But why is "popularity" the point, anyway? Sarvagnya 18:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
That is right. popularity doesnt have to be the criteria. Cricket related information is unduely represented anyway. Docku:“what up?” 18:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I've just inserted PHL between IPL and ICL. Should be good enough, S h i v a (Visnu) 23:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Can we lift the semi-protection for a while?

For a week after I joined back in October, I couldn't edit this page either. I understand that most nation articles are targets of vandals, but after reading WP:PROTECT and noting that User:Nixeagle semi-protected this page back in November 2007, I feel it is possible that this could be bordering on violating this part of the policy: nor should it be used solely to prevent editing by anonymous and newly registered users. Surely we can lift the year-long semi-protection now - it can be immediately restored of course if significant vandalism breaks out, but perhaps this is wise to avoid an almost-permanent sealing off of one of the most popular and visited articles on Wikipedia from new users. S h i v a (Visnu) (talk) 17:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Unprotecting will unnecessarily clog the page history. The page is in pretty good shape. "Surprisingly new" info from anons can be discussed here before making its way to articles. Docku:“what up?” 18:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I think it is worth lifting to see what happens. We should go the extra mile to encourage new users and it can always be protected again if significant vandalism breaks out. --Regents Park (RegentsPark) 19:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not too sure if it would help, if we're still going to require users to discuss their edits and gain consensus before making changes. We'll probably see a steady stream of edits getting reverted because of NPOV, SS or UNDUE and an ensuing battle on Talk a la this one. I don't think semi-p is required as much to counter vandalism as it is to ensure that SS and UNDUE aren't violated. I do agree though with the spirit of the comment that we should go the extra mile to encourage new users, but I don't think removing semi protection at this time would help. Thanks AreJay (talk) 19:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Our new friend kokar might have had a hard time to understand how to contribute but eventually found his way out. That's the best way to go - new users will learn out what text goes in what article and not to indiscriminately add to the FA. Also, Wikipedians actively responded to kokar's call for help. Already India page sees so many reverts for edits from auto-confirmed users, why to add phony IP addresses too - wasting resources which can be used to improve other articles? I think this justifies the semi-protection so that we can do what we should do - improve other child articles. I endorse the semi-protection. --GPPande talk! 19:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


I respect the above arguments as very practical. However, reading this in WP:PROTECT: Semi-protection should not be used as a pre-emptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used solely to prevent editing by anonymous and newly registered users. In particular, it should not be used to settle content disputes.
Speaking broadly, it is likely that not lifting protection to (1) avoid violation of SS, NPOV and UNDUE will constitute usage of protection over content disputes. That sounds like using protection to avoid additions that may violate these policies. (2) The concerns expressed over violations of UNDUE/SS/NPOV and possible vandalism will practically translate into prevent editing by anonymous and newly registered users because you are branding all future contributions (not yet occured) as potential problems.
These practical arguments can easily be applied to most other articles. What I am suggesting is the lifting of semi-protection for at least a few days to see if the conditions that caused the semi-protection in November 2007 continue or not. Its been 12 months and we need to test the waters. We can easily restore semi-protection if your concerns are validated.
When I joined up and edited Baltimore City College, a main page FA, I had a brief issue with the policy of linking, but I talked to User:SandyGeorgia and User:Dabomb87 and learned about it. Asking Kokar to wait because we worry he may not understand policy is not a legitimate reason. 99% of new users are not exposed to understanding policy in their first week. But restrictions and such arguments can easily turn off new users - you cannot assume they will not see this as some sort of inherent, condescending suspicion. S h i v a (Visnu) (talk) 23:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
S h i v a (Visnu)'s arguments are good. I have not formed an opinion on either, but I suggest we wait till November 18 for lifting the protect (just so that it completes 1 year). Some points to consider:
  1. Vandalism before protection was high, after protection it has significantly reduced
  2. Worse than vandalism is subtle kind, where editors may add inaccurate content such as economic figures. This is hard to track down.
  3. Requiring autoconfirmed status is not too much of a hassle. Edit 10 times, and wait for four days.
  4. Editors usually add unnecessary detail, breaking the summary style.
  5. As total page reversions for India have crossed 5000, the page *cannot* be deleted to remove those offending reversions, so any hard vandalism is going to stay in the history. Workarounds are possible but extremely difficult.

This page could however do with some cleanup:

  1. Summary style for several sections
  2. Fact-check each infobox edit
  3. Remove low-value wikipedia links
  4. Remove redundant phrases

=Nichalp «Talk»= 09:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Without getting into this particular discussion, let me point out that United States, Canada (), Mexico, Brazil, Peru (), United Kingdom, Germany (), Belgium (), France, Belarus (), Russia, People's Republic of China, Pakistan (), Bangladesh (), Chad (), Cameroon (), South Africa, Israel (), Turkey (), Indonesia (), Japan (), and Australia () are all semi-protected. This list includes all the country FAs. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
F&F is awesome !!! Why is getting auto-confirmed so difficult? It is a very small way to test if newcomer is here to contribute, stay and grow (himself and articles both) or is just checking how it works. Newcomers are always welcome and there are thousands and thousands of other articles where their are no restrictions on them. First work on those articles and then touch articles which are face of the project. Encyclopedia should be built bottom-up and that should also be the approach. --GPPande talk! 12:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
[This comment was removed by someone] They can also request what they want to add/remove/change on the talk page so long as they provide solid reasons. GizzaDiscuss © 23:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I believe I already mentioned that most country FAs are semi-protected. Auto-confirmation is not the issue. I am concerned that this practice is somewhat in contradiction with what WP:PROTECT calls for - that is my whole point. Until the policy explicit allows this, as it explicitly qualifies everything else, how can it be ok to lock up an article for 1 year and more? S h i v a (Visnu) 19:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
It should, in some ways be a matter of concern that so many country articles - the most popular category - are locked up from new editors for so long. It doesn't take much for a new editor to be turned off by such restrictions. S h i v a (Visnu) 19:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Wikipedia:Defense of content =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

(To Shiva (Visnu)): If you agree that the practice of semi-protection has been adopted on all country FAs and many other country articles as well, then why are you bringing up the issue on only the India page? After all, even if the protection is removed here, it will be at best a drop in the bucket (of this process). Why not pursue the matter at the Wikipedia Village Pump? Not only will you get feedback from the all-Wikipedia community, but also, if there is consensus for your point of view, a plan of "unprotection," which is both much wider and more vetted, can be implemented. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't talking about the broader practice - I was merely acknowledging that it is common. I don't know the issues and circumstances of others. The only thing I am saying is that this article has been semi-protected for 1 year - surely we must check if the causes of semi-protection have gone or not. I'm not trying to get an all-Wikipedia measure, but suggesting that we un-protect for some time, restoring it immediately if it appears that the problems are returning.
I don't think we should assume the negative and we should not forget that (a) semi-protection is not meant as a near-permanent measure and (b) no matter how practical and reasonable it may seem, the violation of the letter/spirit of the policy should be prevented. I can just imagine new users from India coming to edit, seeing that they can't edit the article of their country and deride Wikipedia's "free encyclopedia" claim. The loss of interest loses Wikipedia new contributors and fresh content, and using autoconfirmation and account creation as an excuse doesn't bring them back nor changes the fact that most new users are kept away from the article. S h i v a (Visnu) 21:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
May I add that auto-confirmation is a bit of a barrier to entry (sort of like a poll tax in the American sense). Most new ip users will see no edit button, will conclude they can't edit the page, and will just go away. I suspect that if semi-protection is lifted, it'll soon be restored because of vandalism and we'll need to be especially vigilant about non-obvious vandal edits, but do agree with User:S h i v a (Visnu) that, in the spirit of wikipedia, a periodic attempt to unprotect the article is warranted. --Regents Park (RegentsPark) 04:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Shiva, while you do have a valid point for lifting protection, lifting of protection for a top viewed page (I don't know the current ranking, but definitely in the top 10 on WP) needs to be debated on the village pump or somewhere similar. The broader implications of basic protection vs maintaining featured status, and the trade offs we need to make to ensure quality control in is place for high-profile pages needs to be examined at the macro level, and this talk page would not be the right forum. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Flagged revisions and Sighted versions should address many concerns in this thread. It is currently in testing on German Wikipedia. The sooner it gets introduced here the better. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 14:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Overpopulation

I'm adding the topic of overpopulation as it's only one of the few problems remaining in India after the economic-reforms of 1991 (IMHO, other two are corruption, illiteracy and terrorism but those too indirectly arise from overpopulation). Please do keep the topic as it's a key-point for the whole article, and, if possible, do add more information to it. Thanks--Pubserv (talk) 12:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I think its strongly WP:UNDUE. Overpopulation is a problem but to add a full section on a single problem of India is definitely too much. Please reconsider your addition while others weigh in on this page on the addition. The sections are fine as is. It's not a significant problem to merit that much focus. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Looks like Pubserv did a revert and me doing a second revert may be declaration of edit war. See here. Can someone else please do the revert till some consensus is reached? --GPPande talk! 13:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'm adding other problems as well. Pls. don't remove. Either improve or relocate. Thanks--Pubserv (talk) 13:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Overpopulation is unequivocally a singular problem facing the future of our planet. It is truly unflattering that India is a massive contributor to this mess and hasnt resorted to taking any sensible and successful policy measures to overcome this. I support inclusion of a shortened version of this information in Demographics section to maintain neutral point of view. Docku:“what up?” 13:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
This article is written in summary style. Two or three lines should suffice. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
In one of the earlier thread we were debating on 4 big problems in a single sentence. Here for one problem 1,724 characters are being added. It's truely WP:UNDUE. Instead let's add it to Demographics of India or Poverty in India or Economy of India. --GPPande talk! 14:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Docku, it is not so clear how 'overpopulation' in a single nation becomes a problem for the whole world. Most of the scarcity of resources will be felt by the nation itself. I dont see how the 'extra' 100 million in India (who barely make ends meet), has any more impact on the general well-being of the planet than 10 million 'extra' consumption heavy Americans. Also, overpopulation is a bit of a misnomer, since the majority of the addition in population have come from improvements in life-expectancy, the fertility rates are fairly close to the replacements levels now. It is also a bit unfair to say that the Indian state, as a whole, has failed to encourage family planning, fertility rates range from 1.7 in Tamil Nadu to 3.8 in UP ! Also, Pubserv, how can you claim that problems so and so are the ONLY ones facing India now ? I can list plenty more. I think this is a bad idea.I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Over consumption is certainly as unhealthy to the environment as overpopulation. Overpopulation, if uncontrolled, will lead to competition for space, water, food and other resources in the coming decades in India. This might very well lead (I really hope not, I am not very optimistic about this though) to economic uncertanity, chaos and even to eventual destabilisation of the country. It is kind of naive to imagine that this eventuality will not have far reaching global effects in this globalised world.
Regardless, overpopulation is certainly a problem for India. I do agree with your arguments on regional differences in family planning. Docku:“what up?” 17:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
To say overpopulation is a bad thing is a POV. Economists have stated that India can leverage its workforce to strengthen its economy. Do read this article: Malthusian catastrophe and This =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, I really wish it wasnt a "bad" thing. We could add this information as well to make it NPOV.
The article starts with Editor’s Note: This essay is less about the intellectual and political underpinnings of population control than refuting the basic argument for worrying about population growth and population density.
We should not confuse disadvantages of overpopulation with efforts to make use of the increased population to a country's economic advantage. Docku:“what up?” 19:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Finally, I dug it out from archives after a long search. I am big fan of Swaminathan S. Anklesaria Aiyar who has been writing columns in Sunday ToI for years. This article explains in simplest way how overpopulation can help Indian economy (only if education and health care also improve). Read this. Just playing devil's advocate here to add to Nichalp's point. --GPPande talk! 22:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you so much Gppande. I was referring to Swaminathan, but since the article was written a while back, and I didn't know how to search for the article since I was not sure, I did not mention his name. Thanks a dozen for the link. :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
he..he :-)) welcome! --GPPande talk! 15:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
That is an interesting theory of population growth dynamics. It is based on the underlying assumption that the resources necessary for the sustenance of such an exploded population will also increase with population growth. However, the article fails to discuss the issue in context with the finite nature of arable land (which will actually decrease), food, water and energy among others. In other words, the author has given an extraordinarily positive outlook on a bleak situation without giving due consideration for natural resources necessary for its sustenance. I would just like to reiterate my point again, the disadvantages of overpopulation should not be consfused with best use of increased population. I cant hide my surprise that what I see as a problem is being looked at by others a blessing. very interesting. Docku:“what up?” 23:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
It is not our job to say whether overpopulation is a good or bad thing since it would violate WP:NOR. We can simply mention that India is facing overpopulation. GizzaDiscuss © 00:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, lets just say that India's population has grown rapidly in the last 3 decades and this has led to a number of economic and environmental challenges. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 02:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Adding something about overpopulation is absurd! India is not even one of the most overpopulated countries. India is 33rd on the List of countries and dependencies by population density. In the intro, the problems listed are enough. Nikkul (talk) 04:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Challenges

Pubserv, I'd request you to please think about the undue additions. I can point out at least two problems in each of the sentences you have provided in the draft. If I were an FA reviewer, I would blast the text into the stratosphere. There are problems with the tense, structure, undue focus on two challenges, repetition, peacock terms. Also, consensus over the last four years has been against sectional fragmentation. Got to log off, so can't detail the problems with your draft. =Nichalp «Talk»= 20:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it is ok to add something about the population challenge to the article because India's population and population growth are a well-recognized issue. However, in a summary article, I think it makes sense to be brief and to examine the issue in detail elsewhere (Demographics of India, perhaps?). I'm not so sure that creating an entire new section on 'challenges' just to put this in is a good idea. Perhaps a subsection under 'Demographics' entitled 'The population challenge' will make more sense. --Regents Park (RegentsPark) 04:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
The lead talks about some problems, the economy section talks about poverty, terrorism is talked about in the history, so there is a balance. I think the topic on "overpopulation" needs to ironed out. Your suggestion seems fine. Let's not call it "overpopulation", its a loaded term depending on how people look at the definition. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Foreign relations image

Since George W. Bush is about to leave office, a new image to replace the current one should be considered. Here is a gallery of images that can be used:

--128.211.201.161 (talk) 05:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

We could crop the first image to just include just Manmohan Singh. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
India–Brazil relations ummmn, not very significant IMO with respect to India as compared to US or Russia. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't think there is any need to crop. Anyways, IMO a better image of that section would be on one of the multilateral military exercises that India has taken part in, for example, Malabar 2007, as it would signify not only military but also foreign relations. Few images that could be considered:

  • Malabar 2007
    Malabar 2007
  • Indian, Japanese and US naval warships take part in a military exercise near Bōsō Peninsula in 2007
    Indian, Japanese and US naval warships take part in a military exercise near Bōsō Peninsula in 2007

Public domain image: [2] of IAF Su-30MKIs taking part in Red Flag exercise.

--128.211.201.161 (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

You're right about the cropping, it would not make much sense. But the ships aren't too spectacular. It's way too small to see any sort of military exercise that really represents the text alongside. =Nichalp «Talk»= 20:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:India/Archive_23&oldid=1090411103"