Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:38, 3 March 2012

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

Template:CollapsedShell

Archives

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

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

Afghanistan

The lead currently has a footnote next to Pakistan when mentioning bordering countries, in which Afghanistan is claimed as a bordering country according to the Government of India's claims. My question is, is this really appropriate per WP:NPOV and WP:DUE? Looking at the ground realities, it's unrealistic to say that India shares an imaginary border with Afghanistan because the Gilgit-Baltistan region is as much a part of Pakistan as Jammu and Kashmir is claimed to be a part of India. And also, what are the viewpoints of other nations on this? Pakistan considers the entire of Kashmir as its own territory, including the state of Jammu and Kashmir. China, the other party in the Kashmir dispute, has its own issues with the Indian claim too. And most importantly, what is the Government of Afghanistan's stance on Gilgit-Baltistan? Or the international community, such as the United Nations, which as per status quo regards Indian-administered territory to cease no further than the Line of Control? Where then, does India bordering Afghanistan come into the equation? And how come the Pakistan article lead does not have a similiar footnote claiming its borders to stretch beyond the Line of Control, to include the disputed territory of Jammu and Kashmir? Mar4d (talk) 08:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

According to me, the foot note has been written from a very neutral point of view. It does not say "India shares border with Afghanistan", it only says "Government of India considers Afghanistan to be a bordering country", which is a fact. --Anbu121 (talk me) 09:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Please see my comment above. There is a difference between a claim and a fact. The statement that India considers Afghanistan as a bordering country is a claim, not a fact. Officially, there is no physical boundary between the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and the Republic of India and presenting that claim in a footnote does not add any more credibility to the reality. The Afghan government does not call India a bordering country, neither does the international community or the United States (US doesn't see India sharing Afghan border) The problem with the footnote under discussion is that it is heavily portraying one side of the coin while ignoring the larger and broader context, which is the Kashmir conflict. India's dispute on territories administered by Pakistan holds no more legitimate weight than Pakistan's claims over Indian-administered Kashmir. I see only two solutions to this issue: Either remove the whole footnote since it is not compliant with WP:WEIGHT. Or for balance and to present a full picture of the Kashmir issue, in the same footnote, add the Government of Pakistan's dispute on Jammu and Kashmir and Pakistan's own version of its borders. Mar4d (talk) 09:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The view of the Government of India as to its own borders is relevant for an article about India. Placing it in a foot-note is about right vide WP:WEIGHT keeping in view the the complex border issues involved. It is also neutrally written. It may not be suitable to include in an article on Afghanistan or Pakistan but in an article on India, Indian Government views are notable enough to mention. Your contention is not agreed for the reasons stated. AshLin (talk) 11:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

All the points that User:Mar4d has brought about have nothing to challenge the neutrality of the statement. Pakistan government's viewpoints and claims on its borders should be included in Pakistan article. Not here. The primary purpose of the foot note is to convey government of India's claims. WP:WEIGHT is about giving weights to different viewpoints. The footnote here is not a viewpoint at all. It is written in the form of a fact explaining India's claims. My opinion is that the word "considers" can be changed to "claims". I am inviting other editors' opinion on this. --Anbu121 (talk me) 12:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. Misplaced Pages is not an advocate of any particular government, each and every piece of material deserves to be presented neutrally, factually and with due weight. This is not so the case here. The footnote mentions India's claims of sharing a border with Afghanistan yet does not mention the other half, namely that the entire region which it lays dispute to (including Jammu and Kashmir) in the first place is fully claimed by another country. For a reader who is not well versed with the Kashmir conflict and reads it, this footnote is highly misleading, one-sided and ambiguous. Mar4d (talk) 13:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

However, you have conflict of interest when arguing. As neutral editor here I would have this información not in footnote but in the lead in form text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.98.197.34 (talk) 13:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

We could definitely reword it to be more concise, with perhaps a better wikilink, but I don't see how a footnote would add to the Pakistan article at all. It doesn't really change Pakistan's borders. CMD (talk) 14:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

This foot note was around for a long time(Talk:India/Archive_5#Does_Afghanistan_border_India.3F). Seems that user wants to waste time arguing over non-issue¿ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.98.197.34 (talk) 14:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Let me be more clear. I am not advocating that Indian government's viewpoints to be included in India article and Pakistan government's viewpoints to be included in Pakistan article. The foot note has been written in the context of list of bordering countries of India and not in the context of Kashmir dispute. It could be reworded to be more precise, but explaining the Kashmir conflict in this foot note looks a bit out of context. --Anbu121 (talk me) 14:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The Kashmir conflict has every bit to do with this. According to the footnote itself, the government of India claims a border with Afghanistan on the basis of its dispute over a part of Kashmir which borders the country. If this footnote is to stay at all, both viewpoints would need to be presented i.e. Indian government's claim on a border with Afghanistan (on the basis of the Kashmir conflict) and Pakistan's dispute over that. The international community also has not acknowledged any physical boundary between Afghanistan and India, thus the footnote needs to clearly make note of the fact that this claim is officially disputed. Mar4d (talk) 15:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

On a side note, can we get some more reliable sources going into depth about the Indian government's claims of a border with Afghanistan (i.e. statements by government officials, official documents, speeches, diplomatic conferences) for verifiability? I'm having a hard time finding many. If there is inadequate coverage of this topic, this would raise further issues of whether this is even notable enough and WP:DUE to deserve a mention in the lead, as well as the larger problem of WP:SYNTHESIS. Mar4d (talk) 16:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

If Indian government has made a claim over the entire Jammu and Kashmir, it is obvious that the government considers Afghanistan to be a neighbouring country. I am not able to see why reliable sources, verifiability and WP:SYNTHESIS are brought in to the picture. --Anbu121 (talk me) 17:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Trying to state the obvious or coming up with a working assumption without verifiability is indeed synthesis with a capital S, and I'm afraid if that is the basis on what the footnote has been inserted, then this certainly has synthesis written all over it. Notwithstanding India's claim over Jammu and Kashmir, the question is to what extent has the Indian government gone a step further on the supposed Afghan border claim? How notable is it? How much importance does it attach to this issue? Are there any official or diplomatic quotes/mentions/written evidence on the topic? If not, then the more specific question is, is having a footnote in the lead of this article unnecessarily overdoing and exaggerating the claim? Mar4d (talk) 17:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Well you can see here in the lead "contrary to India's position". Just search google for more. Stop wasting everyone's time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.98.197.34 (talk) 18:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

That's the link I already gave above. Read my second comment again. Any other reliable sources and coverage talking exclusively about India's position apart from that only report that you could find on Google? This is starting to echo what I said earlier, this barely has much coverage. Mar4d (talk) 03:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Added an official GOI declaration ref. AshLin (talk) 05:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I won't admit that this topic has any wide coverage, but the official citation used clears up part of the verifiability issue nevertheless. Now a tweak or two should also be done. First, I think the phrase "The Government of India regards Afghanistan as a bordering country" should be changed to "The Government of India claims Afghanistan as a bordering country." In the second sentence, the phrase "which included territory that bordered Afghanistan, to belong exclusively to India" can be modified into something more neutral. Perhaps something like: "This is because of its territorial dispute on the erstwhile princely state of Kashmir and Jammu, which included territory that bordered Afghanistan" with the word "territorial dispute wikilinked to the Kashmir conflict article. Finally, the last sentence can be modified to: "As a consequence, the region bordering Afghanistan constitutes Pakistan-administered Kashmir" (the word 'constitutes' replacing "is in"). I'm currently busy right now, so will come up with further suggestions (especially on attributing the dispute on this claim), but these are some basic tweaks that should be done to start with. Mar4d (talk) 06:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

"The Government of India regards Afghanistan as a bordering country, as it considers all of Kashmir to be part of India. However, this is disputed, and the region bordering Afghanistan is controlled by Pakistan."

How's that? short, wikilink to dispute and to Kashmir, and hopefully concise. I didn't change regards to claims as the expressed meaning is the same, and I think regards reflects the strong position the Indian government takes (it is already obviously their opinion). CMD (talk) 14:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I think "Administered" would be a better word than "controlled". Further, Kashmir can be reworded as princely state of Kashmir. --Anbu121 (talk me) 15:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Administered seems fine to me. Why do we need to describe what Kashmir formerly was? That seems to be the excess detail that's not needed. CMD (talk) 16:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately seems as so our friend Mar4d removed this same statement from Afghanistan page. Perhaps an editor could investigate this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.98.197.34 (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Okay, the new version is much better. And regarding the addition of this footnote into the Afghanistan article, I think pigs will have to fly before that happens. The Government of Afghanistan has not recognized a physical boundary with the Republic of India, so it would be better if this claim is treated as India's, which is already done by mentioning it on this article. Adding this into the Afghanistan article is irrelevant POV and WP:UNDUE. Mar4d (talk) 04:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Errm... where is your evidence that Afghanistan has refuted the idea of a border with India. It is not POV, it is part of foreign policy. Some editors are extremely humorous here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.98.197.34 (talk) 16:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 February 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In India the vehicles are driven in Right side, As per our wikipedia, its written as Left, Kindly make the changes to Right, many thanks -Paneer Selvan A, Paneerselvan (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: Vehicles are driven on the left side of the road in India and it is correctly mentioned in the infobox. — Abhishek  16:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Indo-Aryan Migration - is it required?

The sentence in the history section(ancient history) "Most historians also consider this period to have encompassed several waves of Indo-Aryan migration into the subcontinent from the north-west" is not required according to me as the theory of Aryan invasion has been challenged by many historinas --sarvajna (talk) 14:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The sentence itself explains that "Most historians", meaning there are others who do not agree with this; but the prevailing thinking of the majority of the experts is reflected in this sentence. IMO you will have to provide very strong evidence, quoting scholars who are considered experts in the field, to include that point of view in this summarised article. You can probably include that point of view, aided by strong evidences, in the articles History of India and Indo-Aryan migration. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Note also that the sentence uses the word 'migration' not 'invasion'. You will have to provide excellent sources that show that there were no such migrations. --regentspark (comment) 18:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure I will search for some good sources, but dont you think invasion and migration are same, its just one's point of view to call invasion a migration? --sarvajna (talk) 09:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Definitely not the same. I suggest a quick trip to a dictionary before you look for sources. --regentspark (comment) 15:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, what I meant was that "Indo-Aryan Migration" theory and "Indo-Aryan Invasion" theory would be one and the same. --sarvajna (talk) 15:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

They're not the same things. Indo-Aryan invasion refers to Wheeler's theory of an invasion of the subcontinent by Indo-European people (resulting in the demise of the Indus Valley civilization). However, that theory has no currency now. Indo-Aryan migrations refers to nomadic migrations into the subcontinent in prehistoric times. These theories have wide currency (except amongst nationalistic elements in India). --regentspark (comment) 16:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Got it, thanks for the clarification --sarvajna (talk) 16:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Still I feel there is point in sarvajna concern. Since the line says "Most Historians", the word MOST adds to the effect of making it a popular view. Perhaps a clear addition that "however several other historians don't have a different view on this" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.200.119.9 (talk) 07:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

(od) It says 'most' because most is the correct term. Only a few nationalist elements in India have other ideas and those ideas are on the fringe. The current version is accurate. --regentspark (comment) 17:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Except that it is not a fringe view: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/indians-are-not-descendants-of-aryans-study/1/163645.html

Many serious, non-nationalistic scholars denounce the theory of an "Aryan" migration. And who were these "Aryans"? This is also something never discussed by proponents of this theory. "Aryan" is an indigenous Indian/Sanskrit word that was never meant to define a race. The migration theory is propaganda started by Western historians over a century ago. It is out-dated. For these reasons, this sentence about what "most historians believe" is unclear at best and should be removed. There is already a whole Wiki page dedicated to the subject of Aryan migrations, what it means, and whether it ocurred. Why put something that has never been proven in the history section of India? Zondrah89 (talk) 05:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

You still need to provide reliable sources for this. The source you provide is not reliable and anyway seems to indicate that the migration view is the dominant one, even though the bhu and estonian researchers seem to think otherwise. When their view becomes dominant, the article can easily be changed. --regentspark (comment) 15:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I dont agree that the above source is not reliable also I dont think there is need to remove the part which says that migration view is dominant but wouldn't it be good if we mention what other historians think? --sarvajna (talk) 15:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

As the India Today article linked above says, the Indo-Aryan migration theory (the article incorrectly refers to it as the Indo-Aryan invasion theory) is 'widely believed'. On wikipedia, we go with what is widely believed, not necessarily what editors think is true or false. If there are nuances, they should go in a sub-article. If the research mentioned in the IT article is borne out by other studies and some other theory becomes widely believed, then, of course, we'll make a change here. --regentspark (comment) 20:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

@all: Please see history, the AIT is rubbished by multiple sources I quoted, it was an invention of the colonialists - an extension of divide and rule, also seen in Rwanda-Burundi, also seen in East Timor-Indonesia and Sudan-South Sudan., it is the long pole of the Dalitistan-Dravidianistan-Naxalistan tent. This article is a featured article, how can it be allowed to be so blatantly non-NPOV? The AIT or its morph is at best a disputed crank theory, supported by academics to stave off redundancy. I used the statement: "According to the disputed AIT (morphed)...". It was undone by an admin, admins shouldn't use admin or roll back tools in involved articles, but the world of Misplaced Pages was never fair.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 22:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh and "nationalists" oppose Ait(m), what is the corollary "anti-nationals" support? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 22:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Requesting a summary of the state of the issue from Fowler&fowler please. AshLin (talk) 05:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 February 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change "English East India Company" to "British East India Company" in section "History" --> "Early modern India" because "English" is incorrect.

SC 03:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: As far as I can tell, English is a correct descriptive, as per the East India Company's article. Can you elaborate on why it's incorrect? elektrikSHOOS (talk) 05:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request on 25 February 2012

I think that Regional Power in the lead section must be changed to nascent Great Power. That would really depict the real condition of India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srikarkashyap (talk • contribs) 13:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: Please provide reliable sources in support of the suggested change. --regentspark (comment) 18:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Status of Jammu and Arunachal Pradesh

There may be dispute regarding status of Kashmir. But there is no dispute regarding status os Jammu. Jammu is Hindu dominated area and there is abolutely no separtist movement against India or in favour of Pakistan. Thus Pakistan has no claim over Jammu.Similarly , Arunachal Pradesh is full fledged state of India. There is neither any separatist movement against or any movement for merger in China. As far as claim is concern, even India has claim over Kailash Range and Mansarovar lake and even Tibet is disputed.Rajesh Kumar69 (talk) 06:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Reg. date of composition of Vedas

"The Vedas, the oldest scriptures of Hinduism, were composed during this period, and historians have analysed these to posit a Vedic culture in the Punjab region and the upper Indo-Gangetic Plain.[19"

Nowhere except Mr. Upender Singh's book, is there a mention of date of composition of Vedas. Vedas were part of "Shruti" (heard knowledge) and was passed from generations to generations like that; until it was finally put on papirus leaves somewhere around the time quoted by Mr. Upender's book.

What is the verificity of the content of Mr. Upender Singh's book and how is it being treated as the reliable source of information?

- Prateek Mohan (mohan.prateek@gmail.com)

• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once