Talk:India

Society section

So I added a statement from a new report that India has the largest number of slaves. It was politely reverted claiming that it was not appropriate for the society section. Since many other country articles have a human rights section, can that section be started along with my info and a 'main article|Human rights in India' link? I added that information in the society section because it was next to a sentence on Dalit persecution, so it seemed the article's most appropriate place to add it. The society section only has the disparate information of caste, marriage and festivals. Doesn't it seem better to break that section and send the information to other sections. JustBeCool (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

JustBeCool, I think you should not add such news anywhere in whole Wikipedia. Because there's no independent verfibility in these reports. The slavery in many countries remains legal. Thus it's impossible to assume from such report, that it will present anything to be legible. If you look at the Slavery#Present_day it's already given. Therefore if you presented any new stats, anywhere you can remove them, since they have to be removed. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how this effects the rest of your arguments Bladesmulti, but that section you just pointed to shows a clear error in your claims--slavery is, in fact, illegal in all countries in the world. Of course there are millions of violations, but that does not mean that it's actually acceptable. Furthermore, you can't argue that there are "no independent verifiability"; the report itself is the independent verification. The BBC is practically the gold standard for news agencies, and they count as a reliable source for information, and can be presumed to have done basic fact checking on their publications. Now, it's still possible to argue this info doesn't belong in this article, but not based on your objections.

With reference to JustBeCool's question, I do think that we need a link to Human rights in India somewhere in this article, though I'm not sure where the best place to put that is. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this slavery information fits in the India article. The news story is based on an index compiled by one organization (Walk Free) and the report itself probably has caveats and explanations. I would wait for reliable secondary sources (academic ones) to analyze and comment on the report before considering including any information here. We don't want our articles to be a mere compendium of news reports. --regentspark (comment) 22:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

regentspark is actually right.. Only one organization which had no wiki page before this same editor JBC created one, about 3 days ago or more. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the organization, Walk Free, either. More importantly, I'm not sure if the word "slavery" can be used as a catchall for human trafficking, child labor, bonded labor, etc. However, I will note that Child labor in India is an important social issue. Perhaps that can be mentioned somewhere in the article. It could be done either in the economy section or the society section. There are plenty secondary sources. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

More troubling for me is that topics related to violence against women to to their neglect, such as: Rape in India, Acid throwing, Bride burning, Female infanticide in India, Sex selection, Maternal mortality, topics which make up a large proportion of stories on India in the press, and also are the subject of significant secondary literature, find no mention in the article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Finally, as for human rights, I'm not sure about this, but I wonder if human rights violations in India (as detailed for example in the article Human rights in India are a subject of sizable secondary literature. As I said, I'm not sure about this, but it might be worth checking. I mean academic literature, not NGO reports. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Many issues were brought up here. As I said, we could start the human rights section and that can be an appropriate place for the glaring gaps such as Rape in India, Acid throwing, Bride burning, Female infanticide in India, Sex selection, Child labor in India as well as the issues associated with slavery, such as debt bondage, human trafficking, etc. However, maternal mortality is not appropriate in such a section. Should I get started on this? JustBeCool (talk) 02:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I certainly don't believe it ("Human Rights") should have a separate subsection. I'm thinking more along the lines of two or three sentences in the society section with links to the main articles. We need to hear from the others (Bladesmulti, Qwyrxian, RegentsPark) to gain consensus, and I'm not sure they'd go even as far as me. You did not respond after bringing up the issue, so the others might not respond right away. When we do have the consensus, the two or three sentences would be finalized on the talk page first. That is how we have traditionally done it. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The problem with the society section is the title seems broad and vague. If other editors, in addition to Fowler&fowler, do not want a human rights subsection, then I suggest Child labor in India and issues of Debt bondage in India can go in the economy section. I do not know where maternal mortality would go from the currently available sections, however, some other country articles have a health section. Additionally, since the important issue of child malnutrition is in the economy section (which does not seem to be the most appropriate) and HIV/AIDS is never mentioned in the entire article, a health section would have additional benefits. As for Rape in India, Acid throwing, Bride burning and Female infanticide in India, I do not think they fit in the society section since they are more about crime but I can understand if other editors would like them there. JustBeCool (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

We need to be careful that we don't turn this article into an unreadable sea of blue (links) or a prosified outline of India article. At first glance I think the only additional topic that need to be linked directly from this page among the ones mentioned above would be human rights in India, with a one or two sentence summary in the society section, or split between the society and economy section. The other sub-topics (Rape in India, Female infanticide in India, Acid throwing, Bride burning, Child labor in India, Debt bondage in India), would themselves be discussed in that linked article, just as we only link to Transport in India here rather than linking to Rail transport in India, Taxis in India, Suburban rail in India Air transport in India,Indian Road Network, National Highway (India) ad infinitum.

Of course the exact language and article(s) to link can be discussed and finalized here on the talk page. JustBeCool, do you want to draft a proposal to get the discussion started? Abecedare (talk) 20:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I am back.For Abecedare, I understand that you would want a balance between vagueness and specificity in deciding how many hyperlinks to have. For now, concerning the economics section, I suggest in its third last paragraph the passage, "India has the world's largest slave population, 14 million, most of whom are in bonded labor. India has the largest number of child labourers under the age of 14 in the world with an estimated 12.6 million children engaged in hazardous occupations." JustBeCool (talk) 03:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Not a good idea, since one slavery survey heavily contradicts other. This research is certainly neither the best nor the most acclaimed survey. Now I have got the list by US Department of State, which regarded worst offenders as Russia, China, Uzbekistan, Others like Sudan, Cuba, Syria, Iran, North Korea and Zimbabwe were at lowest level as well.. No India in whole list.[1] So you are going to attribute? But how you will? There's clearly no need. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I am trying hard to understand. Which statement by your source contradicts what was mentioned? The US state department source was never about number of slaves and was about ranking governments by how seriously the department thought they were acting on slavery. Maybe if you could specify where the contradiction is I may understand your argument. JustBeCool (talk) 17:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Fine, the US department alleged about 27 million slaves(i think), but this one, that you are referring recognizes 30 million. Contradiction right there. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

No-one is going to have perfect numbers for the slavery count. Frankly 3 million is quite close, considering the vagueness of the subject at hand. That said, I think a more detailed description than just "slave population" would be better. I also feel that "largest of" type statistics are rather unhelpful for India, as due to its massive population it stands a good chance of having the largest of in the world for many demographic traits. Numbers would be preferable. CMD (talk) 12:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Still, it will be contradiction to print one report, and then print the US department report that basically suggests that India is becoming anti-slavery everyday. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Bladesmulti, you are claiming another contradiction by pointing out that the US state department says India is becoming more anti-slavery. You are free to add the state department source as well, since being the country with the largest number of slaves and having a government that takes more action against slavery relative to other governments is not a contradicting each other. The passage I added has numbers on it, which was what CMD wanted. Again, can you specify your objections, like showing how that contradicts? There will never be “agreement” if you oppose any passage simply because it mentions “slavery” in it. JustBeCool (talk) 18:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

In short words, it's not needed, and you are bringing up the same changes for this page. These changes have been already made in the related pages. They are not required here. As long as the Slavery index is developed by some free unknown organization(who knew before this list?), it's not a government sponsored list.

Other than that, you should also stop bringing the GDP issues, because comparing India's GDP per capita with other countries is simply a child's talk. Indian population is 1.2 billion, it's obvious that the GDP per capita would be lower compared to some other countries. List has been provided List of countries by GDP (PPP)... Which is enough for a viewer to decide which has more or less. Bladesmulti (talk) 19:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

The article on India

Hi, The article shows India as the eleventh largest economy. But India is the 9th largest by UN calculations and 10th largest by IMF and World bank statistics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aju Antony90 (talk • contribs) 11:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

ShreevidyaCM (talk) 08:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)The national anthem has wrong lyrics!!!!! its draavida utkala vanga

Bharat Ganrajya

We need a source for this. The cite note links to Official names of India and that article contains no evidence that India is also known as Bharat Ganrajya. --regentspark (comment) 14:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I (mis)remembered it as being from the Indian constitution, but rechecking shows that the actual language of the first sentence is:

1. Name and territory of the Union.—(1) India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States

Given that, I am even questioning the "officially the Republic of India" part. Anyone have a better idea of where this came from? Abecedare (talk) 17:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Very poor introduction

The introduction to the India article is, at best, pathetic. There isn't even a single mention of India's antiquity and the intro grotesquely underestimates India's place in world affairs. India is much more than just a "regional power" - it is somehwere in between a great power and a superpower! Also, India is the 9th largest economy in the world, by nominal GDP, not eleventh. The introduction is simply woeful! Can someone please change it to reflect the above mentioned facts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.213.89.173 (talk) 06:23, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Focusing on your last (and, the only non-subjective) point: see here for discussion of India's ranking by nominal GDP. If you have better/more recent stats, we can look into that. Abecedare (talk) 06:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

India is more than a regional power I agree, no one uses the terms great power in common right now, they are rare, and superpower is only USA! Right now... Many of these editors wants China to be named as superpower too, but we can't agree with all. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The article does mention the history of the area back a long way but the article is actually about the Republic and 1947 is not really antiquity only a few decades ago. The lead summarises this history already so doesnt really need a change. MilborneOne (talk) 19:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Anyways, majority of sources are right now agreeing that India has 10th largest, so I have just changed it, it's also contradictory to the main page, if we kept it "11th" .. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

India - possibly the world's oldest civilization

The following discussion 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.

---

India is possibly the world's oldest civilization. There are several sources that confirm this. Kindly update the India article, particularly the introduction. Realfacts123 (talk) 05:33, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

This is actually an article about the country not the civilisation, as an independent country it is not that old. Clearly these older civilisations are part of the history of the country and if you read the article it already provides information about ancient India and the introduction also has a link to Indus Valley Civilization so perhaps you can be clearer in what else you think should be added. MilborneOne (talk) 09:27, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

That is a statement of almost paralysing stupidity. If that is the case, how come several other "countries" have the "age" of their "civilizations" in their introduction page? I suggest making the following correction - "Home to the oldest civilization - the Indus Valley civilization and a region of ......" everything else remains the same. And your stupid paragraph above reminded me of something else - "India" wasn't administered directly by the "United Kingdom". A large chunk of "Ancient India" was "politically controlled" by the "British Empire". There were about 700 independent kingdoms in Ancient India, even at the peak of British intervention in India, some larger than large western European nations. Please brush up on your history, have some common sense, think twice and (preferably) consult with your mum before replying to my edit requests. Realfacts123 (talk) 12:41, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to read WP:NPA and calm down a bit, we are here to help and understand what your issues are but insulting people will get you a one way ticket to the exit door. I am not sure that changing ancient to oldest is supported by references, the Indus Valley Civilization article makes not claims that it is the oldest just one of three ancient civilisations. When it says that India was administered directly from the United Kingdom it is in reference to the change of local control by the British East India Company so in this context it is correct. Some of the contributers here have a wide knowledge of Indian history and I am sure if the lead was wrong it would have been raised by now. But we are allways interested in anything you think is wrong, so if you have any points then please let us know what you have issues with and cut out the personal attacks, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 13:29, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

That is EXACTLY the point I am trying to make. The whole of India was not administered by the United Kingdom/East India company. If you go through the history of British intervention in India in an unprejudiced way, you will be very surprised at the sheer size of the area within the Indian sub-continent that had absolutely nothing to do with the British Empire. I think this FACT needs to be reflected in the Intro. There are plenty of books out there that prove that India is the world's oldest civilization. Also, since you would like to "understand" what my issues are, I want you to know that I am offended that a user based in Crawley, West Sussex, United Kingdom is in charge of editing the article about India! This shows a total lack of sensitivity on the part of Wikipedia. That is akin to a German editing the "United Kingdom" article or a Russian editing the "Germany" article. I would like another user to handle my edit request - someone who comes from a country that has no reason to have an agenda against the world's oldest and most influential civilization. Realfacts123 (talk) 13:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

If you are offended by the location of editors then wikipedia is not a place for you, wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anybody can edit the geographical location of editors is not relevant, also I am not in charge of anything I just happened to be the first of the 2,800 people who watch this page to reply to your original post. MilborneOne (talk) 14:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Aren't you an editor?? If you are not, don't respond to any of my posts on the talk page. That is not a request. Realfacts123 (talk) 15:18, 14 December 2013 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 25 December 2013

Harisulake (talk) 17:05, 25 December 2013 (UTC) The Bhavasar Kshyatriya are an ethnic group in India, traditionally associated with woodblock printing on textiles and tailoring. They are mostly located in the regions of Jammalamadugu(Andhra Pradesh),Gujarat, Maharashtra and Rajasthan while some are also located in Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka. Gujarati and Rajasthani Bhavsars refer to themselves as just Bhavsars, while in Maharashtra the community has bifurcated further and they refer to themselves variously as, Bhavsar Kshathriya, Bhavsar Shimpi, Namdev Shimpi. Namdev Shimpis are considered a distinct group, although they bifurcated from the Maharashtrian Bhavsars, as they are followers of Namdev - however they use the same surnames as Maharashtrian Bhavsars.

The founder of the Maratha kingdom, Shivaji Maharaj always visited the Ambhabhavani temple place: Jammalamadugu(Andhra Pradesh) to seek her blessings. It is believed that the Goddess gifted him a sword - 'the Ambhabhavani sword' - for success in his expeditions.

• Not done for now: please provide a reliable source to back up your claim before requesting an edit be made. Thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 05:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2013

|languages = None,should be replaced |languages = Hindi, National Language of India is Hindi so it should be Hindi . By setting National language none this page is providing wrong information to the users who are here to know about India. Soodghimachalwale (talk) 10:31, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Contrary to popular belief, it isn't. Please refer to Question 9 in the FAQ above. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Puducherry

Puducherry is a state but listed as a union territory in the article 223.239.242.245 (talk) 08:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Puducherry has it as a union territory. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)