Talk:India/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions about India. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

→

We've all had a big debate on adding appropriate images to this page. This issue has cropped up time and again. Selection of images are currently very subjective and I hope we can define some rules in the addition/replacement of images on this page. My aim is to have the selection as objective and transparent as possible.

Images should be featured pictures.
1. Cutting down on subjectivity: — Featured pictures are assessed by neutral evaluators for subject, clarity and composition. Thus subjectivity is minimized.
2. Page is of the highest quality — Since India is a featured article, and the core article of Wikiproject India, having featured content on this page allows it to be among the crème de la crème of wikipedia content.
Images should be regionally balanced.
- Having excess images from a particular region of India makes it too regionally specific. Each region should be appropriately represented (North, South, East, West, Central, North-east).
Images should be relavent to the section placed in.

=Nichalp «Talk»= 12:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed but I am afraid that their might not be enough relevant FA images. --Blacksun 13:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

We can maintain the status quo for now but there's no harm in nominating India-related pictures for featured status. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I feel relevance to the article contents and high resolution should be the criteria. Current inventory of featured pictures in Wikipedia is limited. By restricting our choice to featured pictures, we always end up putting picture which does not truly represent subject.For example, Apatani image or Toda hut pictures are good but it does not synchoronise well with the subject. Other F.A country articles pictures are attractive since they don't restrict their choices to featured pictures. Status quo for images is not a good idea.--Indianstar 18:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Yup, but that again boils down to the 'appropriateness' and subjectivity. It should also inspire people to get India-related pictures featured. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

We are discussing appropriateness in this talk forum for many days...to minimise subjectivity. Current images are best among the few featured pictures... but still many people have expressed opinions that pictures in India articles are not good. When inventory of featured pictures goes up then we can decide to restrict our choices to featured pictures. Other two points mentioned by you makes sense.(Regional balance and Relevance to contents). Current images does not fit relevance to contents and regional balance criteria.(E.g There are two tribal related images affecting regional balance and both of them does not go well with the subject(Atleast as per my opinion), Tiger may be better choice for flora and fauna since it is India's national animal and good tiger pictures are available.) Current images meets only featured pictures criteria. Status quo is not the nice idea.--Indianstar 18:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely with Indianstar. Confining ourselves to just featured images is a very bad idea. Images get featured not because they may be relevant to a certain article on wikipedia, but simply because of its own merit. So the argument to use only featured images for a certain article is flawed. Howeverwhat we can probably decide is that, if there is a featured image and if the community here by consensus feels that it is a better choice than an existing image, then featured images should get precedence over non featured images. Also, we can start building an image bank/gallery and then may be we can keep rotating images. Sarvagnya 22:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

S: Images get featured not because they may be relevant to a certain article on wikipedia, but simply because of its own merit. No. FPC discussions often hinge on whether images have high "enc value"--how well do they illustrate the articles they accompany. I think that we should stick with the status quo for this reason, and think that Nichalp's FP-only rule is reasonable. Saravask 09:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

No. Pictures are always selected based on its own merit. WP:WIAFP does not specify any criteria for compatibility of picture with accompanying article. Many pictures in this article were inserted after they have become featured pictures. I have rarely seen discussions centering around compatibility of pictures to the article. For sample you can see Ajantha caves and Apatani Tribe discussions. If you are interested I can paste other FP discussions. I only said inventory of Featured pictures has not reached threshold limit for us to adopt "Featured pictures only" rule. I will also love to have FP if there are many. Are we going to remove Parliament,Agni & Stock exchange and other non featured pictures from these articles which has more compatibility with article contents?. I expressed reservations to Status quo on other criteria like Relevance to contents and Regional balance not based on FP only rule. --Indianstar 13:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

IS: No. Pictures are always selected based on its own merit. Which is why #5 of WP:WIAFP reads: Adds value to an article and helps readers to understand an article. The encyclopedic value of the image is given priority over its artistic value. Try actually reading a policy/criteria page before claiming that it does or does not say something. Saravask 19:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I read all points before posting my comments. That point does not say compatibility of pictures to specific article. Purpose or intent of that point is that pictures should add values to encyclopedic articles. For example, I cannot put my personal family picture for featured picture nomination even if it meets other criteria. Since it cannot add value to any article. Many featured images inserted to this article have been evaluated before inserting into this article. Featured pictures have encyclopedic value;It does not mean it can be put on any encyclopedia article. Your assumption that featured pictures have been evaluated for accompanied article is not valid in this case. I wonder why you follow sarvagnya on many cases. We can have difference of opinion with a person on particular issue. It should not inspire us to dispute all points raised by that person. However,I will follow your nice advise and try reading pages. Now I am reading what is meant by Wikistalking. --Indianstar 20:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Saravask, would you stop misinterpreting stuff to suit your convenience? On the debate of festivals, your side of the fence tried to misrepresent Sundar's stand and now you're trying to conveniently misinterpret this rule/guideline. For your benefit, let me explain that #5 to you. What that point means is, my personal portrait for example, even if it is qualitatively brilliant, it isnt encyclopedic because I am a nobody. A portrait of Gandhiji otoh, is encyclopedic. Now, that doesnt mean any and all portraits of Gandhiji are worthy of being featured. Only few may make the cut. Hope you found this enlightening. Thanks. Sarvagnya 21:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I COMPLETELY COMPLETELY COMPLETELY COMPLETELY COMPLETLY agree with Indiastar. Oh my god. finally someone who shares the same opinion as I. The fact that a picture is featured does NOT mean it relates to an article. The fact that the apanti image is featured does not mean that it shows india fairly. I would rather have relevant pics on any page than irrelvant (or underrelvant) featured pics. I think there definately is a consensus on this. And maybe we do need to get more India pics featured, but thats another topic. At any time we should always stick with relvance over featured status. Nikkul 15:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Here lies the problem, people say they like their nominated images but nobody is willing to get appropriate images featured. We have to make do with what we have: See the version when Mumbai was featured. The images then were of poorer quality. Indianstar's idea is good, we can try and attain a pool of featured images for rotation. Shall we start the hunt for appropriate images and get them featured? It will benefit the project immensely. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Nichalp, I get your point. I will split the problem as 2 issues. Your suggestion is appropriate for Issue 2 and I support its implementation. Issue 1 need to be resolved now.

1) Existing images is not suitable for article contents. I express reservations on status quo only because of this issue.

I strongly feel Apatani Image, Toda Hut does not go well with article.

I seek we can decide replacement with some images which goes well with article contents even if it is not a featured one. We should decide picture replacement for this case.

2)Existing featured image is suitable for article contents .But there is a potential for replacing with better images.

For example, In History & Flora & Fauna sections, current pictures are ok with article contents but there is potential for improvement.

I think Harappa or Mohanjadaro is preferable than Ajantha caves or Tiger is better than Monkey. High resolution Bengal tiger pictures are available.

For this issue, I support your statement that nominator of new image should take responsibility for getting it featured and as far as possible we should try to go for featured images unless exception is justified with clear logic acceptable to the community. I will see whether I can nominate Tiger pictures for Featured candidates. --Indianstar 17:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments: I agree with Indianstar. There has been a lot of back and forth about which images are appropriate for the India page. One has to look revisit all the images on the India article. We can start with the what Indianstar has pointed out. If someone did a survey to find out the "the most boring country page" currently on Wikipedia, India would be at the top. --Naresh 01:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

There are 2 differnet problems:

PROBLEM 1- India related images that are featured pics are not very relvant to the overall country. (not all indians look like apantis & not all indians live in toda huts)

Solution- change them temporarily for more relvant pictures

PROBLEM 2- Not enough featured pics for India related topics exist.

Solution- nominate more images for featured status. Gain featured status and add them to the India page IF they are relvant or else we will have problem one again

While User nichalp recognizes the solution for the second problem, i think he does not realize the first prolem. I feel a lot of people believe the first problem exists, as shown by the long discussions.Nikkul 20:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

We can put forward our points,we don't have to judge whether others recognise the problem when discussions are going on.--Indianstar 21:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I support Nichalp's proposal that we maintain status quo until we have more FP images, and, in the interim, focus our energies on getting more images featured. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 05:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Maintaining status quo would be like making wikipedia not a free encyclopedia. There are a lot more people who feel that the images that are on the article, though featured, do not belong on this page, but would be better suited on another page such as tribes of India for the toda hut or apanti image. Coollemonade 12:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Maintaining status quo would only mean till more appropriate featured images are found. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Utopian Proposal for Demographics

Because of India's rich diversity, no one image can represent all of India's one billion people. That is why I propose selecting a new demographics image every three months (time can be voted on). This would allow for a regional balance and would show India as a whole, the two main concerns expressed. Many people have agreed that this is the only way to represent India's rich and varied diversity. Please consider this proposal. Thanks.

Supporters:

User:coollemonade
Baka man 01:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Ekantik ^talk 02:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Sarvagnya
Chanakyathegreat
User:Bangalorevenkat
User:nikkul

Comments: I like the rotation idea, I've also proposed it myself above. But 3 months is too long a duration. Depending on how large our pool is, we should atleast be able to rotate them once in 15 days or atleast once a month. Also, this shouldnt be confined to the demographics section. It should be for all sections. Seriously, the Taj Mahal pic has become an eyesore. It may be one of the wonders of the world(that again is somebody's POV which got legitimised I dont know when) but that doesnt mean its the only monument thats worth its salt. Nor does it mean that it is the best representation of our culture. If we cant rotate, how about atleast adding a link to Gallery of Indian pics in the ==See also==. Is there such a precedent? Can we have galleries in the article itself? Or can we have an article itself for the gallery? Just thinking aloud. Sarvagnya 00:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I support. But three months is too long. I support a time limit of one week for each image. It can also be on a rotational basis starting with each state like Arunachal pradesh, Andra Pradesh and so on. During that week the images from Arunachal pradesh be listed and votes are casted for and against and the image changed with the selected image. This must go on for every week. Chanakyathegreat 04:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not mean to set a time limit. That can also be voted upon. Coollemonade 12:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Opposers:

User:The Behnam
Ambuj Saxena.

Comments: This is supposed to be a featured article. FAs should be stable. Image rotation is a political solution. We should rather concentrate on selecting the best possible image rather than appease everyone. Having galleries is strictly out of question. This is an encyclopedia. The two issues discussed in the previous section are very much serious. What we should instead do is that find out the best suited image available and put it in the article without prejudice. By 'without prejudice', I mean that if we get a better picture, we should be willing to make the change without much bureaucracy (i.e. not discouraging such attempts to change, but at the same time keeping out uni-lateral changes). As and when possible, we should prefer featured images over non-featured ones. But for that the relevance should come first. For example, while the apatani image is very much relevant and informative about the article on the tribe, it is hardly relevant to the India article. My understanding of the FP criteria is that the image should illustrate some article well. Being an FP doesn't mean that image becomes suitable for any article obscurely related to the image. The fact that there aren't enough featured images is a reality. We thus, cannot afford (at this moment, at least) to narrow our search of image to FP only. There are many good quality images that aren't featured but should be good enough for this page. An example that comes to my mind is that of the Bengal Tiger image. It is definitely of high quality, but due to some minor issues, could not get featured. In terms of quality, relevance and visual appeal, it is definitely better than the current langur one. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 10:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Unlike Wikipedians, most people don't keep monitoring the page. Whatever picture they see at the time will represent India's Demographics to them. While the compromise may solve our image-related disagreements as editors, it doesn't solve the problem for the reader. But the reader is more important here. I suggest using a picture that always has to do with demographics, such as a demographic visual (chart, map, graph, etc). The Behnam 04:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Just as User:The Behnam said, the average reader (who is our customer i guess u can say) does not keep a track of the images he or she sees. Whatever pic they see represents Indian people to him or her. The Apanti image is obviously not a valid representation of Indian people because the Apanti tribe does not comprise of the majority in India. Since there is no majority, I think that the rotation is a good idea. Also, more people voted to change the apanti image than to keep it and a lot agree it is irrelvant. User Ambuj said that this is an encyclopedia. And that is exactly what it is. Its supposed to give a fair representation of India, which the current image does not do because a majority of Indians do not follow Apanti customs. I dont think, user ambuj, that there is one image that can represent all Indians as shown by these long convos. Thats why rotation is optimal.Coollemonade 12:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I agree that the Apatani image is not representative of India. But just because there is no majority, doesn't make your argument on rotation any more valid. The solution you suggest is of political appeasement rather than optimisation. You are suggeting we put a rotation of biased pics, so that on an average over the whole year, the article would look neutral. But have you ever thought that such a system would never yield a neutral article. It is like having one hand in furnace and other in liquid nitrogen to speak of being comfortable on an average. Hope you understand now why I am strictly against the rotation policy. The more I think of it, the more I keep getting convinced that photographic image isn't the solution to our problems. Possibly we would have to do with some chart/map representing demographic data. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 18:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not see why featured articles "should remain stable." If this were the case, then why even have this discussion? why even bother to try to edit this page? why not just put a permanent protection on the site and not ever log on to this page to help better it? I think that if we can better a featured article (in this case by changing the irrelvant dem pic or the toda hut pic) then why not do it? First, I think we all agree that the Apanti image should go. Its the second we're stuck on. The second problem is "how do we choose a replacement image?" This is the only solution if we want to have an image there. What is so wrong about switching images at given time intervals? it does not harm anyone and it satisfies us all. Coollemonade 21:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see the RfC section below. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 23:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

If we're going to put a barrier on editing the India page, why not just do the same to all of Wikipedia. If seven of eleven voters vote to stop major edits to any Wikipedia pages, does that mean that we can not edit Wikipedia at all? No, my friends; This is the free encyclopedia. when an article gets featured status, it does not mean we can not make it better.Coollemonade 03:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You guys are extremely strange. It is picture of a tribe - no one with IQ above 40 is going to think that it represents all of India. I find it a rather cool image that makes me learn things about India that I did not know even though I have been to almost every state in India. Get over it already.--129.125.7.218 10:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You would be surprised how little people know about India. I once met a chick who thought India was in Africa. And photos such as these serve to spread the misconception that most Indians live in tribes. Nikkul 12:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well ,you should have encouraged her to start reading wikipedia. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I have been reading quitely everyones opinion during period when I could not take part beacause i had forgot my password. User nichalp said that images should be regionally balanced. So let us see if they are: Ajanta Caves- north, Mahatma Gandhi- north, parliament of india- north, agni missile-north, monkey-north, bse-north, apanti- north, taj mahal- north. toda-south. i hope India wikiusers realize that your country has a south and that it is an integral part of the nation. eight out of nine images are from north areas. this is unacceptable. Bangalorevenkat 13:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I will attempt a more detailed analysis.

Ajanta caves – West
Mahatma Gandhi – West (per birth)/Irrelevent (per location)
Parliament – North
Agni missile – Irrelevent (per content)/North (per location)
Monkey – East (North-east)
BSE – West
Apatani – East (North-east)
Taj Mahal – North
Toda hut – South

Final tally:

North=2.5
East=2
West=2.5
South=1

I see that south is still under-represented, but only by an image perhaps. Not as alarming as you suggest. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 13:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

We have to evaluate regional balance without assigning regions for Mahatma Gandhi,Agni & Monkey. --Indianstar 23:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe we're still having this discussion. can we just change it? we're wasting so much time discussing it without doing anything about it. i think we have a concensus that the apanti image should go.

Users who believe the Apanti image does not represent India as a whole/dont want Apanti image:

user:Indianstar
user:Nikkul
user:Coollemonade
user:Ambuj Saxena
user:huniebunie
user:The Behnam
user:dab
user:Incman
user:xavierIcI
user:user:Khazadum
user:Ekantik
user:Effer

Please read comments on this page and the previous page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nikkul (talk • contribs). at 00:43, 7 March 2007

Section break

Some of you said that the rotation policy is not a problem for those who visit the pages. It's true. They may be visiting once. So it is not a problem for them and hence we can change the image in a rotational basis.(Since it is a problem for everyone of us here). Also I would like to comment on those who oppose the Apatani image. It's not that the said image cannot be there. It will come just like any other image during the rotational basis since the image is that of an Indian. I still did not understand why you guys are paranoid about the image. Let me also state that no image can represent India fully in the demographic section except the map of India, which is different from the Wikipedia map and hence even that cannot be added. Even a single image superimposing all images are not possible since there is a lot of diversity and hence the only way out is the rotation policy of images. Chanakyathegreat 09:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The main opposition against the Aptani image seems to be that it is not representative of India's people. Fair enough. BUT removing it would create a twosome vacumn: We lost a FP, and we lose a representative pic of NE India. I've edited the image caption and text in the demographics so that it gels in. This should lead to less of a problem and less edit wars. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Superb crisis resolution, Nichalp. I like the reworded caption. I agree too with Chanakyathegreat's sentiments about paranoia. Although I like the idea of rotation, I feel that featured pictures shouldn't be replaced blithely by unevaluated ones. Since we don't tolerate substandard prose in the article, we shouldn't tolerate substandard pictures either; instead, we should redouble our efforts to get more India-related pictures featured. That not only gives the pictures a much-needed peer review, but also, if featured, a stamp of timelessness. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 16:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a Wikipedia Talk page, not an echo chamber for sycophantic personal musing. Sarvagnya 18:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Sarvagnya, does your personal problems with Fowler have ANYTHING to do with the above comment by Fowler? Because your comment is totally irrelevant, and a personal attack. --Ragib 18:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Fowler, featured pictures are not being blithely replaced by UNEVALUATED ones. Please! just because a picture does not have featured status does not mean its unevaluated or substandard! Here is a more thorough count of the images and what they represent-

Ajanta caves – West Mahatma Gandhi – Irrelevent (hes the father of the nation, he represented all) Parliament – Irrelvnt- only because delhi is capital. Agni missile – Irrelevent its a missile. Monkey – East (North-east) BSE – West Apatani – East (North-east) Taj Mahal – North Toda hut – South

Final count: North: 1 NorthEast: 2 West: 2 South: 1

Hence, taking out the apanti image would not be a vacuum. Also, this act has been discussed thoroughly and a consensus has been formed. Please scroll up if you haven't seen it. Also, if you have concerns about a vacuum; this is also being discussed in the rotation thing. Please do not add the image again just because you want it there. A replacement image is pending. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikkul (talk • contribs)

Nikkul, several points:

Please remember to indent and sign your messages properly.
Note that the "monkey" (langur) picture is no longer used on the page.
The vacuum refers to there being no current image in the demographics section.
The last time the issue was voted upon: "Proposal 2: Remove the Apatani image because it does not represent all of India at all and get another image of an average Indian perhaps in a traditional indian dress" garnered 1 "For" vote and 3 votes in opposition. The only way you arrived at the consensus was by lumping people who wanted to "replace the Apatani image once an better image was found" and those who simply wanted to "delete" it.

Hopefully, after reading this you will revert your own deletion, and in the future present arguments to support your proposal rather than try to railroad them through. Cheers. Abecedare 00:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I have found several great images for India related topics. I will be posting them up. One such image is the parliament image which is already on the India page. Indianhilbilly 12:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this image is very beautiful. I think we should leave it there TEMPORARILY till we get the demographics issue resolved. This will eliminate the vacuum and will help us go forward with the discussion, since some were concerned about the vacuum. Huniebunie 14:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not aware that there is a WP rule that says a temporary replacement can be used without the same discussions that precede a permanent one. The Apatani image is already there, it can serve as the temporary replacement adequately. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 14:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry. I just thought it would resolve the problem of vacuum which you were concerned about. I am not aware of any WP rule that says every section MUST have an image at ALL times, especially if that image has gotten such stiff opposition (which user fowlerfowler favours). The apanti image has been opposed more than anything else has been favoured. So, then the best thing to do is to not have any picture at all. Huniebunie 16:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The consensus was for removing the Apatani image, but there was no consensus authorizing any replacement; the vacuum exists because we have not been able to agree on a replacement. The Behnam 16:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

wrt the demographics picture, let me clarify my stand once. my vote is for having a picture/map/graph of demographic statistics. I do not favour having images of any person, tribe or ethnicity. This is the way I had voted when this issue was put up for voting a few days ago(now archived).

That said, I have a different view for the other pictures. The Taj for example, in one of my prev edit summaries, I mentioned that it had become an eyesore. What I meant was that it'd become too cliched. I dont think not having an image of the Taj or an image of Gandhi is going to reduce the quality of the article. For example, Taj replaced by the Qutb Minar or the Jodhpur palace or the Mysore palace or the Parliament replaced by the Rashtrapathi Bhavan or Gandhi replaced by a Bose or Sardar Patel by rotation is in any way going to hurt the article's quality. And again, let me quickly add that I am not for replacing the present Taj image with a poor quality image of the Jodhpur palace. Even though, the replacement need not necessarily be FP quality, it should atleast be of comparable or better quality. Thinking allowed. Sarvagnya 16:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

would someone like adding [] this Survey_of_India based map to the page. well this India according to india's "official" survey of India map. hence it does distort the areas that are really under india's possession But I think it also need to find a place in the wiki.--Iamg 04:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose this image. It is India's "official" version, and thus heavily biased on border disputes. There are many other issues as well. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 10:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I was only suggesting because i thought people might like seeing that there is also an 'official' version given to them, which could stand in comparison to those most commonly available wiki available. ho strong or hard feelings about it. It is not bad to tell that people in India are trained to see the official versions. --Iamg 04:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

See the /FAQ/FAQ. The map of India on the page is much more data rich than the official Indian version. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Photoshop

How about a photoshopped picture of one person from each state/province/territory in India, like a collage or a frame with an Indian flag as a backdrop? Just throwing this out there.Baka man 01:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Support

Baka man 01:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

User:The Behnam

Comment - Not even that could accurately represent the Indian demographic. Besides, each person would be really small unless you put a huge picture on the page, which in turn would be distracting. Let's go with a demographic visual (chart, map, graph, etc). The Behnam 04:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment. A collage would be suitabel only if it captures the diversity, while at the same time maintaining encyclopedic value. Having a flag in background is out of question as it would be a very patriotic representation. The collage should also be clear in the thumbnail itself. You can try to make some based on free images, and it can be considered. However, becuase of the large diversity, I feel that having a single photographic image may appear to be biased. I would recommend addition of demographic visuals as suggested by Behnam. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 10:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

How about getting a picture at an Indian dance competition where there are about 24 people, one from each state wearing his state's dress and all pose for a grand wikipedia pic? Coollemonade 12:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

If you think such an image would be clearly visible even in thumbnail (which I am skeptical of), make one and link from this page. If found good, it will find its way to the article. You shouldn't expect us to say yes to an image we haven't seen. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 18:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that there have been regular reverts of the page over interwiki links. One thing we should keep in mind that, these interwiki links are placed in 100+ wikipedias, and any bot working on those wikipedias is always going to come and reinsert these interwiki links. So, the problem needs to be addressed in a different manner rather than daily cycles of bot inserts and manual reverts. Thanks. --Ragib 21:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Since we never quite summarized the responses to the RfC, I thought it might be a good idea to do it now. The RfC was posted on January 31, 2007. (see here). Of the eleven respondents to the RfC, seven (Ragib, Tombseye, Dab, Saravask, Anupam, Parthi, and Taxman) felt that stability of the India page was important and that any nontrivial changes should be preceded by discussion on the talk page. Three respondents (Indianstar, Sarvagnya, and AJ-India) felt that discussion, especially when excessive, could be detrimental to innovation, and could lead to the article becoming fossilized. One respondent (Blacksun) felt that no universal guidelines could be put forth, that they would very much depend on the context. (In addition, Fowler&fowler, who posted the RfC, shared the view of the first group.) The stability viewpoint was summarized by Taxman in his response:

“

Additional information should go in the subarticles only unless strong consensus is achieved first for the need to add it to the main article. Summaries of thousands of years of history are very difficult to write and that hard work has already been done. While it may be able to be improved, it won't be easy. The least that is fair to do is discuss first before adding anything. Yes, I don't know that there is a better way to get that accross other than very polite edit summaries like "please get consensus on the talk page first".

”

Fowler&fowler «Talk» 23:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

PS. Here is the statement of the RfC:

The India page is a featured article, which currently stands at 43 KB. A persistent problem is the following: What criteria should be used for accepting new material into the article? The history section, for example, has a highly compressed narrative that at the outset points the reader to the History of India page for more details. However, every so often, editors want to add new material, feeling (rightly from their point of view) that more details are needed in a certain sub-area. A number of approaches have been tried:

Revert the new addition, take the discussion to the talk page. (This often upsets the editor who has added the text.)
Revert the material and mention in the edit summary that the History of India page already has the details they seek to add. (This upsets them even more.)
Accept the material and—with more copy editing—integrate it into the article. (However, the article soon begins to burgeon and requires expeditious pruning.)
Accept the material and remove other topics deemed less important by the editors of the moment, thereby keeping the size the same. (However, the many editors who over the years have optimized the narrative, and who may not be paying close attention just then, get shortchanged.)
Another perennial problem is "lists." For the topic on hand,

should we (a) give a qualitative explanation, (b) illustrate with an example or two, and (c) refer to a more detailed link, or
should we do all of the above, but, in addition, provide a more detailed list of examples in the text itself? (The rationale for the detailed list is often that readers might prefer to see the details on the page itself rather than in the link.)

Although the history section is the example, the problem applies to the entire article.

...Three respondents (Indianstar, Sarvagnya, and AJ-India) felt that discussion, especially when excessive, could be detrimental to innovation, and could lead to the article becoming fossilized.... ---thus spake Fowler

I should give it to you for atleast trying hard to misrepresent people's stands. I did not say that discussion would/could be detrimental to innovation. I simply said that discussion(or filibustering in the name of 'discussion') for even common knowledge, common sense, good faith edits would lead to the article getting owned(pardon the pun).

...Additional information should go in the subarticles only unless strong consensus is achieved first for the need to add it to the main article. Summaries of thousands of years of history are very difficult to write and that hard work has already been done. While it may be able to be improved, it won't be easy. The least that is fair to do is discuss first before adding anything. Yes, I don't know that there is a better way to get that accross other than very polite edit summaries like "please get consensus on the talk page first..

For which I asked - "Is it a RULE?" and the answer I got was to the effect that it was NOT a RULE. So if it is not a RULE, it is NOT a rule!! Who the hell is any one of us to make up our own rules?! WP has rules and guidelines about all this that is set in stone. If you want to change it, stop over at the Village pump first. Newbies cannot be expected to know all the guidelines. Even if they were, they would probably only read up on the guidelines that the WP community has formulated. You cant expect them to read up and follow flimsy rules that somebody concocted on the fly! Saying that every edit must be discussed because this is a FA is nonsense. Can you show that to me in the rulebook?

If quality of an article is to be improved, we will certainly have to live with a bit of instability in the article in the short term. But in the long run, the article will improve. Like I've already said, if people need permissions from the high priests and self styled gaurdians of a page, then just simply lock this article down forever and stop wasting people's time.

If it is this great FA badge that is hindering the improvement of the article, we should be getting rid of it. Lets just let go of this tag, improve the article and then earn it back again. I honestly feel that a FAR is in order on this article. Sarvagnya 04:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Sarvagnya, no one is saying that every edit must be discussed. What is being said is that every major edit must be discussed. If someone says that every edit must be discussed, then I will be the first to oppose the person. Secondly, it is very unfortunate for you to feel that being an FA is a liability. If the improvements take the article forward, they should be made, but since the article has already reached a near-perfect level in prose (I don't think that it is perfect with regards to images), these things are difficult. It is not because of a badge called FA, it is because of the quality level this article has achieved. FA is just a way to showcase it to the larger audience. Every major improvement has its share of instabilities, and if they do not span beyond a reasonable amount of time, they should generally be acceptable. But many of the proposals above, IMO, lead the article to be worse-off what it is now, and bring permanent instability to the article. Do you really think that we should be allowing that to happen. As a final note, please avoid using boldface and all-caps while writing. It comes off as shouting, and doesn't help the discussion. Believe me, we will read all your words irrespective of whether you bold them or not. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 11:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ambuj. Nobody opposes discussions for major edits. But in this page even minor edits/error corrections are being discussed for many days without any final decision to insert contents or not. All of us are aware of sensitivities of retaining page quality through multi-directional edits. All of us are aware of retaining only High level contents & maintaining article size.For example, I pointed out dresses indicated does not represent Pan-India characteristics.(Only south indian and few states specific dresses are available) . I pointed out errors in Geography section for contents like "Sunderban is stated as an Archipelago based on fiction"" etc etc. We discussed for many days but decision is not taken. --Indianstar 12:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

In short, I would say that the problem is that a consensus of what is wrong is not sufficient unless it is backed by a consesnus of what would be right. I haven't followed the Sunderban discussion much, but what I remember people saying is that the source of this can be traced back to Amitava Ghosh's book, who can't be considered an authority in Geography. If that's the jist of the discussion (and no reliable authority in geography ever mentioned it as an archipelago), then I think that the article would need to be updated. If there was more to it, please ignore my opinions as an uninformed one. Frankly speaking, as I have already mentioned a couple of times before, because of the diversity of India's culture, it is going to be very difficult to find a single representative image, and I suggest that we settle for a demographic visual. I don't see how rotation would solve the problem, as I have explained in my posts above. I request the editors to please consider this advice with an open mind. For the time being, if the apatani tribal image is deemed too unfit, but a replacement is not available, the possibility of the demographics section not having any image (at least for the time being) can be explored. IMO, this won't do much harm. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 05:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. It wont do much harm to remove it. Thats what you think. That is what I think and that is what many here think. So what do you do when you remove it only to find that an admin and his crony will tag team revert war with you and revert it? That really would be sorry state of affairs for an important article like this. Sarvagnya 11:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, some of the discussions that have taken place in the recent months have been so trivial. I see so much energy being spent on minute little details. I humbly request that some of you guys take a "chill pill" and go work on some of the more needy India related articles. --Blacksun 10:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree.--Indianstar 12:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Don' be hatin! We all from the same hood. We brothas Nikkul 00:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that a fast track change is still possible. I suggest we replace the Langur image with Peacock one. The latter is featured, former is not. The latter has higher resolution and more visual appeal (IMO) as compared to the former. Also, the latter is more relevant (National Bird of India) than former (an endangered species). — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 13:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Good Idea.--Indianstar 15:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Third that proposal. Abecedare 15:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. Sarvagnya 15:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I congratulate you guys on taking a step forward and please do something about the other images. I think surely you must have a better picture of Indian parliament. And the tribal woman and toda hut are not representative at all. We can have some pictures like they have on Australia's page. apurv1980 18:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Dont worry, its coming. I asked this man on flickr if we could use his parliament of india pic and he said yes. so as soon as he places it under creative commons it'll be up. These pictures are soooooo lousy!!!! Ajanta caves pic puts me to sleep. Mahatma Gandhi pic can be better. parliament pic is half tree half building, agni pic makes it look like the country is behind kenya on military equipment, (i love the geography picture), bse is ok, apanti- dont know what to say, taj mahal- ok, toda hut-random. Indianhilbilly 21:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a Wikipedia Talk page, not an echo chamber for inarticulate personal musing. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 04:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I have a quick solution: If you think the curremt crop of images are lousy, buy a camera, go to different parts of India, take out stunning pics, get them featured and then replace them. If that is not possible, look for good pics, or request your friends/aquaintances to contribute featured-quality pics to wikipedia. Less idle talk, letś do something constructive. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The ease (and consensus!) with which the langur was replaced by the peacock image, demonstrates that editors here are not averse to making changes to the page if and when a clearly superior alternative is presented. However, with regards to the demographics section image, the focus seems to be on removing the tribal women's image which some editors find ugly or unrepresentative (aside: 8% of the Indian population is tribal; how many building in India are palaces or look like the Taj Mahal, and what percentage of the bird population are peacocks ? All such arguments are fallacious IMO), rather than shoot or locate better pictures (that was tried here and no comparable candidate emerged) or create a demographic map/photoshop to replace it with.
As for the parliament, agni etc images - yes, they all can be bettered, but the discussion is moot till we actually find a superior picture to replace them with. Ditto, for the rotation policy - we first need to at least build a corpus of FA quality images before we start debating what the period of rotation should be. I am leaving this comment not to support/oppose any particular image in the article, but to try to get the focus of the debate back to actionable items rather than acrimonious edit-warring and name-calling. Cheers. Abecedare 19:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

PS: I should have pointed out that some editors, including Ambuj Saxena and Indianhilbilly, are trying to get better images for the page and their actions should be emulated by those who feel strongly about this issue. Abecedare 19:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

.

" 8% of the Indian population is tribal; how many building in India are palaces or look like the Taj Mahal, and what percentage of the bird population are peacocks ?" Very well put, Abecedare! My dissatisfaction with how the "fast-track change" was handled is really about the abruptness of the process. Between the proposal by Ambuj.Saxena and implementation by Sarvagyna, only 2 hours and 8 minutes had elapsed. Many of us, never heard about it, until many hours later. For example we didn't consider that there might be other Featured Pictures, like the Himalayan (or Red) Panda (found in North-East India) that too could fit the bill. I agree though with everything you've said in your comments. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 20:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow! That is one nice picture, which surprisingly is not used on a single India related page even though the species is "native to the Himalayas in India and Nepal and southern China". I have added it to the Fauna of India article, which by the way can use some work . Abecedare 21:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The meaning of "fast track change" seems to be very subjective. When I started the thread, I had the process that we follow on Portal:India in the back of my head, where discussions of inclusion of featured content is speedily closed in two days if no one objects in that time. Since I felt that this too was similar case (something that no one would object to), it can be implemented if no objections turn up in 1~2 days (rather than keep the discussion going for weeks). As it turned out, the phrase meant hours for someone, and minutes to others. This doesn't close the discussion, and suitable images can still be discussed. However in my opinion, we can keep the peacock image till we determine another suitable alternative. If you disagree on the (hasty) replacement being a step forward, I wouldn't mind if you revert it. But I hope that won't be necessary. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 15:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ambuj, Thanks for replying back. The peacock image is fine. I don't have any problems with what you did. You were clearly trying to facilitate things. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 15:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

See snowball. Also this peacock image is a good case in point where, a good quality 'relevant' image needs to be given precedence over a less relevant but featured image(the monkey was featured. right?) Sarvagnya 16:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It is the other way around. The peacock image is a Featured image, while the Langur isn't. Abecedare 16:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Response to "how many building in India are palaces or look like the Taj Mahal, and what percentage of the bird population are peacocks ?" The Peacock is the NATIONAL Bird. Taj Mahal (even though i dont feel it represents our culture) is the most famous monument of India. ARE THE APANTIS INDIA'S NATIONAL TRIBE? Are they India's national people? Are they India's most famous people? No. - so your argument is invalid (if you were trying to argue for the apanti pic) if you weren't then nvmd. i think the peacock image is great. It shows that we can get SOMEthing done. I think we waste more time arguing than actually benefitting the article.Nikkul 21:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Nikkul for making my point ! My argument was not for or against the Apatani image, but just to show that the "numerically representative" line of reasoning that you and some other editors had used earlier with respect to the Apatani image is fallacious. As you just illustrated above, the same fallacious reasoning can also be made to argue for removal of the Gandhi, Taj Mahal and Peacock image (basically any image that is not a map of India), which we all agree are reasonable to include in the article. Q.E.D.

PS: I hope you will not start another specious argument that Apatani was removed because they are not the "National" something-of-India. Else I'd like to see how you would support any image in the Demographics section other than a map. Also note that good arguments will help your cause more than "shouting" in All CAPS. Abecedare 22:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. There are a lot of Indian editors here, and I couldn't figure out the Indian Wikipedians' Noticeboard last time I tried to, so I figure I'll make my call here. The Kashmiri people article has for quite some time now been in need of help. I NPOV-ized it a while back, added refs & some information for a fringe theory about them being a 'Lost Tribe of Israel'. The problem is that the article doesn't have much real information about Kashmiri people. If some of you Indians more knowledgeable or well-read on the topic can head over there & add some real content, coverage of Indian topics would be improved. Thanks for any help. The Behnam 03:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

There are very few Wikipedians from Kashmir. Personally I don't know any. But you can try contacting User:Deeptrivia. He did good work in making the Ladakh article featured. He should be able to help. The Indian noticeboard can be found here. If you have problems searching for it, just type 'India notice board wikipedia' on Google (actually even 'India notice board' would do), and you can reach there anytime. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 05:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I know two Kashmiri Wikipedians, one of which who contributes a substantial amount to Kashmiri articles - User:Saiva suj (the other who doesn't being User:Aupmanyav. Saiva might provide some help so I recommend asking him. Gizza^Chat ^© 07:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll probably contact User:Saiva suj since you said he is more active. Based on User:Aupmanyav's page, he may not be exactly neutral either, though of course, it depends on his edits in the end. The Behnam 01:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I am thankful to Gizza for mentioning me here and Abecedare for pointing this out to me. I have actually been meaning to work on the Kashmiri people article, and am very happy that a more motivated editor is taking the initiative that I should have. I will get started right away. ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 08:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Yeah, I had hadn't yet gotten around to contacting you, but fortunately you noticed this anyway. The Behnam 08:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

In the history section one of the first things that should be mentioned is how India is home to the Aryan people (Along with the region of Iran & Afghanistan)....And there should also be a mention of yoga & the concept of meditation coming from India in the history section....I swear every other country on wikipedia gets all the good info but when it comes to an actual country like India that has alot to represent, it doesnt get its deserved credit 71.119.248.15 07:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

hm, how are Indo-Aryans any more "representative" than, say, Armenians, Maya people , English (people) or Inuit? dab (𒁳) 07:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read the FAQ section =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

There appears to be an attachment to using featured pictures in the article. While featured pictures are generally good pictures, this does not make them the best choice for the article. According to WP:FP, featured pictures are chosen because "the Wikipedia community finds beautiful, shocking, impressive, and/or informative." In other words, they are featured for their quality as pictures, not necessarily because they are the most relevant to the articles. According to Wikipedia:Images#Pertinence and encyclopedicity, the choice of image should be guided by relevance to the article content. Hence, we should stop taking FP status into consideration, and judge the images in terms of their relevance instead. I am not saying that we shouldn't take into account picture quality; it is completely appropriate to replace a fuzzy or otherwise low-quality relevant picture with a higher-quality relevant picture. But our guiding principle should be relevance, not FP status, because the FP favoritism lacks a strong WP policy/guideline basis, while relevance is explicitly advocated in the documentation. The Behnam 06:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Behnam for pointing out the guideline. This point has also been made earlier but that still has not stopped some people from plumping for FPs. Hope they see the light atleast now. Sarvagnya 06:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. 'RELAVANCE COMES FIRST. FEATURED STATUS COMES SECOND.' I hope everyone gets it! Nikkul 21:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is an attachment to featured pictures. In fact many of the pictures on the India page are not featured pictures: Ajanta, Gandhi-Nehru, Missile, Bombay Stock Exchange, The Golden Langur (until it was displaced in a hurry) and the various maps, none of them are featured. There are two FP maps (roads in India) which are not on the India page, because they weren't deemed relevant. I think the decision on what is not relevant is often easier to make. However, how does one decide (among myriad candidates) to pick two images for the Culture section, especially when they all seem to satisfy the requirements of "Pertinence and encyclopedicity." It is especially in those situations that a featured picture that is also relevant gets more weight than another that is relevant, but not featured. The question of whether a picture should be there at all in the demographics section is separate; that has nothing to do with featured pictures, but with any pictures. As I said somewhere else on this page, I am not against the idea of charts or graphs for demographics, but that issue is separate. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 02:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of my argument here was to demonstrate that supporting a picture simply because it was featured is not good logic. I saw that defense being made here and there, and as Ragib's post below may suggest, that line of thought is still out there amongst the editors of this page. I do not claim that the article has a general prevalence in using featured pictures, but rather that there is a problem of people supporting pictures simply because they were featured. The Behnam 02:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't see what other logic is needed. See the first statement on top of the page. If there are no representative images, get a good reprentative picture, get it featured. End of story. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Please respond to a my argument using official WP documentation, not simply your own non sequitur claim "If there are no representative images, get a good reprentative picture, get it featured." Definitely not the "End of story." Thanks. The Behnam 18:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

There's no official documentation on the same. What I'm trying to state is that what prevents an anon from changing an image on the page (A to B), and it being reverted (B to A) by someone the next day, only to be changed (A to C) by a third party on the following day. Each person will say that the image is too boring/not relevent to the section. At the end of the day what are the minimum guidelines we should keep to ensure quality and prevent edit wars? Please see my proposal above. Could you answer this? =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "on the same." In any case, I definitely cited pertinent sections to make my case. And as far as the frequent changes go, I think it is important to see where this comes from. Right now we are using a picture of people for the demographics section, and the correctness or relevance of the picture is contested. I believe this conflict derives from the fundamental incorrectness of trying to use pictures of people for the demographics section. Demographics are usually embodied in charts & other representations of demographic data, not by arbitrarily chosen pictures of people. I don't think anyone here would contest the relevance of a demographic chart to demographics; it is the very representation of demographic information. However, people can't agree on pictures of people, and this is because pictures of people aren't about demographics. This, of course, doesn't affect the invalidity, based on the WP rules I cited above, of using FP status to determine picture use in the article. While it may be helpful to you, it is not grounded in policy/guideline, so the relevance of the pictures used should be addressed instead. Just trying to clear this up so that you know where I am coming from and why I m so persistent on this matter. Thanks. The Behnam 19:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

'On the same' meant official documentation. You have a valid point on the demographics, I don't deny that. But you havn't answered how to address the macro issue at hand, the issue on subjectivity (not necessary for demographics). The issue on the images keeps cropping up on the page, and its high time it gets resolved. Not long ago someone objected to the Ajanta painting because it contained umm... 'nudity'. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, obviously, determining relevance can be somewhat subjective, but the main point of this section is to establish that there is no reason to rule by FP status. I will probably start a new thread for this topic so as to prevent tangling up this section. The Behnam 05:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Featured status bears no value to the reader. And some pictures, which look great as thumbnails, can not become featured because they do not have high resolution for extra close viewing. This is true for the picture of the woman on this page. Its great as a thumbnail. Its great when you click on it, but you cant zoom in on every pore on the woman's face. That image would never get featured. Nikkul 00:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I think your responses need to be more mature. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Considering this edit by User:Fowler&fowler, there is a need for Fowler&fowler to understand the difference between policies and essays on Wikipedia. According to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#The differences between policies, guidelines, essays, etc., a policy is, like a guideline, actionable and authorized by consensus, while an essay is "not actionable or instructive, regardless of whether it's authorized by consensus". In this case, the policy cited in favor of removal of the Apatani image is WP:CON, being that, as listed on this talk page, there are at least 11 users in favor of removal, while apparently 2 or 3 who would like it to be kept in the article. Fowler&fowler undid the WP:CON based edit, citing WP:Recentism, an essay, as his reason. Noting the difference between policy and essay on 'actionable', he was mistaken in his revert. I have, consequently, undid his revert. Just explaining my reasoning, thanks. The Behnam 07:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear The Behnam: I agree with your remarks about essays vs. guidelines. I was in a hurry and I erred. However, I am confused how you managed to see this "consensus" as 11 to 2 or 3. I'm afraid you are merely quoting user Nikkul's arithmetic, which I think is faulty. I am addressing that in a separate post below. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 23:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was merely quoting him on the approximate dozen, though the 2 or 3 apparent against was based on what I was seeing with the reverts, since there was no explicit list of "for Apatani image" on the talk page at the time. I'll respond to your new post further down. I anticipate that my response will call for a re-focus on applying WP principles to image selection. More soon. The Behnam 01:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Many people have expressed that Toda Hut image also does not align with article content. I suggest it can be removed based on our discussions. Culture section already has 1 picture, so we don't have to discuss about replacement now. Some may think that south will be unrepresented with images. I will prefer south to remain unrepresented rather than getting represented wrongly. I will also consider Mahatma Gandhi or Agni missile or Peacock as representing South. We can consider South picture when we seek replacement for other pictures. --Indianstar 19:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The Toda Hut image is perhaps my favorite image on the page and I especially like its juxtaposition with Taj Mahal. The Taj Mahal represents architecture at the grandest imperial scale (built for kings as a mausoleum; made of everlasting imported-to-the-region materials; built as a monument by efforts of 1000s of hired labour), while Toda Hut shows it at the smallest personal level (built by and for tribesman, with a population of <1000 out of local degradable material for personal residential purposes). Yet both are lovingly decorated, which shows that the end-product is a matter of pride, and not just functionality, for their owners/constructors. Thus the two images together best illustrate the rich diversity of Indian culture. Additionally the Toda hut image is a beautiful, high quality picture with intriguing features (noticed the small entrance? I often wondered about the scale of the hut till I read the note on the Toda page). Finally, now that the Apatani image has been removed, one cannot argue that tribal India is over-represented on the India page. So before the image is deleted, I would like to hear cogent arguments for its removal. Regards. Abecedare 23:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Beautifully spoken! Fowler&fowler «Talk» 01:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Abecedare's arguments makes sense.--Indianstar 01:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

User Nikkul has tallied the "consensus" for removal of the Apatani image in a post above, saying: "Users who believe the Apanti image does not represent India as a whole/dont want Apanti image: user:Indianstar, user:Nikkul, user:Coollemonade, user:Ambuj Saxena, user:huniebunie, user:The Behnam , user:dab, user:Incman, user:xavierIcI, user:user:Khazadum , user:Ekantik. And this, it seems, has been the basis of the view that there is a "consensus" for the removal of the Apatani image. For example, user The Behnam in a post above counted the votes as: 11 to 2 or 3.

He (user:The Behnam) himself is included in this list. Yet, I remember him saying that he was against any image. In fact he voted here against removing the Apatani image and having it replaced by another more representative image (along with me, Nichalp, and BovineBeast). Similarly, user Sarvagynya above explained that his views are more nuanced (and in fact similar to Behnam's on the subject of the demographics image). user:Dbachmann too has similar views: "how about no picture at all? Why the hell does every paragraph need some cheesy picture associated with it? "Demographics" is about numbers, not faces, costumes or dances. The best choice of illustration would be the population growth curve. Failing that, leave it empty and add another image of some cultural landmark or something." Similarly, I understand Ambuj Saxena's views to be nuanced as well. None of these people, as far as I can tell, have signed off on removing the Apatani image in a hurry and, especially, none on replacing the image by another image.

On the other side of the ledger, there were many people who wanted the Apatani image kept, who are not included in these numbers. In the discussion here, many people wrote movingly about keeping the Apatami image.For example:

user:Chanakyathegreat wrote: "Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. I support any Indian image. Be it Apatani or any other. My viewpoint is that its a beautiful image" And later: "No need for any change in the Image. Apatani's are Indians and hence the Image suits the demographic section correctly."
User:Maquahuitl wrote: "This entire discussion because of the objection raised is a clear indication towards the racist (mildly though it may be) attitudes of "mainland" Indians, and I, as an Indian, accept it humbly. The systematic ostracisation of N-E people and people with even mild Indo-Mongoloid features is not going to prove very healthy. I propose the senior editors of this article to add this to the "to-Do" list. Personally I find the picture very sharp and high-quality and obviously, beautiful too." And later: "s disheartening to see that Arunachalis, who are one of the most pro-Indian people in the N-E are being frowned upon."
User:BovineBeast wrote: "I'd say it (the image) represents India because it represents India's significant internal diversity. It confounds the stereotypical picture. However, perhaps we ought to have a contrasting picture - someone from an urban area, perhaps in the south."
User:Nmadhubala wrote: "I agree with BovineBeast too. I really do think that the picture under discussion is representative of India's cultural diversity. But if others think a different picture can better represent India's culture, it can be included too."
In addition, user:129.125.7.218 above wrote: "You guys are extremely strange. It is picture of a tribe - no one with IQ above 40 is going to think that it represents all of India. I find it a rather cool image that makes me learn things about India that I did not know even though I have been to almost every state in India. Get over it already."

There are five people right there who were not counted in this "consensus." If you add to that, user:Nichalp, user:Saravask, and me, who want to keep the Apatani image, it makes 8. I think user:Abecedare would probably be against removing the Apatani image in a hurry.

In addition, at this point there are four users: Nikkul (talk · contribs), Coollemonade (talk · contribs), huniebunie (talk · contribs), and xavierIcI (talk · contribs), who judging from their contributions, come close to being Single Purpose Accounts. I, of course, welcome their enthusiasm to add good quality images to the India page and definitely assume their good faith, but I am also concerned about "Astroturfing." In my view, what we have is not a consensus, especially not one about removing the Apatani image now (in a hurry) and discussing the options later, in contrast to (say) keeping the Apatani image while we sort out the options. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 23:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a lot of non-policy/guideline-based decision-making there. I think it is best that we leave behind vague allegations of "ugliness" or favoritism of specific Indians and return to making decisions based upon official WP documentation. Perhaps you could respond to my section about Featured Pics above? I need to see if you realize the great importance of relevance, as I noticed some FP favoritism up the page. Then, we should consider what Demographics are, and decide whether pictures of any specific people, Apatani or otherwise, are more relevant to demographics than visuals of demographic data. And of course, in case anyone still cares about it, the "rotation" notion should be readdressed.

As far as consensus goes, I'm going to open a whole new section to take a fresh look at consensus towards the Apatani picture, since I'm not sure if some of the users have been keeping track of events on this page in favor or against the Apatani image.

Also, what's this about my supposed vote against removing the picture? Nonsense. I voted against everything except my proposal to stick with demographic visuals like charts, maps, etc. It seems you think that, because I voted against Proposal 2, I was actually against the removal of the Apatani image. Actually, the against vote was because of the part about getting yet another random nothing-to-do-with-demographics picture of a person. Just clearing that up. The Behnam 01:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't seem that I think that because I don't and I didn't say so. I clearly understand your point of view and I'm not unsympathetic to it. In fact the India page use to have a demographics chart before the Apatani image was selected (by consensus, as far as I can tell) in November. But, you had said nowhere (until you said so below) that you wanted to see the Apatani image removed while we sort out the future of images. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 02:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Fowler, please REFRAIN from calling our accounts single purpose. Together, we do four times the work you do, and so calling us a single purpose account is very offensive. A single purpose account is for only one purpose. If you look at my history or the history of any of the others, you will find that we are not here to get this picture out or else, I would not have worked on ANY other wikipedia page and the same applies to them. I have contributed to many many pages, and it is very unfair for you to say that I am here for only one purpose, and the same applies to the others. Nikkul 02:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The matter of inclusion of the Apatani picture has been muddled up at this point. In the interest of re-establishing a clear consensus, I am making this separate section. It may help to re-read arguments on this page until now. The question is: Should the Apatani image remain in the article until a replacement is found?

Strong Remove - Demographics section should have visuals very pertinent to demographic data, such as those in the Demographics of India article, instead of irrelevant & very arbitrarily chosen pictures of people. This vote is in the interest of relevance, which under WP documentation is 'the' principle behind inclusion of images in articles. Anyway, an irrelevant picture is still irrelevant, regardless of whether or not a replacement has yet been chosen, and so should not remain in the article. It is better to have no image than have an image that is not appropriate to the section. The Behnam 01:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Strong Remove - Not having relevant stuff in an article at a given point of time is no reason to have irrelevant stuff! Sarvagnya 01:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep until the issues are sorted out Fowler&fowler «Talk» 01:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Very Weak Keep - I've been refraining from commenting on this so far, but would like to raise a few other points here. Why is the Apatani image being opposed (aside from the comment by Behnam, which I agree on principle)? One of the points (mainly by Nikkul) was that it is ugly, and can "Scare" CEOs or investors. That's a ridiculous argument, and demeaning to the Apatani people, and also subjective. The other issue is that, "Indians" don't look like that. Well, with more than a billion people, and thousands of ethnic groups, it is impossible to provide a single person who would look like an "average" indian, simply because there is no "average" Indian look. A collage is also not an option, for the same reason. The only reason I'm voting to keep, albeit weakly, is that the image is a featured one whose quality has already been judged. --Ragib 01:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I completely agree that "ugliness" & whatnot shouldn't be the reasons for removal. That is why I'm trying to stick to the matter of relevance to demographics and look to Demographics of India for guidance. But I actually addressed the very matter of "featured pictures". Please take a look at Talk:India#The attachment to "Featured pictures" and reconsider that matter. Tell me what you think; if you disagree I very much encourage a discussion of my argument. The Behnam 02:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Strong Remove - Not at all representative of the Indian demographic and should be removed/replaced with a more suitable image straightaway pending further discussions. Ekantik ^talk 02:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you please explain what you mean by " not at all representative" ? Thanks. Abecedare 02:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I meant that the image is not representative of the "typical" looks of Indian people. Perhaps that argument sounds strange but it was employed in an earlier discussion about the use of Image:Shilpa Shetty.jpg (that "a lot of Indians" don't look like her and that she is not representative of the Indian dempgraphics"). So by that logic, this Apatani image does not even closely resemble anything near the typical Indian demographic. Hope that explains. I do not keep this page on my watchlist so please send me a message on my talk-page if further clarifications/input are necessary. Regards, Ekantik ^talk 04:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep till a better picture is found. My reasons were exactly those articulated by Ragib. The image is relevant IMO (as established by its caption). But I agree with The Behnam larger point that a graphic displaying population growth/distribution, may be even better - but that remains to be judged since no such graphic has been created/found yet. Abecedare 02:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at Demographics of India. Most of those are game, as far as I can tell. Considering that the section is really a summary of the main Demographics of India article that links up to it, I'm sure that it would classify under any fair use requirement that some of those images may have. The Behnam 02:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think fair use will be a concern; however my preference is not to add another map of India on the page. I am not trying to be a obstructionist here, since I do agree with your larger point ... just wondering if we can come up with a better idea through collective brainstorming. Abecedare 02:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, as a non-Indian, I find the religion pie particularly interesting, and I think it could be good for the article. There are also a few graph-charts that are available. However, if we did think a map was best, we could try to replace a map used elsewhere on the page with a different type of picture. However, it may be best just to add one of the charts that isn't a map. The Behnam 02:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

That is a possibility, but the religion chart is not very "information rich" (see Edward Tufte). I think if we can come up with some interesting set(s) of data that would be good to display in the form of a bar/pie chart or even on a map, we have enough talent among editors here to create a new graphic. So our choices don't have to be limited to the graphics on the demographic page. Now that the page has been protected, perhaps passions will cool and we can collective arrive at a way to improve the page further. Regards. Abecedare 02:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean about "information rich". It would be better to have a map-set religious distribution. And as far as maps go, it seems that the map under the geography section is somewhat uninteresting. Of course, I'm not sure what should replace it. I personally like photos of notable or highly prevalent geographical features, but again a greater element of arbitrariness comes into play. Perhaps if there was a photo of a geographical item that we all agreed on it would be alright. It's worth consideration I'd say. The Behnam 02:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me give it a thought and then try to form a list of suggestions to gather further input. Will take a day or so though. Since we are going to put some effort into it, may as well do a good job ! Abecedare 03:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Abecedare comments that no such graph is available. You can check it here. I have created in Jan and feedback was given by F& F,Nichalp and others for improvement. --Indianstar 01:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

My apologies; I should have phrased the comment as "I am not aware of ...". That aside, I like the information that your pie-charts display although perhaps the colors can be optimized a bit (the "warmer" end of the spectrum can be used more and color value/luminescence increased; also some of the lettering seems a bit blurry on my screen). Just curious: where did you get the language data from ? I ask because I wonder how the data source handled bilingual people. My assumption is that it just counted the populations mother tongue and that is the reason English (surely more widely known than Assamese) doesn't even show up on the chart. Do you think it will be better to have a bar chart instead that tabulates how many people speak each of the languages ? Perhaps it will be best to discuss this in detail once the immediate debate over the Apatani image has died now and more people are "free" to give their input. Regards. Abecedare 01:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Indian census also takes details about Bilingual & Trilingualism. I took data from here. Language data is based on mother tongue. Colours can be improved. Colours improvement was also suggested by F&F and Nichalp. I did not focus since I was not sure whether people will be willing to replace current image with chart/graph.--Indianstar 04:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, note that the version of Demographics of India that I referred to had no pictures of people on it. User:Indianhilbilly added his pet picture to it that article recently which I have now reverted, but keep an eye out for any further person-picture readditions, as they definitely distort this conversation and harm that article. The Behnam 01:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

STRONG REMOVE- There is NO Need to reestablish a consensus! It has already BEEN ESTABLISHED!!!! SEE ABOVE!!!!! and the last archived page. Stop bringing back the image, fowler&fowler. Just Because YOU want it and the REST dont want it does NOT mean you need to keep reestablishing consensus. Please re read WP:Consensus!!!!!!!!!!!! Nikkul 02:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Strong Remove I thought it was already established that the apanti image was going to go. Bangalorevenkat 02:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

~~"Remove" sorry, I have completed just now reading the section above. I have change my opinion to not as strong. Thanks. From: Bangalorevenkat 03:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)~~

Strong Remove - The picture is does not represent the majority of the Indian population, hence it is absolutely absurd that the picture is even there! Please stop acting like babies and put a more relevant picture about the population of India (such as a girl wearing a sari?). Effer 03:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Some points: 1. Could you elucidate on what you mean by "represents majority of the Indian population"? There's no compulsion that it has to be representative of the "majority of the population". The clinching clause is that it has to be appropriate in the section placed. See Wikipedia:Images#Pertinence and encyclopedicity and wikipedia:captions. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment--To the OP: I think you'll find that spamming for votes will be rather useless here, as Wikipedia is not a democracy and the balance of consensus is driven by the strength of reasoning, not by the number of !voters. Thanks. Saravask 03:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply - Sir, I was merely directing him to the active discussion, since he put his remark in the inactive thread while the active one was open. I didn't prompt him to vote any certain way; he had already made up his mind. Please avoid ill-considered accusations, thanks. The Behnam 03:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Remove: I think the image of any particular ethnic group does not represent the diverse Indian population. A more general image is required. --(Sumanth|Talk) 05:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see the caption of the image. It talks about tribal India. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Time for some bold snowballing?? Sarvagnya 05:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep As the picture shows India's diversity and departs from the stereotype image westerners have of India based on intereaction/images of only the heartland.Haphar 07:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep unless replaced by a detailed chart/graph - The argument that it is not "representative" of Indian is mute as the caption clearly explains the context of the picture. Furthermore, it adds to the point that their are very diverse groups of people living in India. This may come surprising to someone who has "lived in India for 20 years" and never left their surrounding regions but their are all sorts of people living in your country and they are all Indians. It is also laughable that you think the image is going to somehow mislead any reader into thinking all Indians look like that when you consider the caption and also the fact that MOST NON-INDIANS HAVE A VERY FIRM (and often misleading) IMAGE in their mind of what an Indian should look like. The arguments against keeping this image are in poor taste and if I was an Indian Apatani I would find them fairly offensive. Furthermore, if majority of votes are based on the argument that "this look" is not representative of what an Indian should look like, you very damn well make sure that you have CREDIBLE SOURCES to back up any replacement image regarding its representativeness. I will be waiting for that one and no, I will not accept any biased fifteen people consensus. Toodles --Blacksun 09:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I support placing chart/graph rather than photos in demographic section. Individual's image irrespective of whether it is Shilpa shetty or Apatani image is not a right choice for Demographic section. Having a chart/graph will bring diversity in image selection between various sections.(Photos/Maps/Graphs in various sections.) If we cannot get consensus on chart/graph then we can go for map as suggested by DAB.--Indianstar 01:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep While the image isn't a classic example of how the stereotypical Indian looks whatever that is, (maybe someone from Madhya Pradesh, lol) it is a classic example of how diverse the looks and cultures of India are. Gizza^Chat ^© 11:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Strong Remove An image like this --> is better suited for this article since it does not pertain to any portion of India, and represents what most Indian people look like.thumb Indianhilbilly 14:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC);

As I said above, that's your subjective judgment that this image represents several thousand ethnic groups and a billion people. And yes, definitely it pertains to a part of India wherever the woman is from. --Ragib 14:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Strong Remove It does not not align well with article contents. I don't support arguments like it is ugly or Indians does not look like Apatani. --Indianstar 14:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid it does. Have you looked at the caption? =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no denying that it represents some part of India. The problem here is of POV/NPOV. If Apatani(who are, btw what %age of the 8% tribals?) can be deemed representative of Indians or even tribal Indians, then so can a picture of any of the billion plus Indians.
Supporters of the picture are trying to push their case simply by setting up straw men. Just because somone made a very 'ugly' case for removing this picture, doesnt mean that you latch on to it and attribute the same motive to everybody who is against the picture.
I agree that the North East is particularly under represented in the media and even in literature/brochures concerning India. I have said this myself even in past discussions. But then, this is no way of correcting it. Two wrongs dont make a right.
While on this note, here's some more thinking aloud from me - can we make a gif? I've seen a gif of the Mongol empire on WP and is there any way we can make a gif instead of a collage of several people picked from across the country? Sarvagnya 16:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

- Does it make a difference if it represents 5% or 55% of the tribal population? What matters is that it should gel in with the text and have a succint caption. See Wikipedia:Captions and Wikipedia:Images#Pertinence and encyclopedicity.
- GIF images would be too distracting =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep -- Featured image; representative picture of NE India. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep per above. Nichalp's image is featured, and thus has met an objective standard of high relevance and quality. If people really think that this image is so terrible (I don't), then follow Nichalp's advice and produce or find other featured-level images or diagrams. Otherwise, people will just keep proposing/inserting their own pet images without regard to their objective usefulness. Also, I like how this image represents a fascinating but much-overlooked group of people. Saravask 18:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Y'all, please see Talk:India#The attachment to "Featured pictures". You are mistaken in valuing its presence in the article on account of the FP status, though this trend should definitely prove to Fowler&fowler that this misjudgment is indeed prevalent here. Again, please look at this in terms of official WP and not in terms of previous arguments, such as the inappropriate "ugly" claim, or unsupported criteria, such as FP. The Behnam 18:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that you've already posted similar suppositions multiple times in this section. If you really believe that what you state is true, then stating it once is enough. Please don't hassle people who have already read your side of the debate. Saravask 18:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Considering that there hasn't been any real refutation of my documentation-based points, I think it is important to point users towards that section. I get the feeling that some people who vote aren't fully aware of the discussions & think that they are important to consider before voting "keep" because of some old "ugly" assertions & FP status. By the way, your statement "If you really believe that what you state is true, then stating it once is enough" makes no sense. Please clarify. Thanks. The Behnam 18:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment on caption - Selectively written caption does not make the picture relevant. The picture itself has to be relevant to demographics. Otherwise all sorts of irrelevant stuff could be used. We could place a picture of a house, and then say x% of Indians live in houses. Or maybe a picture of Aishwarya Rai, and say x% of Indians have an income higher than ____. This is precisely why I support using demographic visuals, because those exist for the very purpose of illustrating demographic information. Hence, this Apatani image should be removed, regardless of the selectively written caption. The "caption" argument is not valid. The Behnam 18:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused: Are you commenting on the image itself, or its placement? And how is the worded caption not gelling in with the section? =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

People have claimed that the caption makes the Apatani image appropriate for the section. I above explained that this is not good reasoning & does not make the image itself relevant to the section. With that cleared up, I look forward to your response. Thank you. The Behnam 19:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me just say once again that this is an encyclopedia People come here to get straightforward information No one will think, "wow this image shows the inner beauty of India" Most (almost all) Indian people do not follow Apanti customs. The apanti image is a direct opposition of the relevance policy of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a place to fight "western steriotypes." Nor is it a place to showcase the inner beauty of India. Readers want relevant information when they come here.

They do not come to the India page to see what a very small minority of people look like. They come here to see what a majority of India's people look like. The apanti image belongs under the page tribes of India.

Also, featured status bears no value to the reader. We are here for the reader, but if the reader does not see that its one of the best pics of wikipedia, then there is no point in favoring featured status.

Having the Apanti image on the India page is like having an image of terrorists on the Pakistan page. Yes there are terrorists in Pakistan, No not all Pakistanis are terrorists. Nikkul 00:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Calm down, and don't treat the presence of Apatani in India as negative (like 'terrorists in Pakistan') because that is very insulting. Thanks. The Behnam 00:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, this section is "Demographics", not "Indian appearance". Perhaps pictures of people aren't the most relevant choice here? The Behnam 00:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Demographics is a shortened term for 'population characteristics' That is taken from -> demographics. Please read what demographics really means. Also, please do not feel that I hate the Apanti's or the image. I think its very nice that they dont conform. If they make their own nation, i will be the first to put up the image on that page. But they are a small part of a biggggg nation. I hope you do not read this as if im yelling at anyone. Nikkul 00:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Apatani belongs to India. Why should they form separate nation? Don't compare innocent tribals with terrorists. Your arguments distract topic of discussion. People who wants this image to be removed justifies the same based on Behnam's arguments. You are providing wrong reasons for good case.--Indianstar 00:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

(Re)move This image is probably more appropriate in the article Demographics_of_India. I do not feel it is misleading in anyway if it is in the India article: that is how some of the Indians look (Indians come in all colours, shapes and forms, - some colours/shapes/forms are more common than the others). "Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder": irrespective of which image is put on the article, there would be someone who thinks of it as ugly. --Naresh 00:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear user Indiastar, please read my comment again and notice the "if". I never said they should form their own nation. I will bet that the APanti's are very nice people who pay their taxes and are good Indian citizens. I think your understanding was distracted. If there ever becomes a nation with a majority of people being Apantis, I will give my 100% support that this image go under demos. Unfortunately, India is not that nation where most follow Apanti customs. Nikkul 01:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

user:nichalp says "There's no compulsion that it has to be representative of the "majority of the population"." I hope I am on the correct website. Clearly our concepts are wrong. An administrator saying that? oh my! Nikkul 02:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep unless replaced by a detailed chart/graph per Blacksun. The Apatani image can remain as the new caption is no longer mis-leading. At the same time, I think we need to keep looking for a demographic visual (chart/map/graph) that can adequately replace the image. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 05:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep - the new caption seems much more relevant to the section. If and when pictures that are 'representative of the average Indian/representative of the majority of Indian people' are available, those can be included in whichever sections applicable. I believe India's beauty stems from its diversity and I feel that is what the picture represents. --Madhu 09:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Demographics is not about 'promoting diversity', and neither is Wikipedia. Demographics is not about choosing a picture of a "representative" Indian. The part in the caption about the % of tribals is relevant to demographics, but the picture itself lacks relevance. Let's choose a picture of a slab of meat and say, x% of Indians eat meat. The percentage would describe population characteristics but this doesn't make the picture of the meat slab any more relevant to demographics. The meat slab illustrates the appearance of meat but does not illustrate anything about demographics itself. The same applies to the Apatani or any other person-picture for the demographics section. I suggest reading discussion about this very topic that are on a few areas of the page. The Behnam 09:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

2-day vote total for Apatani image:

Keep (Strong, Weak, and Unqualified): Users Ragib, Abecedare, Haphar, Blacksun, Gizza, Nichalp, Saravask, Ambuj.Saxena, Madhu, and Fowler&fowler. Total votes: 10

Remove (Strong, Weak, and Unqualified): Users: The Behnam, Sarvagyna, Ekantik, Nikkul, Effer, Sumanth, IndiaStar, and Naresh. Total votes: 8.

Earlier, users Chanakyathegreat, Maquahuitl, BovineBeast, and user:129.125.7.218 had expressed their preference for "keep," (see here), while users Dab, Incman, and Khazadum had expressed theirs for "remove."

2-day total: Keep: 14 votes and Remove: 11 votes.

Fowler&fowler «Talk» 04:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

comment, what is this fuss? Do you suppose the "typical Swiss" looks like this? People in industrial countries look the same worldwide, they wear suits and cram themselves into suburban trains. "Demographics" images should point out the peculiar, not the boringly average. I think people protest "we are not savages" rather too much -- it makes them look provincial. Nobody even remotely suggests the average Indian lives in tribal societies. The point is merely that India has a precious store of ethnic diversity not yet completely wiped out by industralisation and golbalisation. dab (𒁳) 10:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Switzerland#Demographics uses a map illustrating demographic information. The Behnam 10:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

that's what I suggested for this article weeks ago. You will still note that the only Swiss people shown in the articles wear traditional peasant's costumes. And if we had any genuine hill tribes left, I would insist on including an image. dab (𒁳) 13:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all i would like to congratulate every one on the Wikipedia Team you have done a great job by putting on such a useful encyclopdia which anyone can edit to correct errors. I would also like to report an error which i sighted in the article of India which was its map The mistake is: That you have also included the state of Jammu and Kashmir with India, i know its currently a disputed state between Pakistan and India. But still Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) sided with Pakistan in the Boundary Commission or Radcliffe Award and J&K being a Muslim dominated state but having a Hindu prince who wanted to side with India at first but was forced to side with Pakistan. So when India captured the state of J&K and demanded as thier property it bcame disputed until now. So you should have labelled it a disputed state but you have combined it with india which is very wrong indeed. Pls correct this error or if u dont then pls give me a reason for not correcting it. Pls email me on this topic and its progressions on this email address muhammad_931@hotmail.com. Thanks and i hope u correct this error. Bye —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.154.247.236 (talk) 13:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

Please see the FAQ page =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I've come to the conclusion that Nikkul and Indianhilbilly are the same person. I wouldn't put up personal information about him on wikipedia to protect his privacy. To confirm this a checkuser would be necessary. Use of sockpuppets for influencing an outcome is prohibited, and Nikkul could be banned. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

A checkuser has already been filed. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Nikkul --Ragib 15:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I've added a note there. If interested, the checkuser group can contact me for the proof. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Per the checkuser evidence, I've blocked five of Nikkul's votestacking socks (see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Nikkul). I'm leaving it to someone else to decide what should be done with Nikkul. Saravask 04:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to cross out their contributions to the consensus forming thing above. Thanks for checking it out. The Behnam 04:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Cross out their votes, block all socks like you've already done. But leave Nikkul alone. He's a new user and should learn from this experience. Sarvagnya 04:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I've crossed them out. Indeed, most of the "yeller" users are rather new, though I still don't know if your mercy is appropriate. The Behnam 04:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

There are no (yeller) users. There's just one. Thats Nikkul. And I'm sure he wouldnt have known beforehand how easy it is to do a CU or he wouldnt have bothered creating so many almost obvious socks. If he does it again, I'd vote for 'indefinite block'. Not this time. Sarvagnya 04:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

And most importantly, Nikkul's socks werent abusive. Vote stacking is one thing, but vandalism and abuse is another. And in any case, socks or no socks, I dont think anything can/could have save the apatani image nor would that other image they were pushing for have found its way into the article. Sarvagnya 04:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I referred to "yeller" users in general being new, not that specific set. But anyway its your call, and of course he's out of here if he does it again. But I don't think he was ignorant of the reasons his sockpuppet use was abusive; rather, I think he was unaware of the power or existence of CU. Considering that he asked Nichalp "Whats your proof?" he seemed to think that he couldn't be detected. If he 'innocently' used sockpuppets abusively, he'd be more likely to just apologize & say he was unaware that his usage was not right. Of course, its rather obvious to understand the abusive aspect of 'votestacking', so I think we are giving him way too much benefit of the doubt. Being unaware of CU's powers shouldn't let him off the hook for his deliberate abusive sockpuppetry. The Behnam 04:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Votestacking is definitely abusive. It's actually one of the main abuses that sockpuppets are used for. See WP:SOCK#Voting and other shows of support; it is the first listing. The Behnam 04:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I've reported him to WP:AN. The community can decide on his fate. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Good. The Behnam 05:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I smelled meatpuppetry, but not this. Am surprised and disappointed. Abecedare 05:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

... and I cannot see how his/her actions can be interpreted as "innocent", especially given the self-righteous indignation he/she expressed in these posts , . The abuse of our assumption of good faith was as bad as the blatant vote stacking. Abecedare 05:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, very surprising but definitely not innocent. First of all, consider that he didn't list them as 'alternate accounts', he listed them as 'friends'. If he was innocent, he would have listed them as alternate accounts, though I can't imagine what sort of 'innocent' reasoning he would put ("My votestacking sockpuppets on WP are ... Nothing wrong with that, right?"). It's rather amusing that he even 'talked' to the other users. Maybe his sockpuppets are his friends! :) The Behnam 05:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

When I said that his socks werent abusive, I didnt mean that votestacking was not 'abusive'. I also didnt mean that he was acting in good faith. There is no denying that he was acting in bad faith, but he was also acting stupid. He wasnt 'innocent' but he was ignorant. Sockpuppetry is the first thing that will occur to any newbie when they want to act in bad faith. Unfortunately for him, he didnt know that it was also ridiculously easy for someone to call his bluff. Especially when he made it so obvious to his opponents. The brazenness with which he made multiple socks shows that he knew zilch about rfcu. This is possible only with newbies. The way I see it, indef blocking a newbie for a first time offence commited days after he registered is a little harsh and might even border on biting. On the flip side, I see a user who has already learnt the ropes of editing on wikipedia(believe me, it took me a couple of weeks to even notice that there was a 'talk page'), who has in this process been educated about quite a few basic policies and who now knows that it really isnt a 'free for all' out here. Aing GF, I see a potentially useful contributor to WP. At the same time, I will be the first one to ask for a indef block if he tries his hand at puppetry again. Sarvagnya 06:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The malicious intent seems indicative of an editor who will just try to be more clever in going against WP policies. He has already tried to deceive us in clever ways, and simply failed out of ignorance. But the point is, he was very deliberately trying to deceive us. Anyway, the ANI is up, so hopefully the community will decide whether or not action should be taken. The Behnam 06:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Sarvagnya, making an error becuase one doesn't realize that it is an error is excusable and should be excused. Making an error deliberately and repeatedly because one didn't realize that they'd get caught is inexcusable IMO. Because in the latter case the lesson the person takes away is not that action X is wrong, but rather that they can continue to do X, but in a less detectable manner. Abecedare 07:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Well said. The Behnam 10:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. He knew what he was doing was wrong and yet, he did it. That is what I meant by saying that he acted in 'bad faith'. And imo, this is the case with almost every vandal or sockpuppet on wiki. I am sure every vandal knows that what he is doing is wrong. So does every sockpuppet. The reason they do it is because they arent aware of what the consequences might be. Once they learn it(if necessary the hard way), I'd expect that they'd mend. That is what laws are about right? Anyway, I just felt that banning him straightaway for having done something(which in the end analysis, hasnt counted for much anyway) just once, is a little too harsh. I still feel that way. I just felt like saying it. So I said it. Thats all. Sarvagnya 10:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

This development is quite interesting, given the huge monologue from the sock huniebunie here. Of course, I'm not surprised, I was quite certain from the beginning. --Ragib 10:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Since the role of subjectivity in determining the relevance of images appears to be a wider problem for this page, I will address it specifically here. Basically, the best approach is to apply the relevance criteria for textual content to the images as much as possible. Hence, we use images that, according to their sources, represent the topic. To use the example of the demographics section, the Apatani image does not exist to illustrate demographic information, while demographic charts exist for that purpose. The Apatani picture was taken to cover the Apatani people, not India's demographics, and hence shouldn't be used in the section about India's demographics. The demographics charts were made to illustrate demographic information; their direct & source-indicated relevance to demographics renders them appropriate for the demographics section, just as they are best for the demographics article.

As I mentioned earlier, changing the caption to include demographic information does not make the image itself any more relevant. Captions should simply describe the image or provide small detail about the image itself; the picture's relevance should be obvious & derive directly from the source. Bad things can happen otherwise. To crop some of my words from earlier, "The picture itself has to be relevant to demographics. Otherwise all sorts of irrelevant stuff could be used. We could place a picture of a house, and then say x% of Indians live in houses. Or maybe a picture of Aishwarya Rai, and say x% of Indians have an income higher than ____." So, we should stick to images that are directly pertinent to the topic as indicated in the source.

The challenge remains on how to address sections with a really wide scope of relevance, such as "History". The section provides a particular challenge because, unlike most other countries' articles, is a true summary, lacking numerous subdivisions. I really like its concision but it makes it hard to pick a definitive picture. My preliminary suggestion is to determine relevance based upon the textual content, which itself should be relevant based upon sources. Hence, there is a picture of Gandhi because he is included in the section on account of his great historical significance. I trust that the decision to mention Gandhi in the History section is accurate. However, Apanti caves may not be most appropriate, since it can't honestly be included in the summary as one of the most significant aspects of Indian history. In essence, I am suggesting that we first consider the textual content to determine the set of relevant images, and then apply the ideas from the first two paragraphs to further determine relevance.

While there may still be room for disagreement with this preliminary proposal, ~~I'm sure that a picture of something like Mohenjo Daro cannot be reasonably disputed in terms of definitive historical relevance~~. Anyway, I am putting this out to start developing a general guideline for including images in this article. I definitely would like responses, suggestions, proposed additions/amendments, and similar feedback so that we can possibly develop a good set of principles for future application in the article. Thanks. The Behnam 06:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as the relavence is concerned, I have made that proposal (#3). See the first post on the page. That again brings us to subjectivity. Isn't Mohenjadaro in Pakistan? So why have pictures of a Pakistani location when hundred of images pertaining to the history of India are available? =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

That was just an ill-researched suggestion. I guess that would be more appropriate for an article on the Indian cultural continent if there is such an article. In any case, that just a random suggestion, I was hoping for feedback on the bulk of the proposal itself. The key difference is that FP doesn't have any credence in this proposal since it so far seems groundless. I have tried to gear this entirely around relevance, and using direct-application criteria of relevance to cut down on the subjectivity & set of possible images. Images must in their sources be relevant to the topic, and images chosen should be pertinent to text that itself is determined relevant in the sources. The Behnam 06:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The featured clause does have some credance: I'm quoting Jimbo here: "We should continue to turn our attention away from growth and towards quality." . I'm stressing on the word quality.

Secondly, I'm glad you admit, it was a random suggestion. The same principle also applies to the scores of new editors posting such messages mentioning the appropriateness of an image equivalent ill-researched suggestions. So who determines relavence? =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Considering that the Wikipedia:Images#Pertinence and encyclopedicity section emphasized relevance, not FP, the idea of quality for image inclusion is probably relevance. Hence, we don't just add tons of pictures; that would be growth. We have a few pictures, but their quality is derived from their relevance. The Behnam 06:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as random new users actually adding images they like, this problem exists everywhere on Wikipedia. Usually random anti-consensus additions are reverted, and if the person is serious he brings it up on the talk page. At the talk page consensus is applied. I don't think we should suddenly decide to rule by FP because of this normal phenomenon when there is really no grounds for judging image inclusion by FP according to Wikipedia:Images#Pertinence and encyclopedicity. The Behnam 06:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

In the case of a dispute (text), consensus is applied through proper attribution and neutrality, both are objective criteria and easy to apply. Image inclusion is another field altogether. What parameters are needed to be applied here? Who determines the inclusion? Wouldn't selection be subjective? If there were two relevent images, one featured and another not, which would you choose? =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

In accordance with the ideas in Wikipedia:Images#Pertinence and encyclopedicity, I would not consider FP status. I would probably try to determine which is more relevant. It may fall, in that extreme case, to some subjectivity, but of course that would have to be discussed. I don't think that predicament is worth discussing since it easily applies to your FP favoritism; what if there are two relevant FPs? How do you choose? The existence of the hypothetical predicament does not suggest that FP status should be taken into consideration, while Wikipedia:Images#Pertinence and encyclopedicity suggests that relevance should. The Behnam 07:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Why do you keep repeating the link as if I'm not aware of it? A featured image can certainly be relevant. Next, "You would probably determine which is more relavent..." that is highly subjective and opens a can of worms. What gives you or me the the right to determine the appropriateness for the entire article? A featured picture has to fulfill many criteria see -- Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria where #5 mentiones the need for it to "Adds value to an article". To answer your question on multiple pictures: If the regional balance is not affected, I don't see any reason why the images cannot be roated monthly as suggested above. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Adds value to an article. Not all articles. The picture is of Apatani tribals. It does not depict demographic information. The only way you could depict demographic information was through the selectively chosen caption, which was inappropriate for the reasons stated above. At this point, it is really looking like there is no strong defense of the FP favoring position.

I don't mean to sound arrogant, but I cited very specific pieces of policy directly pertaining to image selection in articles and found support of 'relevance' but not 'FP'. I also cited the reason FP's are FP to remind what makes them FP. It wasn't some sort of "because it is relevant to pretty much anything;" they were featured for different reasons. Your response has been to cite very general statements by Jimbo Wales under the assumption that because FP are considered "quality" pictures, his call for "quality" in articles merits their inclusion. He did not address anything here specifically, but as I said, considering Wikipedia:Images#Pertinence and encyclopedicity 's emphasis on "relevance" and lack of emphasis on "FP", the desired outcome ('quality) is probably "relevance". Also, you brought up the "macro" problem, but this in no way affects the arguments against using FP, which derive from the fact that there is nothing indicating that these pictures should be squeezed into articles. I'm not sure how many new ways I can put these arguments, but until there is either an adequate refutation or agreement I'll keep trying. So far this has been two-person conversation; hopefully some of the other editors will show up to comment.

I'm also considering seeking some knowledgeable Wikipedian opinions from out side of 'the Indian box'. As evident from some of the, er, not-WP reasoning ('ugly', 'shows diversity') used in support or opposition to various proposals, I think we need some people here who generally don't have a particular attachment to India (such as myself) and are not entrenched here (not me), but happen to understand WP rules on account of being knowledgeable and experienced Wikipedians of good standing (plenty to draw from). The Behnam 09:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Really, this is beating around the bush. Where have I ever said that images which are not pertinent to the section be placed on the page? Infact if you would care to comment on my proposal, I have very clearly mentioned that it has to be pertinent. And I've also granted that you have a good point on the graphical representation. So please, end the suggestion on my part that it has to be pertinent, because I have never opposed that. A pertinent image can also be a featured picture and vice-versa. Next, I think it's a little too far to derive finer aspects of Jimbo's focus on quality. Quality is universal; just because an explicit statement on images was not mentioned, doesn't mean that images as a hallmark of quality can be excluded out of the ambit of wikipedia's quality content. (Please note: I have never commented on the subject of any of the pictures in any of the posts). Finally, please do go ahead an invite more editors to this discussion, it could lead to some better insights. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Reading the above discussion I am slightly lost as to where your (i.e., Nichalp and The Behnap)opinions actually differ. Can you both please clarify if you disagree with either of these two statements, which I consider (perhaps naively) to be self-evident ?

Not every FP picture is relevant to the India article, hence before even an FP picture can be added to the India page, relevance has to be established.
Given a choice between two relevant pictures, an FP image is to be preferred since its quality has been "certified" by the broader wikipedia community.

Abecedare 09:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Given the two possibilites: I agree on both with preference that images on the page should be regionally balanced. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I started this post to propose a process for establishing relevance of images in order to prevent further incidents of irrelevance such as the "Apatani" one from happening again. It strayed into a discussion revolving around judgment based upon FP status. Our difference of opinion there is over whether or not FP status should come into play. I consider the FP-based criterion not grounded in policy for reasons already stated, and hence did not include FP status in my proposal, focusing instead on establishing relevance. I don't mind saying that two relevant images that are of apparently equal worth are present, the FP one could be chosen on quality grounds. That is the same logic as choosing the less-fuzzy version of a picture. But there was a lot of "keep it because its FP" logic going on that seemed to ignore relevance that I needed to debunk and I feel I have made my case adequately. If we all agree that between two deadlocked/equally relevant images the FP one can be chosen on account of picture quality, then I think we are set to move back to taking a look at the process I outlined.

As far as regional influence, I think that the "relevance" assessment proposal can be used to write off the potential problem. I don't see this problem reasonably arising in smaller sections where the scope of the topic is small (like demographics), so I'm thinking that this is for the wider sections. So the picture should be illustrating a specific notable point included in the text. I don't really see the big deal. If the picture is region-specific it is appropriate for at section that deals with a specific region. If it is a general picture, it shouldn't matter which region it is from because the pictured item is prevalent throughout India. And some issues just can't receive this kind of 'affirmative action' treatment. In example, consider that in an article covering the institutions of government, it cannot be helped that the Parliament, executive stuff, etc are located in the capital, so there is no way to appease the desire for regional balance when covering those institutions.

Overall, the "regional balance" objections seem sort of "I don't like it" affirmative action requests, so they probably shouldn't receive a fundamental acknowledgment. The real cases can probably be traced back to issues relevance, and so those who object can request change on those grounds. With this, I conclude that "regional balance"-based image selection should probably be added to the list of reasons not covered under WP documentation. I actually do need to sleep now, so I'll be back somewhat later, thanks. The Behnam 10:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The second paragraph starts off with "Home to the Indus Valley Civilization..."

I thought the Indus Valley Civilization was situated in what is now Pakistan and India. Doesn't "home to" suggest it was native to the region of India and India alone? ~~contrinewb

OK. Will fix my mentioning that they share it. The Behnam 00:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, its still locked because of the silly insistence upon using the random Apatani picture. The Behnam 00:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I've unlocked it. --Ragib 03:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It should be noted that it does say the Indian Subcontinent, but the fact that it starts with "Home ..." makes it seem more like India is the topic. I'm going to change it to start with the subcontinent then describe it. The Behnam 03:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually I need to go now so if someone else could do it that'd be great. Thanks. The Behnam 03:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, no changes need to be made. The current version was stabilized after many revisions. Starting with "Home" doesn't make it "seem more like India is the topic." The sentence is about the Indian subcontinent. Plain and simple. Are you suggesting that we not have appositive phrases or subordinate clauses in our sentences, because some impatient readers apparently can't get to the ends of the sentences? Fowler&fowler «Talk» 04:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Obviously it happened in one case. The only reason I agreed was because it reminded me of this . Of course, that is a slightly different issue but I felt a similarity. It might be better to mention the Indian Subcontinent first. The Behnam 06:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, you sort of have a weak point. I can't say I really agree with it, but I see the implication. One possibility would be to change the sentence to: "The Indian subcontinent, home to the Indus Valley Civilization and a region of historic trade routes and vast empires, was identified with its commercial and cultural wealth for much of its long history." The prose, however, begins to get clunky and I (personally) would be reluctant to change to it. Maybe others should weigh in on this. The point is that the goal of an introduction is not to be completely literal and sound like a lab report. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was afraid of clunkiness as well. We've only had one complaint, so I suggest that people just read the entire sentence and not read too much into it. If it seems to be a consistent problem then we can address it. The Behnam 14:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually Fowler&fowler, "home to" does imply the modern state of India is more closely tied to the Indus Valley Civilization than Pakistan. Here's the relevant definition from dictionary.com: 5. the place or region where something is native or most common. The implication of "native or most common" is clear and unambiguous. I just wanted to point out the inaccuracy for the good of the article. Whether you guys change it or not is your decision. Contrinewb 14:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

No quibbles with your definition of "home." It's just that the word ("home") is applied to the Indian subcontinent and not to India. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 15:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The sentence, as it stands, is a garden path sentence. Within the context of its discourse, 'home' is initially attached to India, not the subcontinent. While some will be able to correct their initial parsing error after finishing the sentence, it will go unnoticed by others, given that the surface structures of 'India' and 'Indian subcontinent' are so similar. Some might even think they're synonymic. Since the purpose of the article is to provide information, shouldn't we attempt to make it as unambiguous as possible? Contrinewb 16:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, that's a good point (that "home" is initially attached to India, i.e. Republic of India, since the first paragraph is about the borders of RoI). Let me think about how best to rephrase it. Meanwhile others might want to pitch in. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 20:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, one quick fix would be:

OptionA:

“

The Indian subcontinent, (which was) both home to the Indus Valley Civilization and a region of historic trade routes and vast empires, was identified with its commercial and cultural wealth for much of its long history. Four major world religions, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism originated here, while Islam, Christianity, Judaism and Zoroastrianism arrived in the first millennium CE and shaped the region's variegated culture.

”

This would make it unambiguous. The "which was" is understood, but it could be made explicit. Alternately, one could give it some movement in time viewed from the present:

OptionB:

“

The Indian subcontinent, home to the Indus Valley Civilization, became a realm of historic trade routes and vast empires, and came to be known for its commercial and cultural wealth for much of its long history. Four major world religions, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism originated here, while Islam, Christianity, Judaism and Zoroastrianism arrived in the first millennium CE and shaped the region's variegated culture.

”

Alternately, still, one could view the unfolding from the past:

OptionC:

“

The Indian subcontinent, home to the Indus Valley Civilization, would become a realm of historic trade routes and vast empires, and come to be known for its commercial and cultural wealth for much of its long history. Four major world religions, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism would originate here, while Islam, Christianity, Judaism and Zoroastrianism would arrive in the first millennium CE and shape the region's variegated culture.

”

But then one would have to maintain the future from the past mode into the next sentence as well... Maybe others have other ideas. I don't have objective distance right now. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 21:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that the statement relating the Indus Valley Civilization could be made into more than one sentence for clarity. Or we could simply mention that it shares this heritage with other nations of the subcontinent, perhaps with a statement like, "Along with other nations of the Indian Subcontinent..." I'll keep thinking about it. Tell me if any of this gives you new ideas. The Behnam 21:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Think it is time for semi-protection? The Behnam 17:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Done =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Everyone,

This is to seek consensus on removing British POV from the India lead para, as per The Behnam's suggestions. The slight play of words make a big difference in an encyclopedic article and tilts the article towards western POVs. I suggest that in India article we should start the history right from 5000 years and keep it continuous with the British part just as a minor chapter. I felt its important in this article to highlight more on the continuous past rather than a start from 1947. Additionally, western POVs of keeping the India page as a balanced sounding may not be correct as the perceptions are different for different geographical readers. Asian readers see India as a long historic country which is now slowly rising, but westerners tend to impose their POV, which gives aninferior image to the country.

Consensus sought.

Qwertylap 04:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, for starters, your version had some boasting about India being "resilient," with questionable assertions following. That is POV for sure. The Behnam 04:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

For reference, here is his first introduction . The Behnam 04:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Here are just a few examples of the obvious problems with qwertylap's edit (apart from the fact that your rush to this as your 3rd edit looks quite interesting):

Despite countless invasions over the past 5000 years, Indian culture and society has been so resilient, that it has either thrown away or completely absorbed any foreign influences, with the social fabric largely remaining unchanged and intact. The present modern democratic nation-state of India emerged in 1947, after it overthrew foreign occupation by widespread use of nonviolent resistance.

Well, this is a big piece of POV. Obvious. Also, the "overthrow" is a questionable word when applied to the 1947 partition.

This Mauryan Empire is normally documented as the first formation of a unified subcontinental country, and it is from Emperor Ashoka's empire that modern India derives most of its national symbology and ideology.

Original research

--Ragib 04:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Behnam, You are correct, the earlier one is the questionable British POV whereas the 'resilient' part is our Asian POV. I believe it is now time that we should refuse to accept western POVs and set the article right from our perspective. We all know that we viewed them as unwelcome alien occupiers.

Hi Ragib, You are getting the British POV, not unnatural as it was this which was fed to us all. It would be wiser for us to frame the words without changing history. Don't you think that we should also impose our views on them, correct ones of course.

Qwertylap 04:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC) Qwertylap 04:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Qwertylap's edits are identical to those of banned user user:Himalayanashoka. Can someone request a checkuser? Fowler&fowler «Talk» 04:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Aha!! That explains the sleeper account (created to bypass semi-protection??). Anyway, for reference, here is an identical edit from User:Himalayanashoka. This shows we are just wasting our time talking to yet another sock. --Ragib 04:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Amazing. What looks like over two months of waiting for this moment, and didn't even try to look different. The Behnam 05:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

This should be added to the FAQ section to prevent the issue from cropping up. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The infobox says Mumbai is the biggest city yet in the New Delhi article it states New Delhi has more than 13 million while the Mumbai article states that this city has something over 11 million. This cant be right, SqueakBox 19:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

New Delhi article is incorrect. The population of New Delhi is small. Delhi is larger. Will fix. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

this edit has been made in "History" section. Apart from several avoidance of double redirects, the Independence movement sentence has been modified. "During the first half of twentieth century" has been used instead of "In the early twentieth century". And, "launched by the Indian National Congress" has been changed to "launched by the Indian National Congress and other political and revolutionary organisations". Also, Mahatma Gandhi has been shifted to the end of the next sentence dealing with "civil disobedience with a commitment to ahimsa". Please see if the dit is ok. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dwaipayanc, I know that in some versions of Indian history the so-called "revolutionary organization" play a significant role in the freedom movement; however, mainstream historians don't give them much credit, and I'm not sure if Wikipedia should either. For example, in my copy of "An Advanced History of India," (by R. C. Majumdar (Vice-Chancellor, Dacca University), H. C. Raychaudhuri (Carmichael Professor of Ancient Indian History and Culture, Calcutta University), and Kalikindar Datta (Professor of History, Patna College), 2nd edition, 1950, Macmillan and Company, London)—considered the standard history of India for two decades after independence—of the 17 pages devoted to the "Struggle for freedom," only a few lines are devoted to the revolutionary organizations, and those too, parenthetically: "Gandhiji started the Civil Disobedience campaign on April 6, by his famous march to Dandi ... This was signal for a mass movement on a large scale, involving mass strikes, the boycott of British goods, grave cases of terrorism such as the armourary raid in Chittagong, and the setting up of 'parallel' governments in several places." Bhagat Singh, Chandrashekhar Azad, the Ghaddar Party, or V. D. Savarkar don't get any mention. Even Subhash Chandra Bose, gets only three mentions. There is plenty of discussion of the Congress, the Muslim League, other leaders such as Pherozeshah Mehta, Dadabhoy Nairoji, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Sir Muhammad Iqbal, Bipin Chandra Pal, Lala Lajpat Rai, M. A. Jinnah, Motilal Nehru, M. A. Suhrawardy, Jawaharlal Nehru, and of course Gandhi; the revolutionaries, however, are conspicuous by their absence.

That view of the Indian freedom struggle hasn't changed much in the last 50 years among mainstream historians. It is the same with other current tertiary sources. The 2007 Encyclopaedia Britannica, for example, devotes 19 long pages to the Indian freedom movement and has this to say about Bose: "It was also in 1941 when Bose fled to Germany, where he started broadcasting appeals to India urging the masses to “rise up” against British “tyranny” and to “throw off” their chains. There were, however, few Indians in Germany, and Hitler's advisers urged Bose to go back to Asia by submarine; he was eventually transported to Japan and then to Singapore, where Japan had captured at least 40,000 Indian troops during its takeover of that island fortress in February 1942. These captured soldiers became Netaji (“Leader”) Bose's Indian National Army (INA) in 1943 and, a year later, marched behind him to Rangoon. Bose hoped to “liberate” first Imphal and then Bengal from British rule, but the British forces at India's eastern gateways held until the summer monsoon gave them respite enough to be properly reinforced and drove Bose and his army back down the Malay Peninsula. In August 1945 Bose escaped by air from Saigon but died of severe burns after his overloaded plane crashed onto Formosa." That is not the description of a signal role in the freedom struggle. I think the reference and link to "revolutionary organisations" should be taken out. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 23:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Ok. I do not have any reference or book readily to favour/refute the references you have produced. So, going by wikipedia rules, we should remove the mention. However, I will ask to wait some days (or provisional removal, for the time being).

I have not read any of major history books. My source of knowledge of Indian independence movement is largely based on what I read in school text books. Interestingly, in school text books I read there was considerable discussion dedicated to the revolutionary (or terrorist, whatever one choses to say) movements. Now, in India, we have regional board of educations and I read what West Bengal government thought was needed to read. May be in some other states, the curriculum is different. However in centrally published textbooks (NCERT) too there are considerable mention of activities other than Indian National Congress (not as much as West Bengal books, may be:)).

In "History" section of the article, there is one paragraph dedicated for independence movement and the subsequent achievement of independence. I propose how about such writing — "During the first half of twentieth century, a nationwide struggle for independence took place led by Indian National Congress. Some minor revolutionary (or terrorist) organisations were also involved."

The language can be bettered. I propose this in order to include the revolutionary organisations, and at the same time stressing their minor contribution compared to the INC. That too if we can find out some good references (text books won't suffice, I guess!). This won't contribute to the size of the article in a big way. Having said this, I emphasize that this is just a proposal (and wikipedia is not a democracy), so despite whatever people have to say in this regard, we shall follow what references say, and hence, probably will have to remove the mention of revolutionary oraganisations :( Thanks and regards. (and a request to Fowler, since you seem to have good references, I would request you if you can chance upon any reference, just in case!)--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

A mysterious indication is here that there is some "untold" or "alternate" side of the independence movement. Very fishy, though. Websites have one section for revolutionaries, like this and this. Weak reference.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

No probs. Sure we can wait. Meanwhile, I'll think too about how best to rephrase it. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 06:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

the CIA WFB has 2006 updated estimates for GDP. Updated that!!! Also updated population est to July 2006 levels!!!

Pizzadeliveryboy 18:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Instead of a map for the geography section, use a satellite picture of an important geographical feature, such as the Ganges. This will allow a demographic map to be used in the Demographics section without getting too 'mappy'. The Behnam 02:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, we are going to get the arguement that how representative a satellite image is of a river. I've seen satellite imagery of north India (Geography of India), and the river is barely discernable. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Then how about using a chart? The Behnam 04:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Why not just use a chart to resolve the dispute? You can never argue facts, and they always represent India and its demographics. the religion pie chart is great! Its the ultimate solution. 24.149.198.116 15:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure why a chart hasn't been used yet. People have agreed to it in principle but have not shown willingness to have it executed. I get the feeling there is a strange attachment to the Apatani picture being there, but in any case, I'd still like a real demographics image to be used. The Behnam 18:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

As per March statistics, this article is the 7th most popular country article with (~13,500 hits) in a 21-day period. It is 13th overall. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Great! So it is 'tied' in popularity with: New York City, George W. Bush and List of male performers in gay porn films. :-) Abecedare 05:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Woah, those statistics reveal a different side of Wikipedia, in particular one area :) Gizza^Chat ^© 05:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Another noteworthy point: While the India page gets ~14000 views per day, barely 10-20 of those readers choose to vandalize it even when the page is not semi-protected. That, to me, is a positive news. Abecedare 05:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Does India support Capital punishment? Is there a place where I can get data regarding that? (how many people were executed per year, and what methods are used etc.)--Scheibenzahl 19:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Capital punishment in India has some information. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks--Scheibenzahl 08:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Since I was 7, I thought India was part of the Middle East. Is this true? Mewtwowimmer 23:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

No. India is considered to be part of Indian subcontinent or South Asia. Also see Subregions of Asia for the United Nations geoscheme; and Middle East and South East Asia for adjoining regions. Abecedare 23:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

According to the Times of India, India's Nominal GDP is now past the $1 Trillion USD mark. 142.151.169.245 03:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Pure data. Chanakyathegreat 13:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

India isn't just a republic or a sovereign country, the constitution defines it as a federal republic comprising a number of states. The states enact the majority of laws, and although the trend since independence has been toward greater centralization of power, this system is not unlike the US, Canada, or Brazil. I believe this is a defining feature of India and deserves to be mentioned in the first few paragraphs. The current opening paragraphs seem to reinforce the (especially Western) notion that India is a monolithic country governed by the center, which is false. The second line states that India is a "sovereign" country but not that it is also a 'federation', which is a more relevant political description.

This is a follow up of the topic Edit in "History" section which has now been archived (Talk:India/Archive 23). The mention of revolutionary organisations in the Indian independence movement in "History" section was the point of discussion. Citing respectable mainstream historians was demanded. So far, no such citation could be provided. So, as an interim measure, the mention of revolutionary organisations is being hidden (blanked out), with a citation needed tag (that would appear only in the edit mode). Since I do not have any mainstream or equally significant books/historical reviews, it will take some more time for searching proper reference. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi guys Well, while reading the last paragraph, I noticed it mentions " India has made rapid progress in the last decade, especially in information technology". Now, this may have been a fair reflection 3-4 years back, when companies like Infosys & Wipro represented the new face of Indian economy. They still do. But the past couple of years of so, have exhibited in abundance the growth in almost every sector, be it Automotive or steel. The recent global take-overs, be it the 12 Billion USD take over of Corus (formerly British Steel), or the take over of Daewoo's truck divisions, are a couple of examples. And this trend continues. Given this fact, I personally feel, we should rephrase that line to be true to the present state, where IT isnt the only shining gem anymore.AJ-India 13:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Have removed the "especially in information technology" bit. Thanks. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 03:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

If you feel better pictures can represent this page, please add them here

Geography -This is a featured picture
Military
Dal Lake

Sure! Great pics why don't you add them? --59.182.23.178 12:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC) Kalhans

A new beautiful image of the Jaguar aircraft of the Indian Air Force has replaced the Agni-II image. This image will be replaced with the Agni-III image when it become available in Wikipedia. Chanakyathegreat 14:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Chanakyathegreat, I agree with you that the Jaguar image is visually more pleasing than the Agni II picture. However, I believe that the latter image of the indigenously developed Agni missile is of greater encyclopedic value for this page, than that of the the Anglo-French SEPECAT Jaguar. Note that Image:IAF_Jaguar.JPEG even carries the French flag and is recognizable as belonging to the IAF only by the roundel. Of course, if and when a better photograph of Agni III is available the image can be replaced. Abecedare 03:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, on closer inspection I am not certain if those are the IAF roundel or the French flag, since the colours seem to be Green-White-Red and not Green-White-Saffron or Blue-White-Red as I would expect. Hmmm. Abecedare 04:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It belongs to the IAF. Taken during the Exercise in Alaska with the U.S AF. The roundel is that of IAF. There is a big difference between the French AF and IAF roundel. It looks almost red in the picture. But it is an IAF Jaguar. Chanakyathegreat 11:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

as an visual interpretor i would like to know more about urbanization and its effects in india. because this country has its own growth with lot of factors so do we really need to change our cities like any other european/ ameriacn cities if it is then why and what are the possibilities make it its own way where middle class can be acommodate very well. because that is one huge area which cant deny . == —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 122.163.214.21 (talk) 02:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

Have placed a new image in Demographics. Quality is somewhat inferior. However, license is acceptable. Please see. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

a thumbnail of thumbnails is utterly pointless: should be replaced with a link "click here for a gallery". dab (𒁳) 12:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks but we should really try putting an actual visual of demographic information like most other country's articles do, rather than arbitrarily chosen pictures of people that aren't exactly relevant to demographics. The Behnam 14:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Like the growth pattern?--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, or a pie, or a map, stuff of that sort. That is actual demographic information, and a number of users agreed to its appropriateness in principle. You should probably look at the previous discussions in the archives for more background. The problem was that we couldn't agree on a sufficiently information-rich form, and people weren't receptive to adding a new map. However it is undoubtedly the most appropriate type of visual for the demographics section so it remains a concern to be addressed. The Behnam 14:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Collages are unencyclopedic. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Since the collage seems not be justified in the "Demographics" section, I have re-inserted the Apatani tribal woman image. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The parliament pic needs a more close-up. --59.163.2.161 07:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that more detail is required on some subjects in this wonderful article, especially the "flora and fauna" and about the freedom in the current Indian government. This page is one of the best pages in Wikipedia; lets make it the best !!

I know that there are abundant accurate references in this article, but perhaps, in order to make it even better and even more trustworthy, there need to be some more accurate ones.Johnsmithcba 14:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

John, can you point out any specific instance that you think can/should be improved ? Thanks. Abecedare 15:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your contradictions, but there are a few instances where this article would perhaps need cleaning up. In fact, I can find several points where references are required. For example, there is a reference where it states that Mumbai is the largest city in India, but not when it states that New Delhi is the capital, which is right above the Mumbai statement. Also, the dates given about India's independence should be referenced. Also, if this article was an academic paper, references would be mandatory for the several figures of population, GDP, etc. Not to mention the several pictures there are that are in need of references. Johnsmithcba 18:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Note that as per WP:ATT, "Any user should be able to verify that material added to Wikipedia is attributable a reliable published source. Precise attribution is required for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged." Undisputed facts such as India is in Asia, or New Delhi is its capital are easily verified by, for example, the "General References" listed in the External Links section and thus IMO do not need a separate inline citations. (Incidentally, Mumbai's status as India's largest city has been challenged in the past and therefore it does need to be referenced). Also note that this article is written in Summary Style which has different citation guidelines than an article on the sub-topics (see this). That said, I think references in this article can and should be improved. For example I just went through the Demography section of the article and uphauled many of the references and corrected some of the data, which was simply incorrect! If you have suggestions about specific statements of the article that you feel need to be referenced, please do list them here. Thanks.Abecedare 19:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do think certain statements in this article need to be referenced, such as the following, not to mention the several pictures, each of which should have a reference:

"GDP (nominal) 2006 estimate

-  	Total 	$796.1 billion (12th)
-  	Per capita 	$820 (132th)"

"Population

-  	2007 estimate 	1,126,000,000 (2nd)
-  	2001 census 	1,027,015,248 
-  	Density 	329 /km² (31st)

852 /sq mi"

Statements such as these and several more, especially related to numeral figures, certainly need to be referenced in order for this article to attain a more trustworthy status. Johnsmithcba 14:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Did you even bother to click on any of the wiki-linked rank statistics in the infobox? Those list/rank articles have full reference for each of these facts. --Ragib 17:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, most of them don't. Even if they do, the original article (in this case: India) should also have references. Even if the statistics don't need references, what about the pictures. I don't find any place that gives credit to the pictures. Johnsmithcba 19:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I must be looking at a different version of Wikipedia, because mine DOES provide references for those list articles!!! Also, I don't understand your comments about pictures, what do you mean by reference for pictures? Every picture's description page clearly provides the source and the licensing information. Thank you. --Ragib 19:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

More culture information about India, such as way of life, popular foods, popular past times, etc is badly, repeat badly, needed. Some culture expert, please add information on the topic (with references cited, of course). Johnsmithcba 18:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Have you seen the main article on the topic, Culture of India (which certainly needs improvement) ? Note again that the India article is written in Summary Style and is intended to give only a brief overview of this vast subject. Abecedare 19:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I recognize that it is written in summary style, but certainly it could be possible to make it more detailed, enough for it to keep up the standard of an encyclopedia article. Johnsmithcba 14:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

No, that is unnecessary. We are an online encyclopedia, not print, and having main articles in dedicated pages makes optimial use of content by tightly focussing on core content here and dedicated content in daughter articles. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I recognize your point, but what if the main articles of certain subjects are not of that good quality. Therefore, picture that would be painted by these lesser-quality articles would be disappealing. Since India is a featured article, it should paint more of appealing pictures, or, in other words, give slightly more detail on each subject. After all, Wikipedia articles are not intended just to be a list of sources to other articles, but to give detail to subjects. Johnsmithcba 17:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Then why don't you enhance those "bad quality main articles"? See Summary style. --Ragib 17:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

That is what wikipedia is all about. See the logo on the top left. It shows an incomplete jigsaw puzzle. When trying to build an encyclopedia, we are building from top outwards. So if India is featured, we've got core articles such as Geography of India, Mumbai, Economy of India featured. We are building a core India-related encyclopedia. See Wikiproject India for details. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, why not start a whole new gigantic project to do so (no offense)? Johnsmithcba 17:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

We already have one. See WP:INDIA =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

... because there already is one. Incidentally there are more than 20,000 India related articles on wikipedia, so there is and always will be more to be said on the topic than can be contained in a 40-50Kbyte article, and that is perfectly fine. The wonder of wikipedia in particular and the web in general is the way it organizes and interlinks the information, rather than dump it in one place in a linear fashion. I request that you click on the links included in this post along with the ones provided by Nichalp and Ragib, since they address most of the points you have raised on the page. Abecedare 18:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The coordinates in infobx are displayed as shown below:

²) 28°34′N, 77°12′E

I didn't understand why ²) was being displayed? Can someone clarify this?--(Sumanth|Talk) 03:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

the superscripts were causing a problem. I have removed it and cleaned the infobox. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

As science, technology and communication media are making a huge impact on our economy, there should be a section highlighting the scientists and engineers from past and the number we are producing now. Highlighting our achievements in satellite technology can also be a good idea. Achievements in communication media is also an important aspect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.34.20.19 (talk) 07:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

I would definitely agree with that. In addition to that, perhaps more emphasis can also be given to other positive achievements of India. Johnsmithcba 14:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

No, this is governed by the countries wikiproject. Secondly, the article should be neutrally written, not written to just highlight achievements. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

That is agreeable, but perhaps adding a science and technology and space section would be important, not to highlight positive achievements of India, but because this is a rising part of India's economy. Johnsmithcba 17:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that the external links of the article need to be presented in a more orderly fashion and should be divided into an "official" and "unofficial" section. Johnsmithcba 14:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that this article should be given a higher degree of protection in order to shield it from recent vandalism. Johnsmithcba 14:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Although there are adequate pictures in this article, I think that there need to be a few more, especially a nature map in the "flora and fauna" section, in order to make this article visual-friendly. Johnsmithcba 14:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

See the previous archives for a discussion on images. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, if not several more pictures, then why not just one nature map of India in the flora and fauna section? That would make it more visual-friendly and easy to understand the section. Johnsmithcba 17:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Additional maps have been turned down. Please see the recent archives. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly in which archive is this discussion? Johnsmithcba 17:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that a separate "sports" section should be added to this article, since sports are given a major emphasis in India. Also, more emphasis should be put on the climate of India in the "geography" section, perhaps even change the name of the section to "geography and climate." Johnsmithcba 15:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Not needed. We have quality subarticles on both. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I have started this discussion on Village pump. Sarvagnya 16:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

There may be quality subarticles on both, but they are important subjects; so, there should be separate sections for them, or at least for the sports section. Saying that there are already quality subarticles for sports would be the same as saying that there does not need to be a separate section on, for example, history, just because there is already a quality subarticle on it. Johnsmithcba 17:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

See Summary style. --Ragib 17:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

But that doesn't mean that important topics should be excluded from being in a section of their own. After all, sports are one of the most important things in India. Johnsmithcba 17:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

According to? --Ragib 17:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

http://www.hcilondon.net/india-overview/art-culture/sports.html Johnsmithcba 17:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Even that page, in the main index doesn't list sports as a separate topic, rather just like this article, clusters Sports, culture, arts together. If you have a problem with the structure, please raise the issue at Wikiproject on countries. Thanks. --Ragib 18:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi at the wikipage: http://wadooa.com/doku.php/norte_de_india are lots of GNU pictures to share, some from Qutb minar Tugluqabad y la tumba de Ghiyas-Ud-Din El jardin de Lohdi Purana quila Tumba de Safdarjang Tumba de Humayun Lal Quila Jami masjid Jantar mantar Rashtrapati Bhavan Lotus temple Iskcon Chhatarpur. Risoto2000 00:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)risoto2000

I would like to add a link to one of our webcasts/web reports of Chindia. It contains a lot of general demographic, financial and economic information, and I think will be of interest to Wikipedia users. It is freely accessible, without fees or registration. Here is the link: Chindia and Its Global Impact, http://www.usfunds.com/article.asp?id=1207

Please let me know if you deem it worthy to be added to the page. Thanks! -Jtkachuk

The URL does not have any encyclopedic value other than being a webcast. Thanks for asking btw. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I looked through the linked presentation on "Chindia" and while it is interesting to specialists in the field, it is not suitable for the main India article and perhaps not even appropriate for sub-articles on the Indian economy since it represents one expert's view of the topic in an non-peer-reviewed medium (see guideleines on exsternal links and reliable sources). That said, perhaps cited information included in the presentation can be used to add content to Economy of India article or another article in the cetegory. Abecedare 18:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone, please reply to the comments "External Links Need to be Organized" and "Protection for the Article." Thank You, Johnsmithcba 19:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

John, my guess is that no one replied to those two points because your comments are hard to make sense of. For example the External Links are already organized and it is not clear what change you are proposing and (more importantly) why. Also the article is already semi-protected and any residual vandalism is (usually) quickly reverted. Please familiarize yoursself with wikipedia policies, guidelines and manual of style (you'll find links in the welcome template on your user talk page) as well as talk page guidelines, so that your wikipedia edits are not (mis)interpreted as trolling. Thanks. Abecedare 20:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

User Johnsmithcba, please elaborate on what you propose, and we can work on it. Remember, by definition, Wikipedia is a open source, so you are entitled to edit just as much as anyone of us out here. But to ensure your edit survives over time, would help if you discuss it out here, thus satisfying other editors as well. AJ-India 04:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Currently, I am not allowed to edit the article. Johnsmithcba 11:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

External links needs to be reorganised it what form? We do not split EL into subsections. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Johnsmithcba (talk · contribs), You seem to have a lot of ideas about various India-related topics—improve this, protect that, add references to this, create another section for that—yet you haven't made a single edit on any Wikipedia page, other than some talk pages. Your enthusiasm is of course very welcome, but you might consider cutting your editorial teeth on some article to both improve the article and your own credibility. Why don't you edit the Culture of India article and effect there the kinds of improvements you are so eloquently advocating on this page? Fowler&fowler «Talk» 17:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The reason which I have mentioned before is that this article is protected, and I am not allowed to edit any of this article, perhaps because I am a new user. So, I am suggesting changes to other, and when I will be given permission to edit the article, I shall do so, but not things that, for example, are disagreed upon by others, because perhaps they would ruin the article. Johnsmithcba 17:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The Culture of India article is not only not protected, but also in much need of a clean-up. Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and improve that? Fowler&fowler «Talk» 17:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, you can sign up in WP:INDIA and check adopt one article for improvement. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Utopian Proposal for Demographics

Section break

Photoshop

Utopian Proposal for Demographics

Section break

Photoshop

Selecting images

Map of India

Reverts over Interwiki links

Summary of RfC conducted in late January/early February 2007. Topic: Adding new material to the India page history section

Spread the love?

Fast track change

Kashmiri people

No mention of Aryans?

The attachment to "Featured pictures"

Policy versus essay

Toda Hut Image

The "Consensus"

Apatani

The Map of India

Nikkul and Hillbillie are the same

Determining relevance for images

Indus Valley Civilization

Vandalism

India from 5000 yrs or Republic of India and POV Issue consensus

Which is the biggest city

Edit in "History" section

2006 est figs

Idea to resolve demographics section irrelevant imagery

Statistics

Capital Punishment

Is India in the Middle East?

Trillion Dollar Econony

Indian States? Federal Republic?

Follow up of Edit in "History" section

Last Paragraph in the Lead

Better Pictures

confirming european standard [ce]

Image in demographics

Sansad bhavan pic not good

More Detail Required on Some Subjects

More References Required

More Culture Needed

Coordinates in infobox

Science and Technology section needed

External Links Need to Be Organized

Protection for the Article

More Pictures Required

More Sections Needed

Link

Please Reply

User Johnsmithcba