Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
Ok...what is that picture under demographics???
I have lived in India for nine years in a city of 18 million, and i NEVER saw ANYONE looking like that.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE CHANGE THAT PICTURE! Its not representative of India at all.
And someone please request this page to be unprotected. 69.142.114.141 21:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Nikkul
I also dont think that most Indians live in Toda huts. I strongly urge someone to delete those pics because they are illegitimate to the topic of India as a whole and specifically the topic of the demographics in India as a whole —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nikkul (talk • contribs) 17:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC).
I fail to see what you mean by that is "doesn't represent India". Are people from the north-east not representative of India's tribal culture? What sort of insensitive comment is that? =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see how that pic represents India, as only a select few live in huts like that. Most of India lives in small, brick houses with cots and a lil rug. Also, those people who live in those huts are surely representative of India's tribal culture. But is India's tribal culture representative of India as a whole?--Nikkul
Let us have bharatnatayam dancer for demography.Bangalorevenkat 14:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
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. Chanakyathegreat 03:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
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. Maquahuitl 15:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Western analysts indicated that it will take another hundred years for india to catch up with western world.
The demographics picture needs changing because-
60000 people represent the Apatani tribe & India has 1000000000 people
60000/1000000000 *100% = .006% of the population. That means only .006 out of every 100 Indians look like that.
Obviously, this picture does not represent India. I think we should replace this picture with someone that looks more pan-Indian. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nikkul (talk • contribs) 17:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC).
We dont need any more maps. Im sure someone can go to an Indian cultural show and click some pics of people in Indian costumes dancing or something and then put it up as demographics. Even the South Indian dance pic below is better than the tribal woman69.142.114.141 12:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Nikkul
No need for any change in the Image. Apatani's are Indians and hence the Image suits the demographic section correctly. Chanakyathegreat 02:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Please add your pictures in the "Pictures" subsection below and your comments in the "Comments" subsection. Please note that:
As I mentioned above, user:Ganeshk had done something similar in Oct 06 (See here) and the Apatani picture was selected for the demographics section. Changing pictures in some of the India page sections twice a year may not be a bad idea. A word of caution though—only one picture per section (sometimes two) is the norm (see discussion here), so be prepared to be disappointed if your picture is not selected, or if the consensus here is to not change the current pictures at all. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Please don't remove pictures, it will mess up the numbering. Please click on the India page section links in the captions (below) to assess appropriateness of the pictures for the respective sections.
United Kingdom, Australia articles has good images which creates more interest in article contents. India article should also have attractive pictures. --Indianstar 10:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I think we should use the Shilpa Shetty image because it is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.0 License. And more Indian women look like Shilpa than the tribal women shown currently. N ikkul 18:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Rahib, Demo is a Latin prefix meaning people. Hence, an image in the demography section should represent what most of the people look like. The pic of Shilpa has nothing to do with her being a movie star. That is why the caption says "An Indian Woman" and not "Shilpa Shetty, the famous movie star" Moreover, the pic looks more like a typical Indian woman than the current demography pic with the women who have holes cut in their noses. The reason she is up there is not because she is a movie star but because she looks like a typical Indian. I dont see how the fact that she happens to be a movie star can make her not look Indian. Since it was one of the few Indian uncopyrighted pics on Wikipedia, I recomended the pic to be given consideration.
I also think the bharat natayam dancer should be under culture. I also feel that the two pics of people in the Chennai and Bangalore markets are too unclear. No one is facing the camera in either one and so you cant see much about the people. pz out guys --Nikkul
I never said she looks like an average Indian woman, because most Indian women dont look like that. BUT, she looks MORE average THAN the tribal women. A movie star is not at all representative of a country of 1 billion people. But the tribal women are even less representative. Let me state again...the pic looks more like a typical Indian woman than the current demography pic with the women who have holes cut in their noses. Please do not twist my words. Its bad taste. Thank you. --Nikkul —Preceding unsigned comment added by nikkul (talk • contribs) and —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.151.32.254 (talk • contribs)
I like user:BovineBeast's comment in an above section, "I'd say it (the Apatani 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." How about the Apatani image along with the Chennai street scene image for the demography section? I like the contrast between the two images: one is of self conscious individuals, the other is of a workaday crowd; one from the northeast, the other from the south; and one tribal, the other very much urban. We may need to reduce their thumbnail sizes to accommodate them in the (small) section. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
The problem with the previous comment is that the Apatani image does not represent all of the north. And I dont think having two images is possible on an Indian wikipedia page because apparently, the Laws of the Wikiproject India explicitily forbid any more than one image per section because that, apparently, is the way to gain featured status, although I feel otherwise. Nikkul 16:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
On my user page, i have coded what I feel the page should look like. Check it out. It might not be optimal, but its better than the current one, I feel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nikkul
Nikkul 16:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Here is what we have to realize- When someone comes to the India page and sees the tribal image, he or she naturally assumes that is what most indians look like because that is what the india (as a whole) page dictates to that person. And that is entirely false. Indians do not put black things in their noses. Indians do not dress like that. Most Indians do not look like that. I am almost offended that that image is there because it does not show the average indian look.
If the image was on the India's tribal culture page, then I would be totally fine with it. But the apanti image can not represent India as a whole because as I said earlier, .006% of the population looks like that. The image might be beautiful to some. It might show Indias inner beauty to some. But this is not a travel brochure to the Arunchal Pradesh region.
Our job on this wikipedia page is to show people what most Indians look like. Here is a more true picture of an Indian. http://www.rasika.org/images/oda.jpg http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/specials/vivah06/images/200_7.jpg http://www.rasika.org/images/jay_lt_blue_solo_lr_copy.JPG
Obviously, these are from the internet, but I would rather see an image like on of those than an apanti woman. Also, maybe you guys dont see it the way I do because a lot of India editors live in India, but in America, everyone uses Wikipedia. And this includes business leaders who are deciding to shift their jobs overseas. And, trust me, they probably wikipedia search a nation to get a background. And if you are a company ceo and youre scrolling down the india page, i think that the apanti image is going to scare them away, because it absolutely frightened me the first time i saw it and it still does (no offence, im just saying). And the chinese editors see that. And thats why they advertise their pages like crazy. and im not saying we should advertise, but im saying that we should give people the right impression of India, and the apanti image does not because it says that most indians put holes in their noses and live in tribes. Nikkul 23:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
incase you havent noticed, my friend, an Indian does not look like this: Image14 (gallery)
Summary of Previous comments taken from above[main points]: Ragib Well, I'm not at all an advocate of keeping the tribal image there
User:nikkul Indians do not put black things in their noses. Indians do not dress like that. Most Indians do not look like that.
IndianstarIndia article should also have attractive pictures.
IncmanThe current image for the demographics section is not at all helpful as it represents a very small section of the Indian populace.
user:Khazadum don't think the picture is "ugly" or anything. Just that it is the picture of a very small group of people in a very remote part of India that China makes claim to anyway. Should there not be a picture that is more representative of the Indian people?
user:Fowler&fowler As for the India-China problem, you do have a point,
User:indianstar I do feel pictures selected for Indian article does not go well with subject. We don't have to go only for featured pictures. We can select high quality pictures which suit well with the subject even if it is not a featured picture. There is a potential for improving better pictures for History,Culture(Tajmahal picture is OK) & Demography sections. I support changing current picture in demographic section.
user:nikkul But is India's tribal culture representative of India as a whole? —Preceding unsigned comment added by nikkul (talk • contribs)
Nikkul, I don't see why you fear having the picture of the Arunachal Pradesh tribal woman on the main page. The image is question has been assesed to be of featured quality by neutral reviewers. If the person from Arunachal Pradesh is not Indian, or not a tribal, then I'm sorry your assessment of the people of India is incorrect. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Our function here not to entertain ceo's. But i do agree that tribe picture is irrelevanttIndianhilbilly 13:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Nichalap, the fact that the picture gained featured status does not mean it represents India in the fairest way. I do not fear having the women, i just feel that the image does not belong since its such a small percent of the population. Its like... putting a picture of terrorists on the demographics section of Wikipedia Pakistan...yes there are terrorists in Pakistan, but are all pakistanis terrorists? no. Similarly, yes there are apanti tribals in India, but are all Indian's apanti tribals? no. To tell you the truth, I think that only the South Indian dancer comes even close to describing the people of India. Nikkul 13:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Here is another great picture: See Image15 (Gallery)
and one to represent the south: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Indian_bride_in_white.jpg
Nikkul 14:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
none of these images are "mine" per say, as I live on the other side of the world, I can not really take pics of India. But i do really like the indian bride image-nikkul
So whats wrong with the bridge image? I think most of us agree that the apanti pic does not show India as a whole. And though it might show india's inner beauty and all, most people who visit the India page are not going to think, "wow this pic must only represent India's tribal culture." or "wow, this pic shows India's inner beauty." most people who come to this page will not be like you and I. They wont know what Indians look like and they will be here to learn. Thus, the apanti image is faulty in showing them India, because it will make an average person assume that all indians look like that. unlike u and i, most people who visit this page do know see Indians every day, and showing them an image that represents only .006% of the population and an image that does not look Indian is giving them faulty info. (and like i said before, its like the terrorist & pak thing.)--nikkul
Well, maybe you didnt read but here it is again:
User:Ragib: Well, I'm not at all an advocate of keeping the tribal image there
User:nikkul Indians do not put black things in their noses. Indians do not dress like that. Most Indians do not look like that.
User:Indianstar:India article should also have attractive pictures.
user:Incman:The current image for the demographics section is not at all helpful as it represents a very small section of the Indian populace.
user:Khazadum: don't think the picture is "ugly" or anything. Just that it is the picture of a very small group of people in a very remote part of India that China makes claim to anyway. Should there not be a picture that is more representative of the Indian people?
user:Fowler&fowler: As for the India-China problem, you do have a point,
user:indianhilbilly: But i do agree that tribe picture is irrelevantt
User:indianstar: I do feel pictures selected for Indian article does not go well with subject. We don't have to go only for featured pictures. We can select high quality pictures which suit well with the subject even if it is not a featured picture. There is a potential for improving better pictures for History,Culture(Tajmahal picture is OK) & Demography sections. I support changing current picture in demographic section.
user:nikkul But is India's tribal culture representative of India as a whole?
Also, I do not think that alliances and/or sockpuppets are the way to make any article better. Nikkul 01:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The picture for the Demographics section shouldn't be of any people, tribal or otherwise. It is impossible to accurately represent India's demographics with one or two pictures of people in India. Use either a visual from the main Demographics of India article or simply don't use pictures at all for that section. The population density or literacy maps are fitting considering the current text of the section, so perhaps one of those should be used in this article instead of the picture of people. What do y'all think? The Behnam 03:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Im not Indian, myself, but i have seen A LOT Of Indians, and I do have to say, none of them looked like the tribals shown on the India wikipedia website. Coollemonade 16:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with coollemonade.XavierIcI 03:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
A ridiculous discussion, I feel. So a picture of an Apatani tribal woman who doesn't look remotely Indian is favoured over a picture of Shilpa Shetty, someone who actually looks Indian but is not favoured because she is an unrepresentative movie star? I only came across this discussion while following the image links (I'm also the biggest contributor to Shilpa Shetty) and I strongly disagree with a good number of rationales being employed here. For me this is a complete no-brainer; Shetty is more representative of "Indian looking people" than a tribal woman and there should be no objection to using a freely-licensed picture to illustrate the point, at least until a supposedly "better" image is found. Ekantik talk 04:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Though, to be fair, Image:Amitabh_Bachchan.jpg could also be used as it is also freely-licensed. So take your pick. For the record, I was instrumental in getting both the Amitabh and Shilpa images freely-licensed for Wikipedia. Ekantik talk 04:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I am setting up a "proposals" and "votes" subsection, so that we can keep track of where things are in the discussion. Fowler&fowler«Talk»
Why Air Force picture? The Agni-II gives India the most important capability to India of a retalitory nuclear strike. Agni is used by the Army and the IAF. The Navy will also have a sub launched Agni-III. Let the Agni-III come, then Agni-II can be replaced with the Agni-III image. Chanakyathegreat 03:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd really like to assume good faith, but Huniebunie (talk · contribs), XavierIcI (talk · contribs), Coollemonade (talk · contribs) all edit one other's user pages, and seem to act just like Nikkul (talk · contribs) in pushing their own images in the demographics section. The last thing we need here is sockpuppetry, or a group of meatpuppets pushing some agenda. I apologize in advance, but the mutual editing of user pages of these users and the replacement of images in the article DOES look quite interesting. --Ragib 02:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, first of all, let me just say that we are four different people. I am sorry that we happen to know each other outside of wikipedia. And I am further sorry that (i think) coollemonade made a link connecting us together. At that time, i did not know how to make interwiki links, and that is why she editted it. And if that is not allowed on wikipedia, then i appologize in advance. I can not speak for the others, but the reason I am doing this is simple. Sometime in the future, I am going to print out my history log and show it to an internship in hopes of making it in. I have done a lot of research in the past about India and I feel I know much about the nation. That is why I started contributing to this page. Being a new user, I had not read the concensus link, and i did not know the procedure for it. So i am sorry about changing the pic. Second of all, we do not act like nikkul. Just because he was not lazy and made an account first does not mean that we are trying to emulate him. He is an editor. As am I, as are you, as is anyone else. For example, I completely disagree with his claim that we should jazz this page up b/c ceo's come here a lot. This is an encyclopedia, and it should show a fair article of India. In terms of demographics, it should give the right information and show a just picture (if there is one there). And this is where my thought comes in. I do not think that the pic is a fair representation of india. If the France wikipedia page were to have an African immigrant's French born son on their page, i don't think that the pic would stay there long. Isnt the son a citizen of France? yes he is. but he'd be the minority. and the pic would go. I think that we should switch pics every now and then, which someone else had mentioned up there. As a wikipedia user and as a resident of this world, i think that i should have my vote on something that i feel right about. And i am sooo sorry that it happens to be what someone else feels as well, but i cant change my thought because someone else feels the same way. And my vote counts just as much as anyone else's. And i dont think that i should be treated any differntly because of my opinions than someone else who disagress with me. I am an editor of wikipeida. i am here only to make this site better. Whenever i am on this name, i help make the india related sites better. I also edit other sites (non india related) with my computer's ip address. So overall i do not feel that my vote should not count because i feel a certain way that others might disagree with. And thanks for letting me know the polocies and providing me links. If any one has any question about me, please ask it on my talk page b/c this is not the place to continue this discussion. I understand that when people support something that you do not, it is human nature to suspect that they might be cheating, but at the same time, I am partially offended. We are not some alliance or anything and we dont vote together at all. I vote on how I feel and the rest do the same. if you would like to talk to the others, you can go to their talk page, but they might take time to respond b/c nikkul & coollemonade are on vacation. and xavier....well lets just say all college students are lazy. Anyway, i hope i have cleared things up. I vote on how I feel and that's the way it is. And im trying to get 100 edits done so that you do not suspect that I am a sockpuppet, but unfortunately life doesnt come for free. And I have school and job to worry about, but im working on the 100 editsHuniebunie 12:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
The .ogg file on the website saying its national anthem of india is contrary to the indian constitution. The national anthem should only last for 52 seconds if sung correctly. The one here lasts 110 seconds. Please post the original. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Doctorsrk (talk • contribs) 03:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC).
Alot of the interwiki links appear to be almost deadlinks. Almost 40 of them lead to speedydelete pages or pages that are simply empty or have an untranslated English(!) text on them. I had removed those, but (understandibly) they were readded by A4bot. What could be done here? — N-true 02:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I discussed this in passing at the Mumbai talk page, but does anyone think that AIDS information should be added to this page, as India is the country with the highest number of HIV/AIDS affected people on Earth (see AIDS article, 5.7 million infections, 0.9% of the population). While percentage-wise it is not as high as some African countries, I still think it deserves a sentence or two here. Any thoughts? Wikipedia brown 18:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I think we should not simply focus on AIDS, but rather add a couple of sentences on health issues in India in the Demographics section. These would include "persistent malnutrition, water-borne diseases (such as, dysentery), infectious diseases (such as, malaria) etc and AIDS". In order to present an accurate summary of a complex topic, we should also point out the notable successes, such as "increased life-expectancy since independence, small-pox eradication, polio's near eradication and qualified success of vaccination and family planning programs". Of course the exact list of topics, language and references need to be decided yet. Here are some possible sources (there are many, many more available): , , . Abecedare 17:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Since this section is becoming quite long, I've opened a separate section below on the creation of a "Public Health and Environment" section in the India page. Please comment in that section below, if you would like such a section. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
The picture for the Demographics section shouldn't be of any people, tribal or otherwise. It is impossible to accurately represent India's demographics with one or two pictures of people in India. Use either a visual from the main Demographics of India article or simply don't use pictures at all for that section. The population density or literacy maps are fitting considering the current text of the section, so perhaps one of those should be used in this article instead of the picture of people. What do y'all think? The Behnam 03:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Indian_mathematics#Request_for_comment:_Reliable_Sources_for_Indian_Mathematics Feedback is requested for a problem on the Indian mathematics page, where two users have a disagreement about what constitutes reliable sources for claims in the article. 05:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd suggest India should immediately and secretly develop "minimal" weaponry that has potential to destroy the earth, because
1. It is very inexpensive to develop such technologies.
2 . India can use it to negotiate with superpowers. Sounds strange but current superpowers bully during negotiations. God and religion are distinct. 09:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
What is the opinion on adding Thailand into the list of nations in the vicintiy of India. Proof:http://go.hrw.com/atlas/norm_map/thailand.gif
Chanakyathegreat 03:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Someone has injected this comments into the lead section. it currently battles high levels of poverty, persistent malnutrition, and environmental degradation. It need to be removed. I cannot find a similar one in any other nations (eg:People's Republic of China) lead section.
Chanakyathegreat 03:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
23% of people in India are said to be under poverty which is a lower amount. The statement high levels of poverty is correct if the poverty level is atleast above 50% of the population. 23% cannot be called as high level. If the statement is made to state that the poor people in India are in millions, then also the statement cannot be high level since there are 77% of the population who are not under poverty, which is a very huge number.
Another is environmental degradation. The environmental degradation in India is not as severe in U.S.A or China. All the nations in the world today face one or other kinds of environmental degradation. In all those articles I cannot find the lead section containing the same sentences.
Chanakyathegreat 13:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the environmental degradation is not so relavent here, especially when it is a universal problem and not one specific in scale or kind, to India. Poverty, true it is a problem, and a big one. But just like to add, that the artificial correction concept is not new, it is used in the PPP method of GDP. But yes, that also does not change basic ground reality. The line as it now stands, inplies all those problems are of "high levels". It might be better to make the line more neutral like "It battles poverty, ..." and do away with subjective terms like "high levels". the link is there for people to see, they can draw their own conclusions of the largeness of it. Can mention any other problem if it is missing from the currecnt sentence. But environmental degradation, I feel can be removed.AJ-India 21:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
In the AIDS section, it was suggested that we might consider having a small section on the India page on Public Health and Environment (which would include AIDS, but also other public health challenges and successes (like eradication of small-pox) and the same for the environment). I wonder what people think about this section. As Saravask observed in the AIDS section above, some to the data is sobering, but it needs to be a part of the India page.
It would be great if other editors could comment on the creation of such a section. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Here are some references. Please add others. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, that's fine. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
motto of country is: satyam+eva jayathe
eva in sanskrith used to emphasise. its does not mean "alone". so "truth itself triumphs" or just "truth triumphs" would be better. help me by your version of motto, im not much good in english emphasising words.
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.