Talk:India/Archive 24

Based on the concensus we arrived at two weeks back (now archived), here is a draft for inclusion of "classical languages" in the Culture section.

Draft

(Addition)"Four languages of high antiquity with a body of ancient literature which is considered a valuable heritage have been accorded classical language status by the Government of India. These are: Sanskrit, Tamil, Kannada and Telugu.

(Existing)"The earliest works of Indian literature were transmitted orally and only later written down.[124]"

(Existing - modified) "These included works of Sanskrit literature – such as the early Vedas, the epics Mahābhārata and Ramayana, the drama Abhijñānaśākuntalam (The Recognition of Śakuntalā), and poetry such as the Mahākāvya[125] – and the Tamil Sangam literature[126], the Kannada Kavirajamarga(Sastri 1955, p. 355) and the Telugu Mahabharata(Sastri 1955, p. 367) Thanks, Dineshkannambadi (talk) 20:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Nichalp is taking a short break. So we can wait for him to get back and finalise the draft. So dont bother to post your views yet. thanks, Dineshkannambadi (talk) 20:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

this is a minor political gimmick. I don't see how it has any place in this article. Should be discussed on languages of India, not here. dab (𒁳) 20:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It may be minor to you, it may be a political gimmick to you, not to the expert committe that made the decision. Please convey your opinions to the Govt of India that made this decision.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 22:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

this is the India article at Wikipedia. It isn't going to cover every "expert committee" that ever sat down in the country, it is going to follow Wikipedia guidelines, in this case WP:DUE and WP:IINFO. dab (𒁳) 16:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) My suggestion is to make it simpler. The Government of India has accorded classical language status to four Indian languages: Sanskrit, Tamil, Kannada and Telugu.—Preceding unsigned comment added by RegentsPark (talk • contribs) 22:52, 16 November 2008

I'm ok with this draft. "Classical language status" should be pipe-linked with Languages of India#Official classical languages Thanks AreJay (talk) 23:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I guess Arejay meant the simpler version suggested by RegentsPark.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, RegentsPark's draft looks good to me. I think we can give this 2-3 days and get everyone else's feedback and then go ahead and add this to the article. AreJay (talk) 01:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why we are discussing the phrasing here. Per earlier discussion here, we have had the relevant sentence in the Languages in India page for two weeks now. The same sentence goes here. It is:

The tense structure is a little off; I would change it to:

We need to make sure that it is understood that this official status is recent, and that this particular use of "classical" may not be the more common one. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

PS There was never any consensus for the rest of the proposed addition (Kavirajamarga etc.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I dont see any reason why the dates (year when accorded) should be included. It is not consistant with the rest of the article, where other classical arts, recognised by the government of India, have been included. A reader can get that info with one click.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there is no need to include dates. If the GOI recognizes four languages as classical, then it does so at this time and that's all that matters. Also, since the statement clearly says that the GOI has accorded classical status to the languages, it is probably not necessary to belabor the point that their definition may not be the same as the generally accepted one. (For one thing, we'll need to find a WP:RS that says that their definition is not the same as the standard one!) Best to keep it simple. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 14:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I dont see any reason to burden the reader with what is classical and what is not. Every nation has a right to decide what it means by "classical" from its point of view. As such, the citation (in quotes) in the Languages of India article to which this line will link to, specifies what that the GOI defines as classical. Any attempt to lead the reader to what is "classical classical" and what it means here is WP:SYN, an attempt to create an opinion.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid we do have the responsibility to not mislead a reader who doesn't click on the link. The current phrasing gives no clue as what this means. Is this a time-honored "status" like that conferred by the Academie Francais or even India's Sangeet Natak Akademi (National Academy of Music, Dance and Drama) which, since 1950, has declared certain dance forms to be classical? Or is this a latter-day "tag" that India's Sahitya Akademi (National Academy of Letters) explicitly voted against having, and then had its recommendations ignored by the Government of the day? There is no reason why we should inadvertently let the casual intelligent reader (who wouldn't think to click on "classical language" because the meaning is so obvious) go away with the former impression.

I'm afraid every nation does not decide the usage of "classical." The word "classical" has clearly documented usage, one that is defined in dictionaries and used in reliable secondary sources and encyclopedias. To date no one has been able to find a single reference on Google Scholar that refers to Kannada or Telugu as "classical languages." However, on a whim, I can easily turn up dozens of references not only on Google Scholar, but also in standard encyclopedias like Britannica and Encarta, which not only refer to both Sanskrit and Tamil as classical languages, but also refer to Kannada and Telugu as vernacular (regional) languages. Why do you think this is the case? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

PS I've just created a subpage of my user page User:Fowler&fowler/Classical languages of India, which has some standard references on the classical languages of India. These are Encyclopaedia Britannica (excerpts from signed article on "Dravidian Literature" by A.K. Ramanujan), Encyclopedia Encarta (article on Indian Literature), the book Dravidian Languages by Bhadriraju Krishnamurti, and the book Dravidian Languages by Sanford Seaver. You will get an idea of what the mainstream thinks. As you will see from the time stamp, it took me about 30 minutes for this entire exercise. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Fowler, your arguements are based on your personal belief that Kannada and Telugu are not classical, something which is obvious from your arguements so far, and something you have been trying to pound down everyones chest. The Government of India took into confidence the opinions of nine scholars about what they think is "classical" with a good reason: They are "Experts". What matters here is what the "GOI" thinks is classical and this can be included easily in a footnote or a link. Can you prove that the decisions of the Sangeet Natak Akademi are more reliable than those of Sahitya Akademi?Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I said the Sahitya Akademi recommended that no language be officially declared classical. (I have clarified it more now.) In other words, they said, let the secondary sources provide that evidence. And those, for a hundred years, have only described two languages of India to be classical languages, Sanskrit and Tamil. Please don't try to pin this on my personal belief. If you think it is personal why don't you find some sources on Google Scholar (of the quality that I have provided in my sub-page link User:Fowler&fowler/Classical languages of India) that say Kannada and Telugu are classical languages? Anything perhaps written by that mysterious "expert committee" on Google Scholar that confirms this? I've been waiting for two weeks now. Why is it that I can find the contrary evidence in 15 minutes? Anyway, I provided the link to my subpage because I wanted the ordinary reader of this talk page to see how ridiculous this "tag" is. There is no reason for the India page to sway to breeze of every linguistic sub-nationalism in India. The secondary sources, the contemporary internationally recognized ones, are enough. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I didnt know A.K. Ramanujan, Sanford B. Seaver, Kamil Zvelebil, Bhadriraju Krishnamurti and the editors in Encarta are all incarnations of Fowler&fowler. On a different note, I would be curious to know the names of "scholars" appointed by GoI. Well, may be the solution to the problem is to write what all these incarnations do think and what GoI had to decide (decided). Docku: What up? 00:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia, may I remind you.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree with fowler&fowler about the definition of classical languages etc. etc. However, if we are going to include a statement about which languages have been declared classical by the GOI, I favor a simple statement approach, without explanation. No sense, IMHO, in belaboring something. Of course, whatever the consensus is is fine by me.--Regents Park (bail out your boat) 00:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I dont see the need for including the list of classical languages in this summarized section. I feel like this is just another effort to make South India superior to the North in this article and doesn't keep NPOV. Just an fyi, not everything the Government of India says must land on this article. Nikkul (talk) 05:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

After reading some more of the secondary literature on classical languages of India, which I will continue to append to my subpage User:Fowler&fowler/Classical languages of India, I am now convinced more than ever that we will be putting out incorrect information if we add any statement in any section of the India page (however qualified or bare) which includes Kannada and Telugu in that list. I am therefore changing my earlier vote to an oppose in all cases and adding to user:Nikkul's oppose above. Regardless of what the Government of India does in its official capacity, we are beholden only to the reliable secondary sources. These, in my view, are unanimously agreed that there are only two classical languages in India, Sanskrit and Tamil, and, moreover, that both Kannada and Telugu are medieval vernacular languages, albeit a little older than other modern Indian languages. I will, of course, respect whatever consensus is arrived at here. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is not about oppose or support. It is about the draft. That vote happened a few weeks back when you supported. If you dont like its addition, I suggest you then go for a Rfc after it is added.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and added the draft approved by myself, Arejay and RegentsPark. It can be tweaked after Nichalp comes back.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Including the opinion of the "mysterious experts" appointed by GoI and not including the mainstream opinion provided by F&F will be breach of WP:NPOV. Docku: What up? 02:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Experts dont become "mysterious" just because you dont know their names. Do you know the names of experts who elected the six dances of India as "classical". Do you know the names of the experts on the Nobel committee who voted for Tagore's work for Nobel-prize?. Do you even care?. There is no rule that the names of experts need to be published, while it would be nice to have that info. What is official is official. As far as Fowler's list and his arguements go, anyone who reads his comments from the very beginning (few weeks back), his constant verbal opposition, his later support vote, his opposition to the draft and his final oppose would wonder about his real intentions(no offence meant ofcourse).Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Did u even care to read the page created by F&F before attacking him ad hominem? I dont think u did, ur reply was instantaneous u didnt even probably open the page. Docku: What up? 02:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

That was not an attack, just an honest observation.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPOV says

The sentence Dinesh added reflects only one significant view by those "mysterious scholars". Including also the mainstream scholars view would be belaboring the issue like RegentsPark mentioned. Therefore, not including the information is the best solution. Simple as it is, either include all viewpoints or none. Do we care about wp policies in this page anymore or is it just a propaganda page? Docku: What up? 03:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the Wikipedia rules, and it is possible that I am in violation of the letter of the law on voting (however, not of the spirit). I will let Nichalp decide how the chips have fallen, but I want to state forcefully again that we can't put out misinformation. That is exactly what we are risking.

The effort to advertise greater and greater antiquity for Kannada doesn't just affect the India page. For example, the lead of the Indian literature page, promotes extinct Kannada works, works of which not a single line has survived in anyone's memory, but which are nevertheless advertised with five footnotes, no less. How does this grotesque promotion of antiquity help anyone? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Dravidian POV is so clear to see here. Scholars have approved the Indian classical status to 3 Dravidian languages. Indo-European just 1. That's the real version everybody's whining here. Nobody's whining about for instance "classical japanese language", though it's age isn't any way to compare with Greek or Latin. Antiquity and classical language are obviously two different terms. --Kalarimaster (talk) 04:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Which scholars? names? Docku: What up? 05:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You could have get your information by now, if you would follow the recommendation of Dineshkannambadi to contact the ministry of culture. Therefore I assume, that you don't really care about it. How about stopping your kindergarten style? Stop the Anti-Dravidian POV. Stop the whining. Accept the decision of India. --Kalarimaster (talk) 06:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The burden of proof lies with you, the person who wants to add information. Docku: What up? 06:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing to proof. Ministry of Culture official statement is enough. You are accusing the ministry of culture of lying about the expert committee. --Kalarimaster (talk) 07:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You may say so. Docku: What up? 13:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we could add something on the origin of the word "bharat", which is sanskrit, meaning "the enlightened", indians were called "bharati" meaning "the enlightened". Also, the first time bharat was cited is in this shlokam- "Uttaram yad samudrasya, himadreeyasya dakshinam, varsham tat bhaaratm namah, bhaarati yatra santati". I do not clearly remember the shlokam, if there is anyone here who could incorporate my suggestions. I felt it can be added since the origin of india, hindustan etc are mentioned.. 41.209.23.34 (talk) 09:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Pallu

Names_of_India#Bharat is not not referenced as well. Can someone help sourcing it? --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 12:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Added a reference. Indirectly from the Vayu Purana.--Regents Park (bail out your boat) 23:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

All the talk about the classical languages reminded me, we need the infobox to read, Official languages of the Union and Official languages of the states instead of just official languages and scheduled languages. Especially since the term scheduled languages will only make sense to people with a technical knowledge of the Constitution. I changed that accordingly.I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 04:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You are right. The constitution states "Official languages of the Union" and "Official languages of the states" and "Schedule 8 languages". The state official languages have nothing to do with schedule 8 languages, since any language of the state - non schedule 8 languages too - can be adopted as state language.

My purposal:

Official languages of the Union: no change

Official languages of the States: see article

Languages of the 8th schedule: no change

--Kalarimaster (talk) 09:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 20:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

No please don't go for anything. There is not only no consensus for this edit, but the last time consensus was achieved on this issue, India=Union. Here are 15 reliable sources that have interpreted the "Union" as expressed in the Constitution to mean exactly India. If you have any doubt over this, I invite you or any one else on the India page to go for a Wikipedia mediation on this issue. We can't keep reinventing the wheel every year, because a few newly arrived editors apparently think the wheel is new. Here are the references (it is just a link) from this talk page (July 2007). If you don't restore the edit as is, I will get admin help. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Here they are (this is just a link, click "show"):

Thanks for your opinion. But I think, we will go by the constitution as you advocated all time on this talkpage. If we include the scheduled languages in the box, then there should be also a link to the official languages of the states. Period. --Kalarimaster (talk) 13:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear Kalarimaster, Making unilateral edits, without seeking consensus, on a much visited FA like India, comes close to vandalism, especially since these issues have been discussed to death before. Please read the discussions of July 2007 in the archives above. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I have read the discussion. I was not able to see an single argument, why state language were excluded in the end. The constitution defines the state languages also, but gives the right to choose to the regional governments. So why shouldn't we include this here? What's your problem? --Kalarimaster (talk) 17:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, that's fine. You still need to (i) state your argument why "Official languages of States" need to be in the "India" page, and not just on the States individual pages and (ii) gain consensus here for the edit. Unless you attend to (i) we can't even begin to discuss (ii). Your argument thus far has been, "All the talk about the classical languages reminded me, we need the infobox to read, Official languages of the Union and Official languages of the states instead of just official languages and scheduled languages. Especially since the term scheduled languages will only make sense to people with a technical knowledge of the Constitution."

(a) Are you saying that "Languages of the 8th schedule" are identical to "Official languages of States?" Or, (b) Are you saying that "Official languages of the States are specified listed in the Constitution of India, independent of the 8th schedule?" Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The States form the Indian union. Official State languages are specified in the Indian constitution as well as the Union languages themselves and the languages of the 8th schedule. This has nothing to do with the States articles. It's about the constitution of India, "the source of the infobox" -fowler&fowler. Official State languages and 8th schedule are different in all ways. You must know that. Please answer my questions, too, if you have any interest in consensus. --Kalarimaster (talk) 18:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I misspoke in my post above. I meant "listed" instead of "specified" (which is a vague term). (i) Are you saying Official State languages are listed in the Constitution of India in the same way that, Schedule 8 languages as well as Hindi and English are listed? (ii) Are you also saying that in order to change an Official State language a constitutional amendment is required (as it is for any change in the list of Schedule 8 languages)? If your answer to either question is yes, could you point to a page in the Constitution? If your answer to both questions is no, then could you clarify how the Official State languages are "specified?" Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

PS What questions have you asked? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, whether every State language is listed in the constitution. The constitution specifies, that state languages shall be chosen by the State government. Any amendment of this article 347 is up to the union government. 345. Subject to the provisions of articles 346 and 347, the Legislature of a State may by law adopt any one or more of the languages in use in the State or Hindi as the language or languages to be used for all or any of the official purposes of that State: Provided that, until the Legislature of the State otherwise provides by law, the English language shall continue to be used for those official purposes within the State for which it was being used immediately before the commencement of this Constitution. 346. The language for the time being authorised for use in the Union for official purposes shall be the official language for communication between one State and another State and between a State and the Union: Provided that if two or more States agree that the Hindi language should be the official language for communication between such States, that language may be used for such communication. 347. On a demand being made in that behalf the President may, if he is satisfied that a substantial proportion of the population of a State desire the use of any language spoken by them to be recognised by that State, direct that such language shall also be officially recognised throughout that State or any part thereof for such purpose as he may specify.

Since you were unwilling to answer my simple question, I'm assuming you are not interested in a consensus and thus will stop to seek a consensus with you. --Kalarimaster (talk) 19:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I see what Kalarimaster means. In Official Language part in Constitution under chapter I comes Languages of the union, and under Chapter II comes Regional languages and chapter IV says

similar to but not same as the constitutional requirement for Hindi development. I think Kalarimaster's argument is since both languages of the union and regional languages come under the Official languages in Constitution, it should be mentioned here also same. But according to F&F, all secondary sources except US state department say Hindi and English are the only official languages. Docku: What up? 20:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I had to be away, and I didn't see these. OK, so KalariMaster has answered "No" to both my questions and described how the State languages are "prescribed" in the Constitution. This was exactly my goal. He refers to Articles 345 to 347. Fine. But just because the Constitution has described how the States should choose their official language doesn't make that choice worthy of mention on the India page. After all, part VI of the Constitution (The States), articles 152 to 237, are devoted to the states; that is a whopping 85 articles! They include articles on how to choose a Governor, how to constitute the state legislature, how to manage finances etc. etc., but we don't list (on the India page) the results of all the choices. Under "Government" in the India infobox, we don't list the Governor, Chief Minister and Chief Justice of the High Court of each state; under GDP, etc. we don't list the GDP of each state (although the constitution gives specific direction on state finances) Why should we do it for languages? The Official State language belongs to the page of the State. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

PS To Docku, The US State Department, however, says Hindi is the national language; that would be even harder to stomach for people who don't even consider it the Official language. I think since US doesn't have any official language, only a de facto "national" language, they probably mean that these 22 languages (schedule 8) are officially recognized (which is true) and among them, Hindi represents the nation. I can't be certain what they mean, but I doubt if Kalarimaster is about to agree to Hindi being listed as the "national language" and the remaining 22 listed as official languages. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Alone the fact, that the State Languages are prescribed in the Indian constitution, is enough. --Kalarimaster (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Fine. But just because the Constitution has described how the States should choose their official language doesn't make that choice worthy of mention on the India page.

Fantastic. This is the answer I was waiting for. Fowler proved, that he doesn't care about constitution as long as it tells us something FOR Hindi. As it is the case, Fowler proved, he is pushing clearly a POV into an article. Neutrality is not longer assured. Thus, I'm reverting the article according WP:NPOV. --Kalarimaster (talk) 08:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The article's intro claims that Islam arrived in the first century CE. Mohamed was not born until the 7th century CE!! Someone should fix that! 160.39.225.111 (talk) 18:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear IP, it is millenium, not century. read it again. Docku: What up? 19:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a bit aside from just editorial matters. I dont know what the origins of the people involved in the official language discussions are, but I hope all parties understand that language and linguistic identities are an extremely sensitive issue in India. This is quite understanble since the 'Indian' political identity is very new (about 60 years) whereas the linguistic identities date back centuries. The emphasis given to Hindi has undeniably caused tensions, and many of the amendments, laws and political developments in Republican India have been a result of these. I think if its made explicitly clear that the states specify their own official language, even if its just two lines, it is worth the price in brevity. I know that one might say that might mean, by extension, this article must then talk about governors, chief ministers etc of the states. But the political results of linguistic states are not as important to various Indians (emotionally at least) as just the fact that there is a Tamil state, Punjabi state ... and so on i.e a sort of a legally recognized homeland based on language. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 21:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course, we are aware. But there are higher principles on Wikipedia, independent of everyone's personal sensitivities. One of them is: making edits only if a preponderance of reliable, i.e. WP:RS secondary sources are behind them. Wikipedia is not a self-help group. Why is it that I can produce with very little effort two dozen reliable sources for these edits, (and I don't have any interest in the topic of the Official languages of India), and all the linguistic-nationalists with their precious sensitivities have produced nothing in two years? The same conversation repeats every six months when yet another editor—with a chip on their shoulder—turns up and decides to upgrade this page with the banalities of their family folk-lore. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is there so much emphasis on poverty. India has become superpower. Mentions of poverty and malnutrition do not befit a superpower. I returned to India last year and travelled across India. Guess what? I saw no poverty! If we do mention poverty, then poverty should be mentioned on every country's page. I suspect Western bias in people who have never been in powerful and glorious country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ommalik (talk • contribs) 20:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you only met up with the rich elite and didn't go outside the upper-class districts in the big metros, let alone Bihar. Look up the life expectancy stats etc, Most education officials and businesspeople etc I know nowadays are always going to China and Vietnam for investments, and they like to come back and tell everyone how amazing everything is, obviously only thinking of the pampering given to them to score a business partner. Then they usually harp on like champagne socialists and moan about how bad inequality is in real socialist countries like Australia and Western Europe. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 03:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

(Question to User:Ommalik) Which part of India did you visit? I am seriously curious. --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 07:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Apparently no place near where Matty Hayden was ;) AreJay (talk) 07:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

There is half a sentence in the lead and to sentences in economy that talk about poverty. That really isn't a lot, especially when we are supposed write from a neutral perspective. Most of the information in the article indirectly praises the country. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 07:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

per Poverty in India, According to the new World Bank's estimates on poverty based on 2005 data, India has 456 million people, 41.6% of its population, living below the new international poverty line of $1.25 (PPP) per day. The World Bank further estimates that 33% of the global poor now reside in India. Moreover, India also has 828 million people, or 75.6% of the population living below $2 a day, compared to 72.2% for Sub-Saharan Africa. It is true that poverty has fallen significantly, from 54.9% in 1973 to 41.6% today, but poverty certainly remains a major obstacle to India's economic progress. India certainly isn't the world's poorest country by a long shot, but it is probably the poorest newly industrialized country. If you like, you can spin it in the way that praises India for how it manages to be an emerging superpower even in spite of this gigantic socio-economic burden. --dab (𒁳) 10:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I wrote a similar message to Ssolbergj (in Wikimedia Common) who created these retarded maps. I hope you guys here can back me. It's a clear bias and I don't think that being bias is a policy of Wikipedia. It is high time things are straightened out.

(Reference: vs )

Dear Ssolbergj, your map of China colors Arunachal Pradesh in light green which implies it is somehow rather a part of China although under Indian administration and claimed as an integral part of India. I agree this is a disputed region by both countries. In that case why doesn't the India map have Aksai Chin (a Chinese administered region claimed by India) be colored light green on the India map? Why double standards apply for Aksai and Arunachal although they are both disputed?

Same goes with Pakistan occupied kashmir. Shouldn't those areas be indicated in light green too? Please maintain neutrality as prescribed under Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I look forward to you recoloring those maps with a NPOV in mind and not China slanted views. Thank you.

If they don't want to change it, I suggest we change the map of India to its old form (2d one) as it is more accurate.

I look forward to all your replies / opinions / assistance as I am not an established user on Wikipedia. Thank you.

I suggest we remove this map, and tag it with {{POV-map}} =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The India map is fine now. The PRC map is missing a patch of bright green at Aksai Chin. This needs to be addressed at Talk:People's Republic of China, not here. --dab (𒁳) 10:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

:) Thanks for bringing a smile to my face. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

ALL please goto NPOV noticeboard (). we are discussing about it there. All areas CLAIMED by INDIA, but administered by another country should be colored in light green. IE China occupied Kashmir and Pakistan occupied Kashmir. This is consistant with the Chinese map that colors Arnachal and Taiwan light green although not being administered by China. 218.208.204.181 (talk) 18:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

There are more languages in Nagaland than in Western Europe. It is a ridiculous demand to include languages besides Hindi. Where does one draw the line as to what qualifies as an important language and what doesn't? TheBlueKnight (talk) 09:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

the number of speakers? the eighth schedule? Obviously we cannot list 1,652 "mother tongues". But if we restrict ourselves to those spoken by >1% of the population, we're down to a dozen. Or, more than a million speakers: 26. --dab (𒁳) 10:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

And how is that fair to speakers of less than a million people? Are they any less Indian? TheBlueKnight (talk) 11:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the stable version of a week ago, listing Hindi as the official language, English as the subsidiary official languages, and the twenty one other Schedule 8 languages as officially recognized languages, in the infobox, is fine. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:DUE? We never said this article should contain a biography of every Indian who ever lived. --dab (𒁳) 16:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

PS There might have been a case for listing Hindi alone had history gone differently ... It is true that planned development of Hindi as the lingua franca of India began almost a century ago with Gandhi's major support. However, the Hindustani (Hindi-Urdu) version of Hindi—the bazaar form—that Gandhi supported and could speak himself, was soon forgotten, after his death, by the Hindi-chauvinists, such as Purushottam Das Tandon, who were influencing the framing of the constitution. Consequently, the Hindi that the Government of India started pushing after independence, for example, over the radio, was so Sanskritized, that in the 1950s many people in the Punjab, and not just the newly arrived partition refugees, began to tune in, for their news, to Radio Pakistan. That is, until the latter stopped making any distinction between Urdu and Persian. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

PPS (to Dab) I think you need to write another essay, this time on "Infobox fixation." :) The fixations on Wikipedia are apparently more focused now, and I am afraid WP:Lead fixation might not be comprehensive enough. The recent effort to add the official states languages in the infobox has not even bothered with demographic section of the India page (itself written in WP:SS) whose summary the infox is supposed to provide! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. We have literally tens of thousands of articles on topics of top importance, and they languish away in disrepair for years. But slap an infobox on some article, and a dozen people will spend a couple of hundred man-hours carving out an extremely delicate compromise of how exactly a complex issue should be reduced to an uninformative back-of-an-envelope summary. That's just humanity, I guess. --dab (𒁳) 16:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not a party here but the first sentence of this thread by BlueKnight and your comment above made my head spin. I completely agree to your sentiments. BTW, I would remember the Nagaland statement for a long long time....Amazing! Ok, sorry for the interruption - let the serious debate continue. --GPPande talk! 19:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, its just the fact that people (rightly or wrongly) often care more about how things are perceived by others than about the truth (whatever that may be) itself. If a reader reads the infobox and sees only Hindi as the official language then he or she will have a perception that Hindi is more important than other Indian languages (which is clearly not the truth), and many people feel that this should not be the case. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 20:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

a charitable, philanthropic outlook. A more adequate description of the endless Indian disputes here on Wikipedia would be, people trying to make things appear the way they think they ought to be, which usually involves their own group being the greatest ever. --dab (𒁳) 15:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Bias is just not an Indian thing. Bias is natural (humanly) and how well one attempts to overcome the inherency to stay objective will determine how good a editor they are going to be. Pushing ones view because one believes he knows better (out of arrogance) is also bias, just a different kind. Let us just remind ourself that this is not WP:FORUM. Docku: What up? 16:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

sure. which is why we have the WP:NPOV policy. Which seems to work pretty well on the whole. I didn't say the Indian disputes were the only one on Wikipedia. We would do well to remember WP:FORUM indeed, and remove obvious cases of idle pov-pushing on sight without bothering to rehash a stale debate. --dab (𒁳) 16:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

There are 13 festivals listed in the culture section. A ridiculously high number. I suggest we tone down and limit them to only significant festivals which needs to be debated here. =Nichalp «Talk»= 20:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Why not? How are we going to decide what we are going to remove? Docku: What up? 20:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Even if it is summary style, while it should discourage us from expanding on the festivals, not necessarily omitting. Docku: What up? 20:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Read the sentence aloud, and hear yourself speak the sentence. That should perhaps answer why I call for a revamp. =Nichalp «Talk»= 20:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's be consequent Nichalp. Cut all festivals and culture overall, which have nothing to do with Hindi speakers. This is the only right way to represent India. --Kalarimaster (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Kalarimaster, could u pls stop your anti-Hindi ranting first. To Nichalp, ridiculously high number and thus needs to be cut down. doesnt sound logical to me. How are we going to decide what is significant, it is really subjective. Well, may be secondary sources. we will see. I will not be surprised if we end up with a bigger number at the end of this discussion. In any case, I am not going to stand in the way if there is going to be a productive and sensible consensus from this discussion. Docku: What up? 21:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

There is precedence for clearing up the list of festivals in an old archive. (In 2006 I think). =Nichalp «Talk»= 21:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Just confirming with you if it is this one. If there was something agreed at that time, why not we just go back to that version unless there are disagreements.Docku: What up? 21:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend to start new searches of the festivals. I get significant different results for all festivals, though I used the same google search terms as fowler. The new search should be based on the existing festivals on the page. --Kalarimaster (talk) 21:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I suggest we do what we did to address the never-ending list of cricketers in the Bangalore article. We mention 3 festivals and pipelink List of Festivals in India. The draft I had in mind would look something like this:

Some popular festivals in India include Diwali, Eid ul-Fitr and Christmas (others). Thanks AreJay (talk) 22:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily against AreJay's version. I'm certainly in sympathy with the spirit of the version. However, we don't want a description to become too generic, otherwise a reader might rapidly begin to fade, and we do want the text to provide some qualitative information about India. If vignettes, however, accompany a list, a reader doesn't mind a list as long as it is not too long. How about some version of the following text, which was my rework of Nichalp's rework of Arvind's original version:

Festivals in India are celebrated with both ritual and fanfare. They celebrate the new year of various religions, the harvest, and the end of the monsoon. Some of the largest festivals cut across religious lines and include the Hindu festival of lights Diwali and water festival Holi, both increasingly boisterous outdoors celebrations; the Id, when Muslims distribute sweet vermicelli seviyan to their neighbours; and Christmas, when tinsel trees appear in shop windows.

It was posted on November 25, 2006, exactly two years ago. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Very well written. Is there any reason why this was ever removed from the article? I think we should use this draft in the article. If I had to be critical of anything, it's that this perhaps over-generalizes some aspects (e.g., distribution of sweet vermicelli to neighbors...not sure if that happens all across the country, I would favor perhaps talking about eidi, new clothes,zakat, etc.), but that's a minor issue that can be fine tuned. Thanks AreJay (talk) 22:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Well, it actually never made it. The following week we got into some argument over igudi or ugidi and it was downhill after that. Sounds like you know exactly what to do with the text. Have a go at it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Please deny recognition. Let user:Nichalp deal with it when he returns. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

There's simply too much info for me to read through. Could someone please summarize the crux of the issue? =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The infobox in the India page, since July 2007, has listed Hindi, English and 22 Schedule 8 languages, in this stable version, with Hindi, English mentioned by name, and Schedule 8 languages in a collapsed box. As you may recall, for many years, the infobox said only, "Hindi, English, and 21 other official languages." In July 2007, some editors argued here that no special favors should be granted to Hindi and English, and that all official languages should be listed in strict alphabetical order in the infobox. At that time, when you were away, there was a long RfC, and after a lot of back and forth, the stable version referred to above was agreed to. Now, some editors want to add the official languages of the states to the infobox as well, in this version. There is no support in the secondary sources for adding the official languages of the states to the meaning of the term "Official language(s) of India," as you will see from the sources I had collated in July 2007. Moreover, unlike the Schedule 8 languages, the official states' languages are not listed in the constitution; the states choose them. To be sure, guidelines for choosing Official States languages are provided in the constitution, but so are the guidelines for fixing the salary of a state legislator. Finally, most official state languages are listed in the Schedule 8 infobox anyway. The question is: do we stay with the current stable version, or should we expand the list again? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

PS In my view, the only change we need to make to the in this stable version is to change "Scheduled languages" (which is a little mysterious) to "Officially recognized" (the "languages" will be understood in the context). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I spent quite some time yesterday reading archives 27, 28 and 29 and past discussion in Talk:Official languages of India and was interesting to see where everyone stands on the issue. This is my take. Apparently, there is strong pro- and anti-Hindi POV here. Anti-Hindi POV wants to equate India=>Union=>Union Government and add the official languages of the states to subtly diminish the significance of Hindi and English. Pro-Hindi POV opposes it for apparently opposing reasons but the explanation given is that there is no room for official languages of states in India Page. I find it contradictory to ask for consitutional listing of state official languages whereas official languages of India is strictly based on secondary sources.

I believe both POV is wrong. For one, Language of India (not just Union Government) is English and Hindi, cut and clear. Language of states are not the same as the language of India and have no federal status.

In my opinion, adding the language of the states (though it has no federal status) to the infobox is purely a matter of preference and choice. The question should just be whether it is informative and relevant and is entirely subjective. If the question is if adding these languages of the states to the infobox diminish the significance of Hindi and English as official languages of India (though both are not the same), it probably does and may be that also explains some of the resistance in adding it. Honestly, I find Schedule 8 languages non informative for an average reader. Docku: What up? 15:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

We actually used to have a section on language conflicts in India. I would be grateful if people came to realized that their time is better spent working on an account of the problem in article space than filling talk archive after talk archive with circular debates. There is a problem. Let's document it, at the proper place. Living in denial doesn't make the problems go away. Trying to make Wikipedia fit your picture of reality is also bound to fail. You came here -- now you'll need to come to grips that there may be various views of the same reality. --dab (𒁳) 16:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

@Based on Fowlers reply (no one else has any contradictory statements so far) this is what I think: The scope of the article is India as a single unit, not what the states do or award recognition to. What the states decide to do should be mentioned in the corresponding article on the state. There should be no duplication of information. For example, if the government of Goa implements the UCC, then there is no need to mention that here. We mention it on the Goa page. We need to omit state-specific information as far as possible from this article. It's not in the scope. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello Nichalp, this would mislead the reader, though your arguments are reasonable and not negligible, that the article should be tightened to the Union level. I would support this view, if it was not blatantly wrong to keep the 8th schedule languages, since there is no reason for it to include them. Also it should be mentioned, that if somebody goes to India, and thinks Hindi is the only official language (and it will be often misinterpreted as national language), he would be very wondered, when he arrives in Kerala, where no signs of these languages will be seen except of central government related institutions. In other places they will see languages, which are not listed in the 8th schedule and so on. I urge everybody to follow the constitutional provisions of official languages. They are several important reasons to include the State languages in the infobox, but 8th schedule is nonsense. The best way to mention every language, which are used, is to implement all languages specified in the constitution. --Kalarimaster (talk) 19:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a very subjective viewpoint, thinking for a tourist, don't you think? =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

This is my viewpoint. And I don't care how subjective it is. The constitution gives me right in any case. It's your viewpoint, which is not compatible with anything, which makes sense. --Kalarimaster (talk) 19:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The constitution gives me right in any case.' That's a fallacy known as begging the question. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. --Kalarimaster (talk) 19:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I think so, please read the article. What's wrong with the 8th schedule languages? =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

If a tourist is coming to Kerala, he jolly well read our article on Kerala, an FA. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Where are the people with the WP:NOFORUM signal. Suddenly, they disappeared. --Kalarimaster (talk) 20:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Nichalp, cant the same logic be applied to virtually any aspect of this article ? If you say this article is only to talk about India, then why even list the subdivisions ? Why even mention the various cultures which are after all not Indian in the strict sense ? The only real thing that is truly Indian is the Constitution and it says that every state has the right to specify its official language. And the India infobox can certainly contain the consequence of this right. Listing Hindi as the sole official language could also imply that it is the official language of every state in India, which is clearly not the case. I think you guys are being a bit harsh on user:Kalarimaster. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 20:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Subdivisions are the building blocks of the nation-state called India. Your argument would have been valid had we talked about a specific district or taluka. Note the degrees of separation here.
2. Culture is not a state subject unlike languages, law or districts. I agree there are too many examples in the culture section that need to be cleaned up. It's a summary, and long lists of festivals are not required. The article must talk about cultural aspects of India that have wide recognition, as well as in far away regions so as not to avoid systemic bias. =Nichalp «Talk»= 20:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Subdivision are the building blocks? Funny. I thought India was a whole state all alone. Who needs States (with one having an own constitution)? --Kalarimaster (talk) 20:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You obviously chose to miss the concept of a nation state. Please read it up. =Nichalp «Talk»= 20:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You're right, FMT. As i said before, the opposite has no serious argument, while we have something like the Indian constitution, not as unimportant as some people here try to suggest. --Kalarimaster (talk) 20:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Kalarimaster, your comments are pretty vague. You cite petty examples such as tourists coming to Kerala, and then mention our arguments is not serious? Get over it please. =Nichalp «Talk»= 20:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

What's your argument please again? I just don't think, I've seen a single one. --Kalarimaster (talk) 20:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I obviously have nothing to argue about. You have cited an irrelevant example to support your something. Is your method of argument to confuse people as much as possible? Limit your comments to serious discussion, not about a tourist who prefer not to do homework on Kerala. We do not write articles for those who wish to remain blissfully ignorant on where Kerala is and what language is spoken there when arriving there. =Nichalp «Talk»= 20:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You obviously have to argue about your viewpoints on the article. As far as I can see, you have nothing provided yet, to counter the "tourist" argument, that the article would be misleading. And you have shown your arguments: Wikipedia is only for the "elite people". Could you cite a reference for your claim please? Don't you think, that if you are troubled already with a tourist, you can never convince me in any way to another direction? I say, constitution, what do you say? --Kalarimaster (talk) 20:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you please use edit summaries. See WP:NOTTRAVEL. I never said anything about "elite". Please use appropriate wording and not choose them for me? Thanks! =Nichalp «Talk»=

You are already in defense position. I never wanted to offend you. --Kalarimaster (talk) 21:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

(noindent) Kalarimaster has been blocked for a month for socking in the vote upstairs. See here. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

how thoughtful of some pov-pushers to fall apart on their own account, saving everyone involved a lot of time, I guess. --dab (𒁳) 16:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, Hkelkar (talk · contribs) and Himalayanashoka (talk · contribs) better watch out. You might not be in the record books for much longer. Kalarimaster (talk · contribs)'s ban has been extended 3 months. Please see here as well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest, new section should be added on "Education in India". As an initial paragraph, we can transclude opening paragraph from Education in India.
Please comment.
Padalkar.kshitij (talk) 20:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Added new section, (this will also help improve the Education in India article), please discuss before reverting.

Padalkar.kshitij (talk) 21:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I think "Education in India" is an important section, which should be added to this article
What is the formal method to initiate the discussion about "inclusion of Education Section"?
I think,following are the reasons for its inclusion-

• Historically India had many world-class universities, like Nalanda, which attracted many National/International scholars.
• Currently also, IIMs are considered among the best business schools in the world. And so are the IIT's.
• Most other country pages have similar section,see USA for example.

I am new on English wikipedia (but a regular on Marathi wikipedia), but I am finding my inclusion of this section is getting reverted again and again. But no-one is discussing the matters here. (So this time, rather than adding the section again, I am posting an appeal here for wikipedians to voice their opinion, abiding by the WP:3RR)
Padalkar.kshitij (talk) 08:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed before and the most recent I can remember of can be seen here. Look for Nichalp's reply. As far as I understand, new content to this article is mostly discouraged on the grounds that this is a featured article and follows WP:SS. Docku: What up? 08:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

yes. I read that just now. peace. Padalkar.kshitij (talk) 01:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed that several countries that were mentioned that border with India don't have their proper links. I also saw that in other languages (Portuguese and Spanish) they do. I am a registered user but I also noticed that in spite of the fact that I can make changes in the portuguese and spanish versions, I just can't touch the english version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmalmeida1973 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Countries are no longer linked as per the August Manual of Style update: Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-09-08/Dispatches 2. Thanks! =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The following text looks to be duplicate, some kind of cut and past error:

Home to the Indus Valley Civilization and a region of historic trade routes and vast empires, the Indian subcontinent was identified with its commercial and cultural wealth for much of its long history.[16] Four major world religions, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism and Jainism originated there, while Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam arrived in the first millennium CE and shaped the region's diverse culture. Gradually annexed by the British East India Company from the early eighteenth century and colonised by the United Kingdom from the mid-nineteenth century, India became an independent nation in 1947 after a struggle for independence that was marked by widespread nonviolent resistance.

I was going to fix it, but the page is semi-protected.

Tarsa (talk) 00:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

fixed Nikkul (talk) 03:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

This diff should be reverted. See Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-06-10 India. --KnowledgeHegemony ^talk 06:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

India is not the "largest" democracy. Women are very oppressed in India. If we're to tell facts, India is the "most populous" (emerging) democracy. Bosniak (talk) 09:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I think either one works, democracy involves participation of the people. And in that context largest clearly means most populous. Women are oppressed in India, but they have all the same democratic rights that men do and they do use them, in huge numbers. The oppression is mostly societal. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 16:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

We will go with what most secondary sources say. Attempt to call it "most populous" appears to be orginal research. BBC profile UN, some secondary sources, for example. Docku: What up? 16:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit I didnt read the mediation case. But I know consensus is not binding. Docku: What up? 16:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is the correct link to the actual mediation, which was on the talk page: Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-06-10_India. (See summary at bottom of link.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I just quickly glanced at the mediation, dont have the time to read the whole. It is interesting that the guy with whom Fowler started the mediation process never replied. bizarre. (hope i did not misread it)

Here is my take on this issue. As far as I see, the biggest concern for using the word "largest" is mainly the "ambiguity" the word carries with it. Nevertheless, I dont see how the word "largest" would ambiguosly imply "largest in land size". I dont think anyone with some level of comon sense would assume that mistakenly. The real ambiguity which people seem worried is that the word may probably imply "greatest" democracy. Let us say that is our real concern and here is my explanation. All western democracies with one million to 100 million people (other than US), mostly homogenous (ethnically, religiously and linguistically) population with high income per capita may not have remained democratic if they had, like India, thousands of languages, religion and ethnicity. Even under these extraordinary conditions, elections decide Government and transfer of power happens smoothly in India. quite remarkable. Thus, it can be said that India is "largest" democracy in terms of both population and greatness. Additionally, we have secondary sources calling India both "largest" and "most populous" democratic nation. Therefore, for the reasons I just mentioned together with the availability of secondary sources, trying to call India "most populous" for the sake of "disambiguation" is original research. Docku: What up? 00:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Women's rights have nothing to do with democracy. Women are still discriminated in every country in the world. India only differs in its degree of discrimination. However, their democratic rights are the same as men and even if they weren't, the nation is simply a prejudiced or biased democracy. the real issue is whether "largest" is an appropriate description when there are less ambiguous alternatives. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 00:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can rouse myself enough to defend this but I'm not sure why democracy is included in the first sentence and why there is a need to attach most-populous or largest to the term at all. (But, I will point out that it is definitely not for us to debate the nature of democracy in India. All we should be debating is points of wikipedia policy and the validity of sources.) --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 00:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

What the hell is the section with human rights doing on the main page of India? And whats with human rights not being enforced? 75.111.198.59 (talk) 01:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

We dont add or remove information based on our likings or dislikings. Nevertheless, this info added by User:Grosplant is WP:UNDUE. Docku: What up? 01:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I understand wikipedia is not to be written according to what I like or dislike, I did feel that section was not warranted there according to policy. I lack the ability to make changes to this article. Annant (talk) 06:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The description in the infobox of the languages of the Eighth Schedule as "Scheduled languages" has been fairly stable for a year-and-a-half. On 21 November, User:Fundamental metric tensor changed it to "Official languages of the states". User:Fowler&fowler changed it to "Other major languages", and User:KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 then changed that to "Other official languages". None of these changes seem to have been discussed on the talk page.

The problem with the term "Other official languages" is that it is wrong. The languages of the eighth schedule are not official, no matter what Encarta says (because - gasp - Encarta can get things wrong). This should be self-evident to anyone familiar with Indian politics. For the past four or five years, the Dravidian parties (including the DMK, AIADMK, MDMK and PMK) have been spearheading a campaign to make them official languages. The UPA government has set up a committee to look into this, which has been avoiding giving the report for some years now. So, no, the languages of the Eighth Schedule are not official languages. This was discussed quite exhaustively last year, and "scheduled languages" was a compromise description - see Talk:India/Archive_29#Eighth Schedule Languages Again. I'm changing it back to "Scheduled languages", which is the agreed, stable version. -- Arvind (talk) 10:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

how are they "not official" if they are sanctioned in the official constitution of India? They are official by virtue of having an official status. Please tell me you bothered to read the first line of the official language article, which states An official language is a language that is given a special legal status in a particular country, state, or other territory. Do you dispute this definition? Or do you dispute that special sanction in a country's constitution amounts to "special legal status"? You need to understand that we are using "official language" as a common English language term, not as RoI-centric legalese. "scheduled language" doesn't mean anything outside the context of the RoI constitution. The only definition of "scheduled language" I can think of is the circular "those languages which are called 'scheduled' in Eighth Schedule to the Indian constitution". This is silly. --dab (𒁳) 11:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It's quite a stretch to say any language which has any sort of official status is "an official language" regardless of what that status is. The official language article doesn't say that, as is evident if you read beyond the first sentence. Note how other articles such as United Kingdom are careful not to call languages like Ulster Scots and Welsh - which have a higher legal status in the UK than Sindhi does in India - "official languages." The Eighth Schedule to the Constitution lists languages whose representatives will sit on a committee that decides how Hindi will be developed. That's it. That makes them "official"? As far as silliness goes, you should tell the Government of India that they're being silly. They've constituted a committee "to make recommendation, inter-alia on the feasibility of treating all languages in the Eighth Schedule to the Constitution, including Tamil, as Official Languages of the Union." Maybe you need to tell them they shouldn't bother, because all these languages are already official languages.

Anyway, I've forgotten how cheerfully friendly conversations on this page are. I've reverted myself, and this article can say whatever it likes. It's not my credibility that's affected if Wikipedia claims Dogri, Maithili and Sanskrit are India's official languages. -- Arvind (talk) 13:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Arvind! IMO, you have a point here. The Constitution of India made a separate act entitled -- OFFICIAL LANGUAGE - CHAPTER I.- LANGUAGE OF THE UNION stating

Official language of the Union.

1. The official language of the Union shall be Hindi in Devanagari script. The form of numerals to be used for the official purposes of the Union shall be the international form of Indian numerals.
2. Notwithstanding anything in clause (1), for a period of fifteen years from the commencement of this Constitution, the English language shall continue to be used for all the official purposes of the Union for which it was being used immediately before such commencement: Provided that the President may, during the said period, by order_306 authorise the use of the Hindi language in addition to the English language and of the Devanagari form of numerals in addition to the international form of Indian numerals for any of the official purposes of the Union.

However no such attempt of giving "official" status was made in the Eighth schedule which were made to aid the use of Hindi. (It would certainly be helpful if someone here throw some light for the creation of the 8th schedule...the history behind it? That would certainly help. Anyway even I (the culprit, as pointed out above) feel that "other official languages" is not correct as Hindi is redundant in the list(s) (Official language of the Union + "other official languages"!). --KnowledgeHegemony ^talk 14:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the place to start is the speech of Gopalaswami Ayyangar to the Constituent Assembly on 12 September 1949 moving the amendment that added Part XIV-A to the draft Constitution. Oddly enough, the online text of the debate for that day is defective, and is missing a significant chunk of text, including his speech. It should be in the printed volumes. -- Arvind (talk) 16:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Repeating my stand again, 8th schedule languages should be called 8th Schedule languages and not confused with official languages. In fact, as I have mentioned before, I dont see the relevance of 8th schedule languages in the infobox. It stands out really odd and totally non informative for an average reader. Who cares about 8th schedule languages and what they are meant for? It, IMO, would be more relevant and informative to add the official languages of all Indian states (replace the 8th Schedule languages in the same collapsible form) to make it explicit to the readers that Official languages of individual Indian states are not necessarily the same. I will even go as far as to say that not adding that information is not only incomplete but profoundly misleading.

I know what the counter-argument is that there is no room for official languages of states in India page. I am just not sure I buy it. I notice some US states like New Mexico, Texas and Nevada dont even have their own de jure official languages. Wouldnt it be mentioned in the infobox of USA page if 25 of the US states had different official languages? We can go for an RFC if required. Docku: What up? 18:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Just my 2 cents...we can't draw parallels between the status of official languages in the US vs. India, because the concept of "official language(s)" hasn't been defined in the US at the federal level. IOW, at the federal level, the US has no official languages. States are allowed to define their own official languages; however many choose not to pass legislation on this. The difference b/w the US situation and that of India's is that the 8th schedule defined languages at the federal level. Therefore, including US official state languages in the US article would be WP:UNDUE, whereas this would not be the case wrt India. I'm not voting for or against the issue, but just thought it important to make this distinction. Thanks AreJay (talk) 19:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

just clarifying, your argument is only the issues defined at the federal level can be included in the infobox? Docku: What up? 19:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is my position. This should also be the case for all country-articles on Wikipedia AreJay (talk) 22:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, the only languages are official languages of India are Hindi and English. Non-Hindi speakers like me may not like it very much, but that's what the Constitution and the Official Languages Act, 1963 say, and tinkering with the contents of an infobox on Wikipedia is not going to change things. Yes, the states have their own official languages, but to call the official language of Tamil Nadu or Kerala or Manipur an "official language of India" is plain wrong. It's analogous to wanting to mention the Governors and Chief Ministers of every state in the India infobox. Northern Sami has official status in the Norwegian counties of Finnmark and Troms, and Sorbian has a constitutionally mandated status as an administrative language in Sorbian-speaking municipalities of Germany, but nobody in their right mind would say that Northern Sami was an official language of Norway, or that Sorbian was an official language of Germany (or even of Saxony).

Looking through the archives (particularly 27-29) shows quite clearly that simply referring to Hindi and English is unacceptable to a good number of Indian Wikipedians. Given that the languages of the Eighth Schedule have constitutional recognition, and are frequently referred to in the secondary and tertiary literature as having some sort of official status, mentioning them seems the most sensible way forward. Calling them "official" is incorrect, and a label like "Constitutionally recognised languages" would be much more accurate, but to be honest, if I'd had any inkling that this was going to be controversial I'd never have brought it up. I think our time is far better spent on improving the zillion articles on India that sorely need attention than in endless discussions about the contents of an infobox. -- Arvind (talk) 20:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

That is mis-representing my position if that was directed at me. I want to ask Vadakkan if this statement is correct, Official languages of Indian states are not necessarily the same as official languages of India. Docku: What up? 20:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

It isn't directed at you. I have no idea exactly what your position is on this issue - I know you've said you want the languages of Indian states in the infobox, but I do not know the reasons why you think they should be there.

I would say that that statement is correct. The fact than a language (e.g. Bengali) is an official language of an "Indian state" does not make it an official language of "India", and the official languages of India do not necessarily have an official status at the state level in individual states. I do not think the official languages of the states and union territories belong in the infobox, but it's not a point I'm going to belabour. -- Arvind (talk) 21:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

To Arejay Just for the record, I disagree with you. Not everything which has federal status are generally mentioned and conversely anything more relevant, notable and encyclopedic than something which has a federal status needs not be left out as well. I go for notability, relevance, encyclopedicity, non-mis information and non-ambiguity. Of course, federal status is a plus. Docku: What up? 23:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)