Jump to content

Talk:India: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 173: Line 173:
:Please stop misusing semi-protected requests, your behavior is becoming disruptive now. Establish consensus, that's all there is to it. &mdash;[[User:SpacemanSpiff|<font color="#BA181F">Spaceman</font>]]'''[[User_talk:SpacemanSpiff|<font color="#2B18BA">Spiff</font>]]''' 05:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
:Please stop misusing semi-protected requests, your behavior is becoming disruptive now. Establish consensus, that's all there is to it. &mdash;[[User:SpacemanSpiff|<font color="#BA181F">Spaceman</font>]]'''[[User_talk:SpacemanSpiff|<font color="#2B18BA">Spiff</font>]]''' 05:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
:: Thanks for making me aware of the use of this template. I request editors to please go through the above change request and contribute with your valuable comments. --[[User:Md iet|Md iet]] ([[User talk:Md iet|talk]]) 05:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
:: Thanks for making me aware of the use of this template. I request editors to please go through the above change request and contribute with your valuable comments. --[[User:Md iet|Md iet]] ([[User talk:Md iet|talk]]) 05:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
::: If there is no further improvement suggested to the change proposed, can we presume consensus on above?--[[User:Md iet|Md iet]] ([[User talk:Md iet|talk]]) 04:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


== Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2016 ==
== Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2016 ==

Revision as of 04:48, 28 April 2016

Template:Vital article

Featured articleIndia is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 3, 2004.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 16, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
April 11, 2005Featured article reviewKept
May 6, 2006Featured article reviewKept
July 28, 2011Featured article reviewKept
Current status: Featured article

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on India. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Belated note re my edit of 11:01, 1 April 2016. I noted at that time that there were two non-working, non-archival links, without putting under separate sourcecheck template. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:55, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate name Bharat

India is known by the name Bharat by billions people. It's constitution declare the name of country as 'India, that is Bharat' (please refer: [1]; Indian constitution writes: + "PART I-THE UNION AND ITS TERRITORY--1. Name and territory of the Union.—(1) India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States"}.

The name being recognized since origin of the country cannot be ignored in the lead Para. It is synonym of India and to be read along with India there.

The revision done was deleted on the plea that it is making leads clumsy and Sanskrit translation already exist. First of all "bharat" is not at all a Sanskrit translation of India and it is the name in itself being recognized by billions people. ' Bharat Ghanrajya' word is mentioned as alternate of Indian republic. The country's single word name is India that is "Bharat" and this is no where declared in the lead.

The article is on the country and it's main name recognized by billions of people in the world justify its inclusion.

It is suggested that First letter of the lead Para "India" to be replaced by "India that is Bharat".--Md iet (talk) 10:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be not the first time this has been proposed. While making proposing changes on talk be sure to check the old discussions, for example a quick search for "Bharat" in the archives show Talk:India/Archive_32#India_that_is_Bharat, etc.Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ugog Nizdast, There was fruitful discussion and if I am right the point arrived was that 'India' as well as 'Bharat' are name of the country and the only requirement is reliable consensus's secondary source. Let us try to find proper source and add the name 'Bharat' which is a 'personnel noun', being known/called by billions English speaking people, not a property of any particular language.--Md iet (talk) 15:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what is wrong with the current lead sentence which mentions Bharat, it doesnt need any more as it is clearly not the common name in English. MilborneOne (talk) 21:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for joining discussion. To know the right or wrong thing one has to go deep in the history of the country. To make the lead complete the name of the subject (country here) to be introduced properly. Name is name it cannot be related to one language. When the name is known to billions of English knowing people, to define it common or not is not a difficult task.

To make the inclusion justified here are the secondary sources and statement recorded which are self explanatory:

sources

1.Please refer [2] ‘India, that is Bharat…’: One Country, Two Names Catherine Clémentin-Ojha ; "In 1950, four years after the publication of Nehru’s Discovery of India, the drafters of the Constitution of the larger of the two successor states of British India decided how the country should be known. In the opening article of the Constitution of India they wrote: ‘India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States’.Two names: one, India, associated with the foreigners whose rule was coming to an end; the other, Bharat (skt. bhārata, also bhāratavarṣa), perceived as native because it was found in ancient Sanskrit literature. Henceforward no other name besides these two was to be used legally. In this juridico-political conception, India and Bharat were to be interchangeable terms."

2.[3] CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY OF INDIA - VOLUME IX

Discussion in Indian parliament on Sunday, the 18th September 1949:

"That in amendment No. 130 of List IV (Eighth Week), for the proposed clause (1) of article 1, the following be substituted : The Assembly divided by show of hands: Ayes: 38, Noes: 51. The amendment was negatived.

Mr.President : There is no other amendment except the one moved by Dr. Ambedkar himself, as amended by his own amendment No. 197.

"That for clauses (1) and (2) of article I the following clauses be substituted: '(1 ) India, that is, Bharat shall be a Union of States. (2) The States and the territories thereof shall be the States and their territories for the time being specified in Parts I, II and III of the First Schedule."' The amendment was adopted"

3. Indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-india-that-is-bharat[4]:

"The Home Ministry has responded to a few RTI applications in the past wherein applicants had sought to know the official name of this country. In one response, the Ministry had said “no information on the subject”. In another, it had reproduced Article 1.1. - See more at: [5]

It also cites Sanskrit literature and scriptures to argue that this country has been known as ‘Bharat’ since for time immemorial. - See more at: [6], Explained: The India, that is Bharat

There were other objections on phraseology, but Article 1.1 ultimately got through in its original form."

The above reference clearly state that 'this country has been known as ‘Bharat’ since for time immemorial' and the name part 'India, that is, Bharat shall be a Union of States', is well debated in parliament as early as in 1949 and further clarified by home ministry in recent years as reported in well known English newspaper 'Indian Express'.--Md iet (talk) 16:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And clearly the lead is fine as it as as Bharat is not a term used in English and as the country did not exist before 1947 then it is unlikely to have been called anything "since time immemorial" as it didnt exist. MilborneOne (talk) 18:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Please be serious, Sri Lanka was not a term used in English and not known to outer world doesn't mean that Sri Lanka did not exist before its official name change. Same is the case with 'Bharat', the name is existing 'from time immemorial' but officially adopted since 1949 along with 'India' and recorded as ' India, that is Bharat'.--Md iet (talk) 12:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Md iet: I don't know what you are going on about. Bharat Ganarajya is right there on the first line in bold. What more do you want? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @Kautilya3: I am not trying any thing rocket science. Bharat Ganarajya is right there but as a alternate word of "Indian Republic" that too under explanatory bracket. This is article on the most populous democratic country known as India/Bharat amongst billion of English readers and clearly written in country's English constitution and well debated in secondary English sources pointed out above. I simply want that Wikipedia also as free and fair encyclopedia mention the same at least in the lead para and the lead should start with both name 'India' as well 'Bharat'. This is not something new. Look at other articles, even personnel names are written in full in the lead Para at least.--Md iet (talk) 12:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I added Bharat there, just like it is done for Germany. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Bharat is not a Sanskrit translation of India but name in itself. Now it is better; mentioned in some form or other, but it should have been mentioned as 'India(Bharat)' or 'India, that is Bharat' as mentioned for Myanmar as Myanmar(Burma) in the same lead.--Md iet (talk) 11:04, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Myanmar includes Burma because both are recognizable alternative English names for the country. Bharat is not an English name for India.--regentspark (comment) 12:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fact that Bharat is alternative name, understood and referred by billions English literates is obvious and referred in well known sources. RegentsPark, could you elaborate about the recognizing authorities?--Md iet (talk) 11:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS. Reliable English language sources use Myanmar and Burma. However, they don't use Bharat instead of India. --regentspark (comment) 14:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)--regentspark (comment) 14:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Md iet, your concern has been taken care of. You need to move on. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Still dont believe that you had a consensus for the change as we have no evidence that it is a common name in English, big difference in dual-language Indians understanding the word and the rest of the English speaking world who clearly would not understand what you were talking about. MilborneOne (talk) 07:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that both India and Bharat are official names of the country. I had assumed that Bharat Ganarajya mentioned in a separate parenthetical remark was enough. But at least some people don't find it enough. I don't think we have any policy against including the other names used for countrie, irrespective of what the English speaking world understands. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Bharat is not the English name for India. This article is really the Republic of India whose current popular name in English is India. We do mention the Hindi name for the Republic of India. Bharat is not the present-day popular name of the Republic of India in English. This point has come up many times before during the ten years I have been on Wikipedia and longer discussions have been held in the past. I noticed too that someone has added Angus Maddison's garbage to the lead. I will throw this in the trash where it belongs. That India was the world's richest, greenest, land of milk and honey is a good fantasy, but you have to realize that the Indian economy was largely stagnant from 1700 to 1757. During the previous two centuries, the European economies were growing. Mr Maddison's historical estimates have been widely criticized, and the critical reviews of which too I have added somewhere in the archives, if you sift through them. (Added later: I found a few. See here.) I am removing both Bharat and the Maddison garbage until there is scholarly consensus here on it. This is a Wikipedia WP:FA, the oldest country FA on Wikipedia. It has had three Featured Article reviews since 2004, when it first became an FA. Please read WP:Lead fixation. We too have read the preamble and the first paragraph of Article 1 of the Constitution of India, many, many times, more times in fact than the times people have attempted to enlighten us about the framers' original intent.
If you have a burning desire to add content to Wikipedia, this is not the place to start, especially not the lead. Find the millions of articles on India that are languishing in the gutters of neglect and disrepair, and fix them. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Fowler, for your valuable inputs and advice.

Bharat is quite common name in Indian Peninsula having billions of population knowing English and getting advantage of en. Wikipedia. If the popular name of the country in English is 'India', we should have alternate name of this in lead rather of 'Republic of India'. I think we don't need any further consensus for this and I am making the correction.

I suppose Wikipedia just present well sourced material in its articles and works on more with consensus rather then other qualified definitions like garbage, European/ non European or writer specific comments.

India/Bharat had enjoyed a great prosperity for centuries together during changeover period from BCE to CE period and "1700 to 1757" or "previous two centuries ..European economies.." do not make any difference to this fact. I am presenting this fact as per well known sources, hope this will be liking of most.--Md iet (talk) 04:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mdjet, you don't have consensus for adding Bharat. You need to make the case that Bharat is an alternative English name for India. You need to provide sufficient numbers of English language sources that use Bharat instead of India to make your case. We can't merely work with what you think is correct. --regentspark (comment) 15:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here at present I am not adding Bharat as alternate English name but as a Sanskrit translation common to billions of people. It was already there as of 'Indian Republic' and now I am making lead more simple by deleting Sanskrit "ganrajya" word which is not required here in lead. Hope this do not need any further English language sources and general editors may agree for this change.--Md iet (talk) 01:40, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Double standards against Hindi and other Indian languageson so-called neutral Wikipedia

अंग्रेज़ी विकिपीडिया पर हिन्दी के विरुद्ध दोहरा मापदण्ड। अंग्रेज़ी विकि पर देशों से सम्बन्धित सभी लेखो में यह चलन है कि उस देश की आधिकारिक भाषा(ओं) में भी उस देश का नाम उपलब्ध कराया जएगा। लेकिन इस लेख में ऐसा नहीं है। क्या ऐसा करने का कोई विशेष कारण है? क्या हिन्दी में भारत गणराज्य लिखने से पृष्ठ सही से नहीं दिखेगा?

It is an accepted practise on all English Wikipedia articles that in a country article page, name in its official languages is also provided. But in case of this article Hindi the first official language of India has been omitted. Can I ask any special reason for this or it is all an overall coordinated attempt to remove Indian languages? I don't think adding name in India's first official language will break the page while pages on all other countries articles are running smoothly even with their non-Latin scripts. रोहित रावत (talk) 17:27, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:INDICSCRIPTS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


There is a line that say"India has no national language." India's Official Language is Hindi - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.213.207.18 (talk) 13:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See the answer to Q9 in the FAQ at the top of this page. --regentspark (comment) 13:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for adding translation of India

it is proposed that in the lead first sentence Sanskrit translation of 'India' is to be added and translation of 'Indian republic' can be deleted as translation of word republic is not so important and not required in the lead. --Md iet (talk) 04:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. This isn't a semi-protected edit request, consensus above is clearly against this idea, unless that changes this shouldn't happen. —SpacemanSpiff 04:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be in so hurry to reject the idea just on a first glance. As I was adding the format X to Y , you have documented your judgment, excellent. This is public English encyclopedia, only time will decide what should happen. The above discussion was for the addition of alternate English name but this request is with totally different criteria. Let the people respond and then consensus would be decided. I am presenting the request again as a perfect semi-protected edit request, let the people read it and then decide accordingly.--Md iet (talk) 05:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for adding IAST of India

Please change ‘X’:

'India, officially the Republic of India (IAST: Bhārat Gaṇarājya),[20][21][c] is a country in South Asia.'

to ‘Y’:

'India (IAST: Bhārat), officially the Republic of India ,[20][21][c] is a country in South Asia.'

IAST of ’India’ is only required then of the ‘Republic of India’. This will make the sentence less clumpsy and more fruitful.--Md iet (talk) 05:15, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop misusing semi-protected requests, your behavior is becoming disruptive now. Establish consensus, that's all there is to it. —SpacemanSpiff 05:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making me aware of the use of this template. I request editors to please go through the above change request and contribute with your valuable comments. --Md iet (talk) 05:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no further improvement suggested to the change proposed, can we presume consensus on above?--Md iet (talk) 04:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2016

202.142.120.166 (talk) 05:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Blank request — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:55, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2016

Vital to India's self-image as an independent nation was its constitution, completed in 1950, which put in place a secular and democratic republic.

needs to be changed. remove the secular part. India isn't a secular state, Not all religions are allowed to practice their methods. For example the Beef Ban in states of India. ChampuNathc (talk) 07:19, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article isn't for rants, it's meant to document what reliable sources consider important and have to say about it. —SpacemanSpiff 07:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:India&oldid=717511647"