Talk:India

Guidelines for editing the India page

• The article is written in summary style in Indian English.
• All sections are a summary of more detailed articles. If you find any points missing, please add it in the section's main article rather than on this page to keep this page size within reasonable limits.
• Only external links pertaining to India as a whole are solicited here. Please add other links in the most appropriate article.
• Images should be add only after prior discussion. See also: WP:IIR
• India-related matters should be discussed at Wikipedia:Notice board for India-related topics.
• See the FAQ section before posting a topic on the page.

For improving this article click here!

Should change population unit

should change 1.12 billion[8] to something like 1.120.000.000 because the term "billion" is ambiguous. It can be either that or 1.120.000.000.000.000. -- Lacrymology

Largest democracy

It is vandalism to insist calling India a populous democrasy. To me that has a bit negetive connotation. The citation given for the claim clearly mentions (the bbc article) that India is the "largest democracy" and not populous democracy. I do not understand why people are hell bent against it being called what it is. Democracy is decded not by geography democracy is decided by the number of people. Thus largest means largest by the number people but is used in the media consistantly. No one refers to it as populous democracy. Why is a new term being cooked up here? ~rAGU (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The reason for using "most populous democracy" instead of "largest democracy" is to avoid any ambiguity. There's nothing negative about it. "Largest" is used for the first time in the sentence to mean "of greatest area." Next, "populous" is used to mean "most populated." So, when "largest" is used again (when applied to "democracy") to mean "most populated," it creates confusion among some readers. Not among Indian readers, to be sure, since they are familiar with the expression; but not all readers are, the BBC quote notwithstanding. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we should use the widely adopted term "LARGEST DEMOCRACY". Assertions as to whether or not populous is pejorative are very subjective. (You may think it is not negative, I think it is). So we should, go with the broadly used term, cite BBC, and say "largest democracy". If you think populous is a superior/not-negative term over largest, hold a poll here to see if the majority agrees with you. Until such time, revert it back to "largest". 24.130.60.26 (talk) 03:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

"Largest" in terms of what? Population? Land area? Number of political parties? The term "most populous" is clear and unambiguous. Largest democracy is ambiguous, and therefore, I would support using "most populous" democracy. --Ragib (talk) 06:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

"Largest Democracy" needs no further qualification. The size of a democracy is decided by the number of people that participate in it, and *is a term that is widely used*. As rAGU also said, suddenly using a different term in this article is jarring. I'm ok with putting explanation parenthesis to say we mean population, but we should include "largest democracy" -- that is something that is oft mentioned about India in print and media, and to suddenly invent another term seems out of place. ("Largest country" could mean land area, populationm etc. etc., but "largest democracy" is self-explanatory). MintCond (talk) 13:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

To generalise the topic a little, any sort of "largest" political state does not necessarily imply population. Just as the largest democracy is a familiar expression, another is that the Mongol Empire was four times "larger" than the Roman, which refers to geographical area. Now it isn't clear why you think populous has pejorative connotations. At the end of the day, Indians who are proud of such a statement are proud because this democracy contains more than one billion people. Using "populous" makes this more obvious to those who are unaware of this fact. There is every possibility that a reader may think to him/herself "Hey, I though Canada, USA and Australia were larger democracies." There is no harm in using a specific term. In fact, it is very beneficial to remove any ambiguities in the article because the number of vague words is inversely proportional to the quality of the article. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 13:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we use something like "largest democracy(in terms of population)". This will remove any ambiguity and at the same time use the term which is familiar to most. Rest day (talk) 18:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I'll take a stab at it, in the most unambiguous way. MintCond (talk) 05:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I've randomly bumped into this conversation and can not help but be amused. What could possibly be ambiguous about the largest democracy? If two people went to Mars and voted to stay, would you then declare that Mars was the largest democracy? Mars would probably become the furthest democracy (and anybody who said "furthest to what", could not possibly be serious.) Czar Brodie (talk) 16:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this is just another example of the systemic Western bias WP:CSB in Wikipedia, that needs to be corrected -- but I'm hopeful the "wisdom of the crowds" will get it right in the end. MintCond (talk) 22:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear MintCond (talk · contribs), Czar Brodie (talk · contribs), and Rest day (talk · contribs), the largest democracy bit is simply not important enough to merit an entire sentence in the lead paragraph, which is supposed to be about geography and population, not about systems of government. (See Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries). If tomorrow China becomes a democracy, will you be clamoring for the sentence: "India is the second-largest democracy in the world, and is commonly referred to as such [13], on account of the size of its electorate?" Very unlikely that you would, although India's democratic achievement would be no less remarkable. Or for that matter if the sizes of democracies are such a notable achievements: can you name the second, third and fourth largest democracies off the top of your heads? In addition, if anything needs to be said about democracy, it is not clear what is more remarkable: that India is the largest democracy or it is an enduring democracy. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

PS MintCond (talk · contribs) for someone with a sum total of 19 edits on Wikipedia, you shouldn't be edit-warring so soon. You are about to violate 3RR. (Just offering some friendly advice.  :) ) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

India is the largest democracy but not the largest democratic country. Since democracy used as a noun does not defer to the country but rather a system of governence which depends on peoples participation, I do believe that India being called the largest democracy is a correct statement. Also, BBC would be considered to be an extremely important authority on this matter as Indian English is far closer to British English than it is to American English. Also, it ought to mentioned in the main paragraph as it is distinguishing. It should be mentioned in the main paragraph because it is noteworthy.75.110.214.35 (talk) 02:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Ketan Khare

And, BTW, how did my various interlocutors here come up with the fiction, "No one refers to it (India) as (the world's most) populous democracy"? True, the phrase "world's most populous democracy" is not as popular as "world's largest democracy," (especially among Indian links) but it is certainly common enough. Here are some reliable sources and well-known people who have used the phrase, among them Sonia Gandhi:

Given that the phrase is widely used, and that it is unambiguous and succinct (doesn't require qualification), I see no reason to change "the most populous democracy." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler -- you say above "the largest democracy bit is not important enough to merit an entire sentence in the lead". While I'm sure the majority disagree with that statement, and consider being the largest democracy to be something very significant about India, I'm ok with a compromise position of having it be a part of an existing sentence, as it has been now changed to. You don't have to give it a sentence by itself, but it certainly merits mention in any lead paragraph about India (just geography and population is not enough, in fact by your own admission, as the democracy mention was already a part of the lead)

Whether China in the future becomes a democracy or not is irrelevant to the current discussion and does not have any bearing on why we need to ignore the widely prevalent appellation for India -- "world's largest democracy"

I had assumed "admins" on Wikipedia were meant to be "reasonable" and I cannot understand the resistance to accept India as the world's largest democracy. It's like saying I won't call a basketball player tall, I'll call him "long". It seems to me you are trying to take "something away" from India and its commendably successful democratic tradition -- it holds the largest democratic exercises and elections anywhere in the world, and regularly so. Again you yourself have admitted above: "populous democracy" IS NOT AS popular as "world's largest democracy,". Then why insist upon this awkward sentence about India, in the lead paragraph, when "world's largest democracy" is something that is oft mentioned about India. You don't get to write history here Fowler&fowler. As I said, I am still unable to understand what your actual objection to "world's largest democracy" is -- the only reason I can come up with is perhaps a bias somewhere, or an inclination to "take away" or somehow diminish India's achievment in deciding to be democratic post-independence. I agree with you that being an enduring democracy is remarkable, but that does not mean being the largest one isn't.

Authoritative and reputable sources referring to India as the world's largest democracy:

Being the "world's largest democracy" deserves mention in the lead paragraph on any article about India. Using sleight of hand in words to avoid calling India that, (for what reasons is unclear WP:CSB ?) does not behoove admins on Wikipedia.MintCond (talk) 08:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Good job. Thats the way to go about it. So what about the solution of adding a footnote (like done in this edit? Also please note that Fowler&fowler is not an admin. KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 09:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 -- I am happy with your edit, the solution of adding a footnotes makes things very clear. Thanks. (Also a relief to know Fowler&fowler is not an admin).MintCond (talk) 09:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

relief to know Fowler&fowler is not an admin—please avoid such statements—its against WP:AGF and WP:PA. Also note that the solution needs consensus. KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 12:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, here's how I remember the saga of "democracy" in the lead paragraph. When I first arrived on Wikipedia (October 2006), there wasn't any mention of it (but that was a chaotic time on the India page, and it may have been there earlier). At some point, it was introduced; soon thereafter, some readers (Chinese perhaps?) objected to the use of "democracy" without any qualification, and the text was changed to the "largest liberal democracy." But soon after that, other readers got confused by the different uses of "largest" in the same sentence and wrote, "But I thought America was larger ..." (or words to that effect). After discussion at that point, the text was changed to "most populous liberal democracy," and it remained that way for almost a year, when someone else again removed the liberal, and it became "most populous democracy." Every now and then, of course, some reader wanted to put "largest" back in, but they never did. The basic point is that when in one sentence "largest" is used in two different way, some readers (especially the ones not very proficient in English) get confused (and, yes, I'm aware that Wikipedia is not censored etc. etc.).

The point of giving examples of the usage "world's most populous democracy" was not that it is the more common expression, but that it is used often enough by varied sources and speakers, spanning many continents and sub-continents, not least India. Obviously, if it is good enough for Britannica (as a caption to a photograph in the "Democracy" page) and Encarta, for Sonia Gandhi, while giving a keynote address on the 50th anniversary of India's Election Commission, it is good enough for Wikipedia. If you want to add "world's largest democracy" to the third paragraph in the lead, where government is discussed, be my guest, but in a sentence about area and population in the first paragraph (where it doesn't really belong in any case), it can cause confusion (among some readers)

Please don't throw around convenient terms like "systemic bias." The self-congratulatory expression "largest democracy," has been loved by the Indian elite pretty much since India's independence. Many generations of Indian elite have grown up with that expression, reading it in their newspapers, while a vast majority of Indians, as Pankaj Mishra reminds us in the Guardian piece I quoted above, remain mired in poverty (even as the number of billionaires grows exponentially). Obviously, for the poor, among whom are the largest number of malnourished citizens in any country in the world, that democracy has provided little benefit, and for them India remains the world's most populous democracy. The elite, on the other hand, bristle when the see the expression "world's most populous democracy," because "populous" puts into stark perspective—that the euphemism "largest" doesn't—what India's democracy can mean for many of its citizens.

Finally, I don't see any consensus for the "largest democracy" yet. Certainly, user:Ragib and User:DaGizza are not for it; neither am I (at least not in the lead paragraph). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me put on the record that I'm ok with the article as it stands only as a "compromise" and ideally I would like to see a sentence about India being the world's largest democracy, in spite of what Fowler&fowler thinks about "the largest democracy bit is not important enough to merit an entire sentence in the lead". You seem to want to have it both ways -- you claim that the reason you don't want largest is because you have said "largest by geographical area" earlier in the sentence, but then you don't want it in a different sentence either. And you don't want anyone to reword it to make it clearer either, and you jump and revert. And finally, now you say, you want to play with terms largest and populous etc. to impose what you feel is the so-called misplaced pride of the "elite" on India being a democracy! I had always suspected "an agenda" on your part, and it is becoming clearer now. My position is that we defer to the multiple authoritative sources that say India is the worlds largest democracy. And since no one here is in a mood for compromise, I'm now pushing for having a clear unambiguous sentence in the lead paragraph that mentions cleary India is the world's largest democracy. MintCond (talk) 15:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I did give you another option. I have now removed the part about the largest democracy from the lead paragraph, and have put it in the last paragraph, where it is much more appropriate:

“ The world's largest democracy, and a pluralistic, multilingual, and multiethnic society, India is also home to a diversity of wildlife in a variety of protected habitats. ”

I would like to know what people think of it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

PS The bit about "Indian elite" was added to simply make the point that there are many ways of claiming "systemic bias." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not happy at all with removing such an important fact about India from the lead, and burying it elsewhere. Let's work on the lead paragraph -- do you have any other suggestion of working in largest democracy in the intro para?(something that is mentioned first in most "country profiles" on India). In addition to the current, I have other suggestions on where it could fit in the lead, but I think it's better if they come from you. MintCond (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Also I don't see how combining democracy with diversity of wildlife is more appropriate than having it in the introduction about India. MintCond (talk) 16:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Huh? What's the matter with you MintCond (talk · contribs)? Why are you deliberately misinterpreting what is said? The sentence talks about "pluralistic, multi-lingual, and multi-ethnic" society before, (with qualification "also" to subordinate what is being said next), it talks about wildlife.

I made the edit on the main page, so that people can see it in its new surroundings (in the third paragraph). Your edit is only minimally different from the previous one. I do understand that you are new to Wikipedia and may not understand everything about it, (and that I'm supposed to be nice to you), but for heaven's sake, why are you edit-warring on the cusp of 3RR (having violated it once yesterday and let off with a warning)?

And where did you get the idea that the last paragraph in the lead is not important. It is the last thing people read before they make the decision to continue with the rest of the article or not. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The third paragraph is the right place for "largest/most populous democracy." In fact, it should have put there right from the start. Pretty much all the other FAs: Australia, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Canada, Chad, Germany, Libya, Pakistan, and Peru, have the following structure of topics in the lead: 1. Geography/Population 2. History 3. Current affairs: Politics/Economy. There is no reason why India should be any different. Here, for example, are three references to political systems of other FAs (all in their third paragraphs):

“ A federation now comprising ten provinces and three territories, Canada is a parliamentary democracy and a constitutional monarchy, with Queen Elizabeth II as its head of state. Canada) ”

“ Since federation, Australia has maintained a stable liberal democratic political system and remains a Commonwealth realm. (Australia) ”

“ While many political parties are active, power lies firmly in the hands of President Déby and his political party, the Patriotic Salvation Movement. (Chad) ”

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler -- Let me just say that I find your patronizing tone offensive, and so let me first get a few things out of the way. You know nothing about me in real life. So save your patronizing comments for someone else -- I don't need you "to be nice" to me. Argue based on the weight of your positions, not that you have more edits than someone else. That's a classic sign of not having substantive arguments. You keep harping on new user and old user, as if that magically makes your point of view or your arguments more convincing. You claim to be an elder in the community, and yet you are far from being an exemplary "elder". Your bias ridden comments earlier today about India's "elite" being unreasonably proud and "self-congratulatory" about their democracy were laughable. In fact that comment makes me seriously question your neutrality. You seem to admit there, that "populous democracy" is pejorative as compared to "largest democracy". You were OKAY WITH that being in the lead paragraph. Only when you had to consider changing it, did you suddenly start having problems about democracy being mentioned in the lead. This discussion was not started based on WHERE it appears in the article, it was on the choice of the term. (I know several "experts" on India, who are still trapped in the cow-caste-curry stereotype of India and are clueless of all that has followed. Your comments increasingly indicate you are one of them. )

Now you claim there is an implicit rule about the "right" place to mention system of governance in an article and you quote a few examples. I can cite SEVERAL other prominent Wikipedia articles on countries that mention pertinent details about their system of governance in the lead, or immediately after geography (which was the case with the India article).

1. USA The United States of America is a constitutional federal republic comprising fifty states and a federal district. (lead)
2. France France is a unitary semi-presidential republic. Its main ideals are expressed in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. (lead)
3. Russia It is a semi-presidential republic comprising 83 federal subjects. (lead)
4. Switzerland Switzerland is a federal republic consisting of 26 states. These states are called cantons. Berne is the seat of the federation and de facto capital (lead)
5. Taiwan The island groups of Taiwan and Penghu (except the municipalities of Taipei and Kaohsiung) are officially administered as Taiwan Province of the ROC. However, in practice, almost all government power is exercised at the national and local (city/county) levels. (governance details in lead)
6. UK union[7][8] of four constituent countries: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. The United Kingdom is a parliamentary democracy with its seat of government in London, the capital, and a constitutional monarchy with Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II as the head of state. (immediately following geography, which was the case with the India article)

And many more examples... I hardly see your examples of Chad, Peru, Libya etc. as being representative in any special way; the articles of the countries I have mentioned, including FAs, do not follow their "template". In reality there is no pattern as you claim of system of governance being mentioned last. In fact this was not even up for discussion. ARE YOU NOW CLAIMING YOU HAVE THE CONSENSUS TO CHANGE THIS, and exclude the fact about India's democratic form of government from the lead? On what basis are you claiming this?

Yesterday, I did not revert to MY version, I reverted to a version by KnowlegeHegemonyPart2. And that is where I think this article should be at until we talk this through on the discussion page. You can put up your proposed text here. I will also put up one or two of my alternate suggestions here (I do not see why in your version wildlife and democracy have to be in the same sentence -- its reads like a jarring juxtaposition, the sentence just does not flow). And we can go from there... MintCond (talk) 02:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I made the comments about India's elite simply to make the point that systemic bias can take many forms, not just the one that you were facilely tossing into the dialog above. You might find those remarks laughable, but for the thousands of children in the Indian state of Madhya Pradesh that are now being rushed to hospitals in states of near-starvation (and were featured on the BBC news today), it is no laughing matter. India does have higher rates of child malnutrition than sub-Saharan Africa. And, no, I didn't make any admission about the phrase "world's most populous democracy" being pejorative, only that it might be discomforting to the elite, which is a different matter altogether. After all, the Brazil page, which has modeled its lead on the India page's lead, doesn't think it is pejorative. As for your random musings about the several experts you know, please take your discontents to them; I have no interest in them or in your assessments of them.

None of the countries you have are FAs, and your examples vividly point to why they are not. Whether the country is "prominent" (as you put it) is not at stake here, but rather whether Wikipedia regards the country pages to be quality articles, and rewards with the imprimatur of an FA. Clearly, the country FAs, by an overwhelming majority, have a sequence of paragraphs in their respective leads: 1) Geography/Population 2) History 3) Politics/Economy. Finally, really don't care about what version of whose edit you had reverted to. The bottom line for me is that you were edit warring and were warned by an admin for violating 3RR. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, I think we should call for informal mediation since this is an important issue. I am disappointed in the way the above exchanges have occured. People seem to have taken a personal stand on which version is correct and have decided to be rigid about it.Ketankhare (talk) 06:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You can try, of course, but they will typically want you to do an RfC etc. The phrase "world's most populous democracy" has been in the text of this article for nearly two years. As I have indicated above, while it certainly is not the most common term, it is common enough (Britannica uses it in its article on Democracy and Sonia Gandhi used it in her keynote address on the 50th anniversary of India's Election Commission, and neither used it pejoratively; the Brazil page, which has modeled its lead on India's lead, also uses it without implying anything negative about Brazilian democracy) and it is unambiguous. The original version "world's largest democracy" was changed in Fall 2006 because some readers confused "largest" to mean "of largest area.". As for this particular exchange, I am concerned that there is as yet no consensus for the changes. Also, both MintCond (talk · contribs) and Rest day (talk · contribs) are not only new accounts, but also seemingly single purpose accounts. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

PS Plus it seems that IP 24.130.60.26 is the same as user:MintCond. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

F&F, you cannot argue from the point that India is not the greatest democracy because you have provided the proof of India being the most populous democracy. Both are true. Also you mentioned of China becoming a democracy and India being pushed to the second slot. Can you tell the date in which China becoming a democratic nation and taking the title of the "largest democracy" from Indians. I can tell you that the title will again change hands shortly after that and if they are late in proclaiming themselves as a democratic nation, they will never get the title.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 08:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not a religious book that cannot be changed be it two years or five years we must find alternatives and let "largest" be the term for the next two years. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 08:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Chanakyathegreat, Good to see you back on the India page! No, no, I'm not saying India is not a great democracy, only that "largest" is confusing to people who are not aware of the term. As you will see, from the following two discussions: Talk:India/Archive_14#Largest_democracy_in_the_world and Talk:India/Archive_14#Worlds_largest_Democracy where the issues first came up in October 2006, I don't have a rigid position. (As you will also see, I was already aware, in 2006, of some of the references user:MintCond has provided above.) I just think, in light of what I've seen on Wikipedia, "world's most populous" democracy is less confusing to the average reader. That's all. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the "confusing" argument holds. If it is confusing, there are several ways to make it less confusing, and yet go with the widely accepted term of "world's largest democracy". There are so many talented editors who could remove confusion and keep the term that is used by the UN, and BBC and all the sources mentioned in the comments above. Anyone can claim anything is confusing, that does not mean we can ignore established appellations with which countries are widely referred to. How can people "not be aware" (as you say) of the popular term? And if they aren't it is Wikipedia's duty to inform them. Not cook up another term, which is even less common, and so they should actually be lesser people who are aware of it.

Fowler&fowler if your argument is genuinely about confusion involving 2 uses of "largest" in the same sentence, the obvious way of course, is to use the 2 largest in different sentences. Can KetanKhare, ChanakyatheGreat, RestDay, CzarBrodie, or anyone else come up with 2 sentences for the intro paragraph that introduces India, mentions it is the world's largest democracy, and also mention the area and population? That would help the dispute resolution process instead of only Fowler&fowler and myself being involved. Where is the "community" :-). From what I have heard about Wikipedia I expected a lot of people to jump in and weigh in in the conversation. But both Fowler&fowler and myself seem to be waging a lone battle! :-)

And, yes the the IP 24.130.60.26 under which there are 2 comments on the Talk page is me. I had made a comment before "logging in", and there is no confusion regarding that since in the comment I CLEARLY refer to the MintCond list as "MY comment".

Anyway, I don't think the version up right now is "stable" -- I'm sure many people must have objected to largest democracy not being used, and perhaps with the constant opposition F&f has to the term, they just couldn't see this through resolution. I intend do. If this is not leading to resolution, and the so-called stable version remains, I'm afraid I will have to change it (or I invite some of our other editors to change it) to "largest democracy" following the WP:BRD philosophy. MintCond (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of usage

I think that it is important that the average reader understand that democracy is not a type of country. So while you can have a Kingdom of XYZ or a Republic of XYZ or a State of XYZ, one does not have a Democracy of XYZ, it is always a Democratic Republic, if at all. If it is said that India is the largest democratic republic, that is wrong. If a reader is not aware of this difference, then this difference should be illustrated there at that point without simpifying internationally recognized terms. Simplifying well know and grammatically correct terms is the function of a "Simple English" article and not an English article. F&f has brought up two issues,oen whether "Largest Democracy" is a correct term in an international context and two whether it needs to be in the first few paragraphs. I think we should atleast try and agree that the usage of the term is correct.

Just because people confuse democracy being a type of country rather than a system of governance does not mean that wikipedia should allow this confusion to continue uncorrected. Incidently the phrase "most populous democracy" is weird because what is the meaning of the most populous system of governance. A suitable replacement in Simple English for the term "largest democracy" would be "most populous country governed democratically". Ketankhare (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's not quite true. Here the OED:

• 1. 1. Government by the people; that form of government in which the sovereign power resides in the people as a whole, and is exercised either directly by them (as in the small republics of antiquity) or by officers elected by them. In mod. use often more vaguely denoting a social state in which all have equal rights, without hereditary or arbitrary differences of rank or privilege. (Examples: 1836 GEN. P. THOMPSON Exerc. (1842) IV. 191 Democracy means the community's governing through its representatives for its own benefit. 1890 Pall Mall G. 25 Nov. 3/1 ‘Progress of all through all, under the leading of the best and wisest’, was his [Mazzini's] definition of democracy.)
• b. A state or community in which the government is vested in the people as a whole. (Examples: 1794 S. WILLIAMS Vermont 342 In the ancient democracies the public business was transacted in the assemblies of the people. 1804 SYD. SMITH Mor. Philos. xvi. (1850) 237 In the fierce and eventful democraties of Greece and Rome. 1881 JOWETT Thucyd. I. 117 We are called a democracy, for the administration is in the hands of the many and not of the few.)

The implication is that in modern usage the state is understood. So, "most populous democracy" would be just fine; it would mean the most populous state or country in which government is vested in the people as a whole or in their representatives or where people have equal rights. The same as largest democracy. No difference there. After all, Britannica wouldn't be using that expression in its article on "Democracy" if it were incorrect. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

PS. That's actually a good question you asked Ketankhare. (Sorry, I misunderstood your intentions earlier.) But I think when people similarly use the expression "richest democracy", they don't mean that the government is the richest, but rather the country itself is the richest. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

PS In other words, "richest democracy" means: the richest country in which power is vested in the people or their representatives. So actually in this way of thinking, "largest democracy" would be the one that would be somewhat ambiguous. It would mean the largest country in which power is vested in the people or their representatives. People could then legitimately ask "largest by what? Area or population?" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

PPS Here, Ketankhare, is (from my point of view) the problem with "largest." This New York Times article calls China the "world's largest country," whereas this Encyclopaedia Britannica article on Russia, begins its second paragraph by, "Russia is a land of superlatives. By far the world's largest country, it covers nearly twice the territory of Canada, the second largest." And these are two perfectly reliable sources! That, in a nutshell, is the reason why I am advocating "most populous democracy." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

PPPS In other words, if I wasn't aware of precedent, by looking at both Complete OED and unabridged Webster's, which I just have (although I didn't dump the latter's contents here!), I can legitimately ask the question (especially in light of the NYT and Britannica examples above), "largest by what?" And I can do that as someone with knowledge of the etymology: Gr. δήμοσ the commons, the people + κράτος in comb. rule, sway, authority. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You have brought up a very pertinent point. But by what you are suggesting there have been ambiguous usage of the term country as well!!! Extraordinary flexiblity english provides us with, I suppose we would have fewer issues if the language were Sanskrit. Anyways, I am disinclined to accept the usage "most populous democracy" because apart from the other issues, the statement seems to shift focus from the intent of the statement to the fact that India is heavily populated which it is and should also be mention, just not mixed up . What do you suggest we compromise on? Also, I am really sorry if I have caused any disturbances. Ketankhare (talk) 00:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the entire argument of "largest by what" is specious. Largest DEMOCRACY is already explaining largest by what. If you want to be anal, you can say 'world's largest democracy (by virtue of the size of its electorate)', or put the contents of the parenthesis in a footnote. There is no confusion there. And we have indisputable precedent of that usage by all the authoritative sources that have been mentioned above. Going down the path of English is an inconsistent language, and trying to analyze reason of common phrases and usage based on the etymology of 'country' and populous and largest, we will find so many expressions and usage in English that is inconsistent with the rules of the language. An article should not use awkward sentences to deny a simple fact and truth; frankly a general article about India does disservice if it does not mention, what is almost universally mentioned about India when discussing its system of governance -- "world's largest democracy". We have seen what F&f version is, which has resulted in all this discussion. Let's try another version. MintCond (talk) 03:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I doubt "anal" is an apropriate term here, although I suppose if we want to get the job of wikipedia done right, we all should be anal. Cheers. Supreme Unmanifest (talk) 03:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC) (formely Ketankhare)

agreed! :-) MintCond (talk) 04:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a comment: It should be re-labelled as the ...liberal democracy. China is also considered to have a form of democracy, I had made the change to the page years back on a comment to this talk page. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nichalp. Great to see you back on the page! Please see the history of the dispute section in here. I will be proposing some version of your suggestion there as well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

better pictures

this article seriously needs some better pics of india --60.50.66.130 (talk) 14:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I have wonderful pictures of places in India but i dont know how to put them up....if Someone wants the pictures ill give them to you, and you can put them up....or you can get them from my myspace page....go to myspace.com/India100, and you will have lots of very very nice pictures of India. Please use them! 71.105.82.152 (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Dude, upload them to Flickr, that's what most pics on Wikipedia are from. Tri400 (talk) 13:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you help me? My actual user name is Aryan818 but ive been blocked and banned from editing becuase some morons think im a white supremacist nazi or something. But my name is Aryan and i live in the 818 area code, so thats why i put Aryan818. I had other people on wikipedia put in my website that i should not be banned or blocked , and yet there are morons out there who still take advantage of their power and try to ban and block me, even though it clearly says in my page DO NOT BLOCK THIS USER because ARYAN IS HIS NAME, AND 818 IS HIS AREA CODE. So can someone help me? Can someone PLEASE UNBLOCK ME? My user name is Aryan818. 71.105.82.152 (talk) 17:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Is someone going to help me or what? I have tons of pictures I want to load for this website, but I want to load it as a user not as a LOGGED OUT USER....the problem is my user name is banned from editing because some moron thinks im a white nazi or something, even though my page says not to block me. The person who did this was the user Zoe.....Can somebody please lift this stupid ban so I can edit? I want to give nice pictures of India 71.105.82.152 (talk) 18:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Can't you make a new username? That way you can upload pictures and you will be respected. It is a win-win situation. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 07:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Gizza, That would be block evasion. The new account will get blocked too. S/he will have to wait out the block or request for a unblock. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 07:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Just FYI, related block incident and block log. The last block was an indef block on the name. I feel a unblock request has a good chance of success...since Aryan is a common name. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 07:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I feel a new user name is a good option to pursue. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 08:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sorry I didn't make myself clear. I was familiar with the incident before and knew it was an indef block based on a username, not on any sort of bad editing. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 08:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok so is somebody gonna unblock me or what? My user name is Aryan818 71.105.82.152 (talk) 23:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not an issue to discuss in *this* talk page. Please make your request at Admin's noticeboard. --Ragib (talk) 00:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Let us sumerise the page

The India article is very large.If we sumerize it in catagories It would be great.(And keep the Article neat like the featured ones).
--Raunak' ' ( .:: Raunak Roy ::.. ) 13:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Energy link and stats

I want to add an external link to India's energy profile/statistics from the Energy Information Administration (Official Energy Statistics of the U.S. Government). I feel this is an appropriate link considering how crucial energy is to the development of India and current energy concerns. I might want to add some energy content under the economy section as well. Any thoughts or concerns?

• EIA Energy Profile for India —Preceding unsigned comment added by ARUenergy (talk • contribs) 14:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

No mention of Aryan ancestory?

Aryans came from India. Over 70% of the country is Indo-Aryan. Many of India's Hindu scriptures have reference to Aryan ancestory. The Swastika is used in India. And India was known as the land of the Aryans (Aryatava, if thats how its spelled)....and yet this article has no mention of Aryan ancestory in the history section.......however......if you go to the Iran & Afghanistan articles they have a mention of Aryan ancestory? That makes no sense because IRan and Afghanistan are right next to India and in the olden days they were all one land. So how can Iran and Afghanistan have a mention of Aryan ancestory but India doesnt? I would write stuff myself in here, but knowing how wikipeida is, it will probably get erased. 71.105.82.152 (talk) 00:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)