India 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.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 3, 2004.
Article milestones Date Process Result September 16, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted April 11, 2005 Featured article review Kept May 6, 2006 Featured article review Kept
Current status: Featured article

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

India FA‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is a selected article on the India portal, which means that it was selected as a high quality India-related article.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

I have reverted the edit "although it remains a member of the Commonwealth of Nations." because

1. The sentence is too specific for the lead. See WP:LEAD
2. although implies contradiction. The although bit does not contradict the previous sentence, or the summary of the second paragraph.

=Foreign relations= is a better alternative. =Nichalp «Talk»= 20:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this edit as I believe it carrys undue significance to the article. There is a lot of information about India not covered in the main article in detail and I believe this clearly falls in that category. Docku:“what up?” 00:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should stay in some form. It is too significant to India right now due to the pre-eminence of the issue of this violence in the main stream media right now. I agree that it should be dramatically shortened from it's present form, and perhaps merged elsewhere in the article. Sandwich Eater (talk) 02:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A lot less notable and enduring than floods and earthquakes that occur almost every year. And it doesn't happen on a continual basis unlike some insurgencies. YellowMonkey (click here to chose Australia's next top model!) 02:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you're correct. A section covering all ongoing insurgencies in India with links to separate pages describing them would be more appropriate for a nation wide article. Sandwich Eater (talk)

There is already an article titled Religious violence in India. Details about specific incidents should go there. Per summary style, this article is to contain only summary information about various core issues of India. --Ragib (talk) 03:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It also doesnt follow Wikipedia conventions. All nation articles should be uniform since this is an encyclopedia. Nikkul (talk) 06:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This refusal to allow the conflicts of India to be summarized in the article is nonsense. Have a look at the WP page for Georgia. Clearly WP does capture current events within the context of the encyclopedia article, which is one of the great things about wikipedia. It is a one stop shop to get up to speed on an issue, but with a context that is more informative than a news article. Methinks some of the Indian nationals have a biased point of view.Bilbo of Andover (talk) 11:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History section, 6th paragraph, first line. Since independence, India has suffered from religious violence, casteism and insurgencies in various parts, but has been able to control them through tolerance and constitutional reforms. Expanding on religious violence is clear WP:UNDUE. Docku:“what up?” 13:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia is NOT a featured article, where as India is and has been for a long time. I think we should work on the Georgia article more than adding something from the Georgia article to this one. Also, India is a country of a billion people (unlike Georgia) where such small incidents aren't relevant to the larger populace. Your proposal of adding a section on religious violence on this page is like adding a section on Hurricanes on the United States page. Totally undue. Nikkul (talk) 05:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 'Hindustan' was and still remains important in the Indian subcontinent as a popular word for the land 'India'. If intention of Wikipedia is to be an importance knowledge resource, Hindustan should be an independent article, in my humble opinion. But info in it should be NPOV, give past history in one para or two and should admit that the present usage of the word may die away with time for various reasons, including the sensitivities of some sections which may also be mentioned. Info may be duplicated in brief in the article on India, I feel. My two cents: Wiki dr mahmad (talk) 17:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How different is that from India, and why is that not considered a Fork? =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I just read the Hindustan article and it provides valuable information on the meaning and its use throughout time. This information would never be able to be added to the India page, especially given the Summary Style of this article. I think it's best to keep the article with NPOV. Nikkul (talk) 05:41, 30 October 2008

(UTC)

Dear Nichalp, I see that this 'merge/keep/delete' discussion is ON in quite a few India/Pakistan related articles/topics. My intention is to have Wikipedia as an easily accessible knowledge resource (using Wikipedia search engine) on all topics of relevance to past and present, but in a good faith NPOV language, away from any nationalistic or other negative ramifications. The West has done it admirably for their lands! How to achieve this in the Afro-Asian region , I leave to wiser contributors than me. Wiki dr mahmad (talk) 22:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:FORK says A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject. While article India deals with India as a country, Hindustan just talks about the word "Hindustan". Of course, it could be redirected to Names of India, but having it as a separate article should provide a vivid picture of Hindustan for someone who is specifically interested to know its meaning. Docku:“what up?” 22:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the literal meaning of "Gaṇarājya"? Rajya look like "kingdom" or something like that...but then what is "Gana"? Le Anh-Huy (talk) 22:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gana has many meanings in Sanskrit (e.g., as a prefix for Ganesha – Ganapathi, Ganaraja, etc.), but can also mean community or number. Thanks AreJay (talk) 23:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Le Anh, Rajya means state, Gana means Union or Collection[1], so Ganarajya means Union of States. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 01:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ganrajya means "republic" if you go by this Republic of India; Bharat Ganrajya. This is also pointed out in the infobox (see non-numbered footnotes). But after reading Arejay's and Fmt's comments, I guess there is a mistake!! --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 07:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of Sanskrit defination, Gana also means people. Rajya also means rule. So Ganarajya also means - place where there is rule of people symbolizing republic and democracy. Other famous words with use of Gana as said above by Arejay are

• Ganesh which is made of Gana and -ish or -esh means Lord. So Ganesh is also called as Ganapati or Ganaadidesh. Pati in some ways means owner and adhidesh means ruler.
• Ganavesh which is made of Gana and vesh means clothing. So Ganavesh means Uniform.

Many more words of Gana... --GPPande talk! 18:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are right, but I believe Le Anh was asking how the word Ganarajya (which, as you point out is republic) is derived. Fmt and I were just pointing out what the word Gana means, since Rajya means kingdom AreJay (talk) 14:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added two varied photos for the geography section, but for some reason they were deleted. I do believe that the geography section should have an image, because of India's varied landscape. Samantha555 (talk) 08:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Maybe have a rotation of images from different landscapes. This has worked well for culture and flora sections. Nikkul (talk) 17:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added two photos to the geography section. I believe they show a good example of the variety of the landscape in India. Samantha555 (talk) 09:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lets add them here first Nikkul (talk) 05:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - as I have been requested to do, I am explaining the following change I am making to this article - it is mainly editing, correcting of spelling mistakes and awkward grammar. If you are giving precise dates, you don't need "three years later" or "finally" (which sounds like someone telling a story). There aren't any particular changes in content, except I do want to change the "as per the wishes of the Muslim League" statement in regards to explaining the partition of India - it is quite misleading by itself and raises more questions than it answers. It would be more concise and accurate to say "at the same time Muslim-majority areas were partitioned to form a separate state of Pakistan." I hope this meets with approval - I will make the amends if there are no objections. S h i v a (Visnu) (talk) 06:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I am assuming that this article should be written as per Indian English or Commonwealth English, in which case words like "characterized" should be "characterised." S h i v a (Visnu) (talk) 06:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you deleted "India has suffered from religious violence, casteism and insurgencies in various parts, but has been able to control them through tolerance and constitutional reforms"? --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 08:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote the sentence because the latter part is awkward and unlike the rest of the article, the fact has not been cited. I found myself asking what is meant by "control them," given that violence always had terrible fallout in every case, "tolerance" can be directly disputed by the mobs involved. I'm not sure which "constitutional reforms" have been attempted and attributed to stop violence. What happens if something new happens tomorrow? Was that "controlled" through the "constitutional reforms" stated? Such an assertion would require a direct citation in my opinion. The more general statement I wrote of "India facing challenges from religious violence, casteism...." is much better in giving fact without inviting dispute. S h i v a (Visnu) (talk) 20:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention that I changed "parliamentary republic" because the usual, correct term is "parliamentary democracy." "Parliamentary" refers to a form of "democracy," not a form of "republic." Both India and the U. S. are republics, but only India is a parliamentary democracy, whereas the U. K. is a parliamentary democracy that is not a republic. S h i v a (Visnu) (talk) 20:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Support your edits. Thanks! --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 14:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. S h i v a (Visnu) (talk) 14:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shiva, if a statement is made in summary style article like India, about a phenomenon which has it's own article like Religious tolerance in India then no citation is required. Reader can drill down to the individual article and get the citations. For more info - read Wikipedia:Citing_sources#When_to_cite_sources. Constitutional reforms used to curb violence are many - like reservations for castes. Example: special category was given by Rajastan government to Gujjars to stop violence/blockades. It's fine later part of constitutional reforms was removed because it lacks comprehensive child article but religious tolerance part can be reinstated into the article based on explanation I have provided. What do you say? --GPPande talk! 14:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GP Pande - I welcome your feedback because I was initially of the same opinion as you and didn't consider this a big deal, but reading WP:NPOV gives me a different point of view.

The principle problem with that sentence is that it makes an assertion that India has suffered from such violence but has been able to control it through constitutional reforms and tolerance. This is making a very definitive assertion about a very serious issue. How can one claim this to be so without appropriate sources backing this assertion up? Whether or not India has been able to control such conflict through tolerance and reforms is a live debate in the country that sharply divides people. Religious tolerance in India itself speaks of many episodes of violence that question the extent and ability of tolerance in controlling violence.

A reader may ask what is "control?" The riots in Gujarat, Delhi (1984) and Ayodhya were stopped when the Army was deployed, and thousands had been killed by then. While most Indians back religious harmony, there are those who do not. About "constitutional reforms," I first thought of the very kind of example you wrote of above, but then it occured to me that the statement is speaking generally of the kinds of problems that India faces. And again, the question of how such reforms have "controlled" violence arises - how did reforms help stop the Ambedkar statue desecretion riots? Was the official abolition of untouchability able to prevent the beating up of Dalits in a village somewhere, who tried to enter a temple to pray, as has happened, albeit infrequently?

Yes, both tolerance and reforms have helped in a big way to resolve problems. I remember reading of a village in Gujarat where Hindus and Muslims stood together to keep out rioters. But for every one example of tolerance there is another of intolerance.

That sentence to me conveyed a clear assertion about an important issue - without citation, it comes across as a bold opinion. It will immediately invite controversy - on this talkpage there has been a debate about a subsection to record an episode of violence. The problem cannot be said to be solved by thinking that a reader will go to the specific article to get the full picture - meanwhile, this authoritative article on India is making a definitive assertion about a national problems. A reader may not see it necessary to go beyond an article that is authoritative about the subject of the country and considered a WP:FA.

Saying "India faces challenges" keeps it open to both sides - some major problems were resolved through tolerance, but some were not. India will have to deal with future problems that it may or may not be able to control. I read Wikipedia:Citing sources#Qualifying sources, which relays the point about identifying exactly who is making the assertion and how Wikipedia must not advocate one opinion. S h i v a (Visnu) (talk) 18:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I get your point, the control is not complete but only limited. So now I propose below changes to current statement (modified earlier by me) -

• Since independence, India has faced challenges from religious violence, casteism, naxalism, terrorism and regional separatist insurgencies, especially in Jammu and Kashmir and Northeast India, but has exercised some control on them by religious tolerance, reservation system, intelligence and law enforcement agencies --GPPande talk! 19:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I may modify your nomination: Since independence, India has faced challenges from religious violence, casteism, naxalism, terrorism and regional separatist insurgencies, especially in Jammu and Kashmir and Northeast India. India's secularism, freedom of religion and major reforms have helped towards resolving conflicts.

Adding the law enforcement/intelligence agencies is too controversial - many have criticized the failures of police and intelligence, human rights abuses and police complicity in riots. S h i v a (Visnu) (talk) 19:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

major qualifies as WP:PEACOCK term and so is discouraged. Constitutional reforms is most apt here. Using only reforms word could confuse the reader on weather the reforms were social like Dalit buddhist movement.

• So - Since independence, India has faced challenges from religious violence, casteism, naxalism, terrorism and regional separatist insurgencies, especially in Jammu and Kashmir and Northeast India. Religious tolerance, reservation system and constitutional reforms have helped maintain control.

I will add this to the article if no concern is raised. --GPPande talk! 20:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with mentioning the reservation system, given the 2006-07 protests and other noted protests. Also, "maintain control" is debatable as I pointed out earlier. I prefer - ... have helped towards resolving conflicts. S h i v a (Visnu) (talk) 20:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now - protests, strikes and blockades have always rained in India. In your proposal, you had mentioned secularism and freedom of religions, which both mean almost the same. It is a repeating concept. In above proposal, religious violence have been counteracted with religious tolerance and casteism by reservation system. Naxalism and terrorism were counteracted with intelligence and Law enforcement agencies but somehow you rejected it citing some tiny reasons. See, criticism is always going to be there. But they are negligible compared to otherwise good work done by them. Look at the entire history since independence, not few incidences. This is entire 60 years of history and without law and order agencies no country would have survived so long. I have provided enough explanations from my side so adding it to the article. --GPPande talk! 20:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, criticism will aways be there, so it is hardly a summary-style or generally-accepted statement if it will be disputed easily and is without a proper citation. I again point out Wikipedia:Citing sources#Qualifying sources. You don't need to mention law enforcement agencies as keeping control - its implied, its what they do. Nobody is talking about India being "without law and order agencies" - we are not questioning the existence of them. The failure of these agencies to stop the parliament attack, Mumbai train bombings or these August attacks, killings in Gujarat and Delhi, possible complicity and inaction by police in Gujarat and the continuing Naxalite insurgency are not "tiny reasons" but subject of much heated debate. Obviously the law enforcement agencies fight terrorism and naxalite insurgency - its what they do. Reservations are subject of much controversy and episodes of violence, and many criticize it as actually aggravating caste divisions. Reservations have been there since the '50s and were supposed to end after 10 years, but they continue and these protests, riots have continued for 50-60 years.

The point is you are simply opening up a broad debate by this poor summary - each and every point can and eventually will be disputed by credible arguments. You cannot summarize India's history like this, given the many significant historical events that point otherwise. The summary must encompass the broad scope of the topic. Lastly, I don't appreciate this overriding of the discussion. In the past few days, I have willingly participated in discussions of what I consider to be not-so-significant changes, but I proceeded only after receiving agreement. You wrote above that you would add your sentence if there was no concern, so I think you should at least wait until I, or another editor(s) agrees with you. However, I am not going to undo your edits as a courtesy to you and for Wikipedia. S h i v a (Visnu) (talk) 21:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been asked to weigh in by user:Shiva (Visnu). I am taking for my example the sentences, "Since independence, India has faced challenges from religious violence, casteism, naxalism, terrorism and regional separatist insurgencies, especially in Jammu and Kashmir and Northeast India. India's secularism, freedom of religion and major reforms have helped towards resolving conflicts." (I don't know whose version this is.) Personally, I don't see any reason for the second sentence. Readers understand that any democracy tries to battle these problem as best it can. However, I would defer to Nichalp on this, and suggest that we wait for him to weigh in. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) May I suggest "attempted to control" since, without a credible source, we cannot say has controlled. (Though, I sort of agree with f&f that this is unnecessary. The main article should, with citations, explain how the government has attempted to control that sort of thing.)--Regents Park (sink with my stocks) 21:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am in agreement with Fowler and RegentsPark. The second statement can and prolly should be removed. However, "attempted to control" is not a good idea - it implies a state of instability and further complicates the summary. S h i v a (Visnu) (talk) 21:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just going to agree with "attempted to control". Let us leave it out. The sentence really stands out kind of "odd". Docku:“what up?” 22:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with the first italicized sentence in F&f's discussion above. I don't think there's a need for a second sentence on the subject (i.e., like the proposed attempted to control sentence); we should just stick to reporting facts and not opine on the subject. The degree to which the government attempted to control some of these conflicts is debatable, especially given some episodes of violence such as Delhi'84 and Gujarat'02. Thanks AreJay (talk) 22:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just trying to avoid this but it got into limelight. The original statement has survived for more than 8~10 months without a single word raised on talkpage. Then Shiva manipulated the statement starting debate.

I would list down why I deem the current statement most apt considering India's vast history put down in so little words in such a high level summary article -

1. In just 4~5 words major problems that have plagued India in terms of stability and peace are listed down. All words have their own child articles which put down in detail the problems.
2. The second part lists down what Indian government has done to tackle the problem. Religious violence --> Religious tolerance. Casteism --> Reservation system. Naxalism --> Intelligence agency. Terrorism --> Law enforcement agencies. All the four words describing the methods used by India also have child articles.
3. Now police is corrupt (during riots) or politicians are corrupt (for reservation politics) then all that can go into these child articles. No need to put all those things here. Whenever there are such politically sensitive things involved criticism always follows. This is not the place to list down them. As f&f had mentioned in past, develop these child articles instead of this summary article.
4. The second statement not only allows the user to know more by the official policies/work done by government to tackle these problems but also helps him understand in more the problem and solutions offered in India. All government policies and work have always attracted critism. That doesn't mean they should be eliminated completely. Do you think reservation system should be avoided from Indian history segment with no mention of it all? That would not be complete coverage for a FA status. It is an important part of Indian history (both pre and post independence).

Initially none of the words were linked to these articles and I had added more links and statement stood as it is for so many months. Not all words should be linked as excessive linking takes the attention away but if we have 10k child article then link should be given here. Also some changes have already been done in the statement based on valid points raised. But using words like secularism and religious freedom which almost mean the same that too in a single sentence is not good style. I believe that in such highly summarized article each word should be used carefully and should provide maximum possible ways to inform the reader. --GPPande talk! 09:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd been asked to weigh in on this discussion. I looked at the draft and do not support the second paragraph. The first paragraph needs to be tweaked for prose and relevance for inclusion. For now I think it's listy and needs to be pared down to summary style. Give me a day to think of something. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think, it's about time to implement a collapsible "official classical languages" segment. They should be listed in alphabetical order: Kannada, Sanskrit, Tamil, Telugu. The segment should be beneath the official languages and above segment 8th schedule, since it has national character. Please do it. Thanks. --Kalarimaster (talk) 20:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Classical language status is awarded by Government of India. I wonder if there is any international non-partisan non-political language body awarding such status. As such, I find it difficult to attribute much relevance and value. Docku:“what up?” 14:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter, whether you give this importance. Maybe you are simply jealous. Also this is no "truth" question. India declared them so, so this is highly relevant. Please don't talk much about it, DO it. --Kalarimaster (talk) 15:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What? Docku:“what up?” 15:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surprising! You ask for an opinion and when the opinion is "not favourable" you call people "jealous"! Why should we stop discussing and simply DO it!? Sir, this attitude is simply not acceptable. --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 15:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't ask anybody for any opinion. I requested a change in the box, because i couldn't do it myself somehow. --Kalarimaster (talk) 15:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kalarimaster, we use the talk page to discuss the suitability of inclusion. Docku was questioning the necessity of attaching WP:UNDUE importance to classical languages in the infobox. Please stop with making personal comments on fellow editors with the use of terms such as jealous. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why it shoulnd'nt be important, what India declares it's classical languages? It's an integral part of India's identity. Classical languages were given national importance (they get more money than normal languages also to get known abroad), so it is relevant for the infobox. --Kalarimaster (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Classical languages of India can detail the scope. 1. Do you have a citation that they receive more money? 2. By declaring a language "classical" what really changes? Please discuss. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you are not going to muscle your way into adding anything here. You would rather want to hinge your arguments on reason.

I based my argument on this article from TimesofIndia. Politics had the last word as despite serious differences within the expert group, culture ministry on Friday said Telugu and Kannada have been given status of classical language. A source in the expert group said, "It was a forced decision.".

I dont know the events which led to the recognition of classical language status of Sanskrit and Tamil. But reading this news report, I have every reason to question the value and significance of such a status. Well, we dont go around adding every piece of verifiable information to articles. Docku:“what up?” 16:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage your healthy sceptisism, but we have to put in the facts. Of course, there will be political fights forever, even among the Indians themselves, but this is not the point. When the Indian experts confirm it, we have to take it, if we like the results or not. --Kalarimaster (talk) 16:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fine the way it is. Having two collapsible lists for "Official languages" and "Classical languages" is going to confuse the average reader. It's ok for it to be included in some form in the Demographics section, but not as a field in the Infobox template. Thanks AreJay (talk) 16:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They will not confuse anybody in my view. It will be another useful and important information for the readers. --Kalarimaster (talk) 16:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I might be okay with there being some sort of notation in the "Official Scheduled languages" collapsible field (similar to the Urdu notation), indicating which languages have classical status, but I don't agree with the current proposal of having a separate field just for Classical languages. Thanks AreJay (talk) 17:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what happens, when a classical language is declared so by financial measures and what will change by the declaration to the language itself:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Cities/Hyderabad/Telugu_gets_classical_status/articleshow/3660521.cms

An elated A B K Prasad, chairman of the official language committee of Andhra Pradesh, said according classical language status would greatly boost research, preservation and spread of the language. “To begin with, the state would be given Rs 100 crore annually. With this, we will set up chairs in universities inside India and abroad, conduct research, encourage studies in Telugu, modernise and preserve ancient Telugu texts as well as encourage scholars to undertake widespread research into the origin and history of Telugu,” Prasad told TOI.

--Kalarimaster (talk) 16:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one's saying don't have it on Wikipedia. It's just that the classical status is cultural, rather than the standard political, geographic and demographic information we put in the infobox. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First you were trying to tell me, that classical languages of india were just political bullshit. Then you requested detailed explanation, what the classical languages would make so special. Now you're arguing that there is no place for the classical languages in the box, because "this is not normal", "it's just cultural". When i say, that the listing of scheduled languages "was not normal", because there is usually the official languages list exclusivly, then you will say anything else. When i say, that the classical languages were introduced by a constitutional decree, then you will say something else. India is not the same as other countries, because of it's cultural, political, and whatsoever plurality. I really dislike this Anti-behaviour, because it tells me, that you are completely involved in this political fight. I even go further, and say, if your mothertongue was listed as classical language, you would strongly advocate for the right treatment, and that's what my purposal stands for. --Kalarimaster (talk) 20:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have followed this classical language topic for a few years now and read through this discussion. This is my humble opinion,

• The classical tag is very prestigious.
• All the languages that have been awarded the status so far are highly deserving of it. Kannada and Telugu had to endure the close examination of a committee setup by the culture ministry–a committee not comprising of a single Kannadiga scholar.
• Yes, it is well known and there are enough articles to prove that these 4 languages will be funded to the tune of 100 crores + 5 crores per year, in addition to setting up learning/research centres in India and abroad, international awards etc. A centre for study of classical Kannada is already planned in CIIL, Mysore.
• Whether other users think it is deserved or not is immaterial. It is official and it is administered by the central government. Thats all that matters.
• I agree with Arejay that this classical info could be mentioned in the demographics section. Classical languages are India's pride.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 20:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your participation. Could you tell me, why the classical info should not be listed in the infobox, while it's an offical matter of India? --Kalarimaster (talk) 21:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine either way.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 22:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A classical language according to Wikipedia's own page, "is a language that has a broad influence over an extended period of time." A classical language is a cosmopolitan language, a literary lingua franca over a large historical region in which many different vernaculars were spoken. A classical has influence on other languages by way of borrowing of a large number of words and roots, and a classical language usually is a dead language or a highly diglossic language. Classical Greek, Classical Latin, Classical Chinese, Classical Sanskrit, Classical Persian, and Classical Tamil all show these characteristics.

Kannada, like Telegu, and later Marathi, Hindi, and Bengali, was a vernacular, a local language, in the same way that English, German, and Norwegian were. Beowulf, for example, is older than Kavirajamarga, and unlike the latter was not largely based on a classical text (Dandi's Kavyadarsa composed in Sanskrit). Similarly Cædmon's Hymn is at least of the same vintage as Kappe Arabhatta and has both more poetic value and influence. Furthermore, there is nothing in Old Kannada like the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle in Old English. Similarly Middle English is older than Middle Kannada, and through the Canterbury Tales and Wycliffe's Bible has had a great deal more influence; however, this doesn't make English a classical language.

The Encyclopedia Britannica article on South Asian Arts says, "Of the four literary Dravidian languages, Tamil has been recorded earliest, followed by Kannada, Telugu, and Malayalam. Tamil literature has a classical tradition of its own, while the literatures of the other languages have been influenced by Sanskrit models." Perhaps, Kalarimaster would like to write to Britannica and persuade them to change their text. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your information. Please convey this pathbreaking knowledge to the expert committee (wih the exception of Kolandai Swamy) and lets see if they will change their mind.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conditions for the tag: http://www.telegraphindia.com/1081101/images/01language.jpg I don't really care about this. I think, I'm not able to persuade them in any way. But obviously the common notion, that Kannada and Telugu were not independent, was heavily wrong. --Kalarimaster (talk) 14:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kalarimaster, please dont bother to argue and waste your valuable energy. There is nothing anyone can do to change things as they are. Kannada/Telugu have far better things to do now that they have received the recognition they so richly deserve. Remember, we are not here to make everyone wiser than they actually are.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's better to lay this thing down. Some even experienced people here really hate to see such changes in the article to the death. We have better things to do. --Kalarimaster (talk) 15:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kalarimaster will you please STOP your hostile remarks and assume good faith? Your persistent twisting of our statements is not going to help your cause in anyways. By calling things "political bullshit", it really demonstrates an unwillingness to deal with the topic that is the notability and suitability of the inclusion into the infobox. You fail to address it. Sorry. See WP:CIVIL before replying to my post the next time. Thank you. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Kalarimaster and Dinesh that the classical languages have to be mentioned in the infobox. The notion that they are "cultural" and not "political" does not fly because they are not merely "understood" to be 'classical' languages but also officially deemed so. Just like we note all the "Official" languages, we will also have to note the official "Classical" languages. And we could surely do with a little less of "pathbreaking" uninformed OR from participants here. If "official" languages and "Scheduled" languages can be in the infobox so should "Classical" languages. Sarvagnya 19:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By marking it as "classical", it does not make in any ways more important than other languages. More patronage for the fine arts yes, but not in no ways it has the status of an official language. If the UN marks languages as classical, does it achieve the same as the official languages as far as the functioning of the UN goes? No. The same case here. It does not change the way India as a nation functions. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No 'adornment' will make any language in the world more "important" than any other. We're not debating about the "importance" of any language. Every language is a part of world heritage and is equally important. However, on wikipedia we only report the facts and if the UN were to officially decorate these languages with a tag, we will report that too. Right now, the GoI in its infinite wisdom has by constitutional decree recognized these languages as "Classical" and we we report that. Just as we report the "Official" and "Scheduled" languages. Sarvagnya 19:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting facts is one thing, but we also follow WP:UNDUE and WP:SS. By the same logic we can also add India-specific information such as amateur radio callsigns, ITU prefixes and so on. Classical languages mention was present in the article since 2004. We *are* reporting it as is. There's no question of not reporting. The issue is WP:UNDUE. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize that the Government of India had made this pronouncement. (See, this news story, which seems to indicate that the decision was political and that the two languages failed on all the counts I mentioned above.) Regardless, the reason why the official and scheduled languages were put in the format they are in, was not just what the Government of India had stated, but how major secondary sources had interpreted what the Government had stated. See, for example, the list of focused 15 secondary sources, which was a part of the RfC that resulted in that decision. When similarly reliable secondary sources (Encyclopaedia Britannica, Encyclopedia Encarta, United Kingdom Foreign and Commonwealth Office, United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, UNESCO, US Library of Congress, US Department of State, UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Ethnologue) begin to report on the classical status of Kannada and Telegu under "Official languages of India," we will add them here. Besides, Tamil and Sanskrit, I gather, have had this official classical status since 2004 or 2005, but, for the preceding three or four years, no one had been clamoring for this new infobox. What has changed? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look at this news report. India, apparently, has an unique way of doing things. Academic decision forced and made by politicians. Shame on Indian politics and academics. Docku:“what up?” 21:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Political unity has been the corner stone of cultural developments from the beginning of mankind. So what!!Dineshkannambadi (talk) 22:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

::::::PS. Which version of Kannada has been deemed classical? Is it Old Kannada? If people are considering adding Old Kannada to the demography section and looking for speakers for a head count, I would like to volunteer G. S. Gai and A. N. Narasimhia, whose pages I had the privilege of creating (if they are still alive). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)Scratching previous comments resulting from misinterpretation. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean which version? Please read the news papers. "Kannada Language" has been deemed classical.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 22:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your article claims no such thing. The political pressure by the Ktaka and AP governments was only to protest the inordinate delay by the central govt (The committee had recommended three months ago that both languages fulfil the criteria laid down by the government for recognition as classical languages.)... not to force their opinion on the linguistic experts group.

And the delay, according to common knowledge and this report(lest you jump at me) was because of the "sabotage" of "Tamil enthusiasts". And talking of qualifications, both Telugu and Kannada have been accorded the tag after they met the revised and more stringent requirement of an antiquity (of literature) of 2000 years as against the only 1000 year antiquity that was required when Tamil was conferred the tag. So yes, something did change in the years since Tamil was conferred the tag. It is that the criteria became more stringent. huh. Sarvagnya 22:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) These two reports from The Hindu and The Telegraph together seem to suggest that the reverse is true: the antiquity requirement had been reduced first from 2000 years to 1500, and it is only 1000 years now. Report 1 and Report 2 (see The Conditions on left). At any rate, as I have already stated above, when reliable secondary sources (Encyclopaedia Britannica, Encyclopedia Encarta, United Kingdom Foreign and Commonwealth Office, United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, UNESCO, US Library of Congress, US Department of State, UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Ethnologue) begin to report on the classical status of Kannada and Telegu (or for that matter Tamil and Sanskrit) under "Official languages of India," we will add them in the infobox. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Official Classical Languages (discussion part II)

@fowler&fowler When similarly reliable secondary sources (Encyclopaedia Britannica, Encyclopedia Encarta, United Kingdom Foreign and Commonwealth Office, United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, UNESCO, US Library of Congress, US Department of State, UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Ethnologue) begin to report on the classical status of Kannada and Telegu under "Official languages of India," we will add them here. Besides, Tamil and Sanskrit, I gather, have had this official classical status since 2004 or 2005, but, for the preceding three or four years, no one had been clamoring for this new infobox. What has changed?

This is the type of conversation i never wanted here. You stick to something, that is not near to relevance. India has its own measures and its own scientists. They don't have to ask the US, UK, UNO for any "authentication" or "certificate" to declare their own classical languages as so. This is why it is labeled "Offical" Classical Languages OF INDIA. I myself thought about the infobox edit, because I just recently got known of the financial benefits for these languages by the news reports. These languages shall get more attention in India and abroad. And of course, Tamil and Sanskrit are well known for their classical status, but Kannada and Telugu are far from that. This would be by the way another good argument to use the infobox.

@ALL: PLEASE stop argument about, whether the languages is classical or not. This is a decision made by India. Stick only to the facts. --Kalarimaster (talk) 23:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry I don't see any precedent for "Official Classical Languages" on any other country page. Italy doesn't have Classical Latin in its infobox, nor Greece, Classical Greek, nor yet Syria, Aramaic. Why this special dispensation for India? And since when did Wikipedia become a conduit for financial benefit? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but why should there be a precedent? How many countries have 4 classical languages? What surprises me is one user says "classicalness" is cultural and hence does not deserve inclusion, another says its "politically motivated" and hence does not deserve inclusion.?Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do they have any constitutional instruction for it? Any official declaration? Oh...--Kalarimaster (talk) 23:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kalarimaster mentioned an important point. I think the debate here is not whether any of the four languages are classical or not, the issue is their inclusion in this article. So lets not try to throw digressions by running to the UN, the UK or the USA. Let us now consider the case of Konkani in the schedule 8 list. Was'nt the several decades long battle to have Konkani recognised as the official language of Goa, both a cultural and political effort. Was'nt the formation of the states themselves politically and culturally hard fought? Anything and everything concerning language is both cultural and political. This is how India's great classical languages (it should someday be six including Pali and Prakrit) have developed. You cannot ignore them in this article for either reason.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Status of official languages, linguistic separation of states are political decisions. Would you have wanted them to be academical? Classical language status, on the other hand, should have been purely academical. Having made that political is certainly unique to India. But, may be you are right, it probably doesnt matter. Docku:“what up?” 01:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Schedule VIII is a different story. It is a part of the Constitution of India (or its amendments). As far as I am aware this official classical status is awarded by the government of the day, but is not in the Constitution. I'll double check in a few minutes. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent)I just checked. Where does the Constitution of India say anything about official classical languages? The Constitution of India says only (Article 351):

The special status of Sanskrit in the Constitution long predates this bogus "classical language" status that was awarded by the government of the day starting in 2004. I just checked all the amendments of the Constitution: here they are all up to the 94th and last amendment. The last language amendment was the 92nd amendment (date of assent: January 7, 2004, which added Bodo, Dogri, Maithili, and Santhali to the Schedul VIII languages. Where is the Constitutional amendment that says anything about official classical languages? Perhaps, Kalarimaster, Dineshkhannambadi, or Sarvangnyna can find it for us? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A constitutional Decree was introduced, not an amendment. A constitutional decree in India is sacrosanct, the classical languages are backed by constitutional law and hence are treated like the constitution itself. --Kalarimaster (talk) 02:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find any official source, including this announcement, stating that this declaration (whether a decree or not) had anything to do with the constitution. Care to give me a Government of India source that uses the expression "constitutional decree" in this regard? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let us see the swing and trajectory of Fowlers opinon's (as always).

• You first wrote above A classical language according to Wikipedia's own page, "is a language that has a broad influence over an extended period of time." A classical language is a cosmopolitan language, a literary lingua franca over a large historical region in which many different vernaculars were spoken. A classical has influence on other languages by way of borrowing of a large number of words and roots, and a classical language usually is a dead language or a highly diglossic language. Classical Greek, Classical Latin, Classical Chinese, Classical Sanskrit, Classical Persian, and Classical Tamil all show these characteristics. From this I gather you categorically accepted these languages as classical, without any constitutional decree, just because it was written so in some wiki page, perhaps cited by a few foreign scholars of your interest.
• Then you said you had not read the newspaper announcements
• Then you said it seem politically motivated
• Then you said it is bogus
• Now you are asking for a constitutional decree.

Fowler, you are fast ruuning out of excuses here.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I can show some entries in this article which are not enshrined in the constitution.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That probably means that this edit has too many problems and none of them has been convincingly addressed. Docku:“what up?” 03:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Kalarimaster, Since you made an important issue of what the Government of India had stated, here are the Google search results among all India sites (.in) for the exact expression "constitutional decree": Search all five results. I doubt that this declaration (and that's all it is) has anything to do with Article 343, 351 or Schedule VIII of the Constitution of India, the basis of the official languages infobox on this page. As I have already stated, neither Kannada nor Telegu pass the usual test for a language to be classical that I enumerated in my first post. The "criteria" for classical languages, which is much quoted in Wikipedia's page on Classical Languages, is actually only incompletely quoted. Here is a longer quote, which I'm gratified to find, repeats what I have already said:

1.Statement in support of Tamil as classical language.

I'm sorry but your efforts to create an official classical languages infobox, in my view, (and I agree here with Docku) will not pass muster on this page. All the best and Good Night. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't offer an offical document either, that the classical language category was introduced by a constitutional decree, but there are many notifications, that are not published on the internet, like the official notification, that Tamil was declared "Classical language". However, there are newspaper reports, which confirm, that the classical language category was introduced by constitutional decree. So this is enough to prove it:

http://www.deccanherald.com/CONTENT/Aug142008/editpage2008081384442.asp

Also i found a conversation of the Indian parliament, which illustrates the importance of the classical language status for India, where Mr. Shivraj V. Patil compares the status of the scheduled languages to the status of the classical languages:

SHRI JANARDHANA POOJARY: Sir, the demand for declaring Kannada as a classical language is pending before the Government since 2004. The same answer has been given earlier also. My submission before the House is that the Kannada text and recorded history belongs to 252 BC. The first Kannada literary work Kavirajamarga was created in 850 AD and it refers to some writings earlier than that. The 12th Centaury Kannada Bhakti Movement in the form of Vachana or oral expression is unparallel. In contemporary kirtana which subsequently became Karnataka Sangeet is an enduring contribution to Indian music. Sir, the epigraphical material in Kannada, numbering over 25,000 inscriptions in stone and copper, are rich in style and contents, which are not found even in Tamil inscription. The UNESCO records Kannada amongst the prime scripts of the world. Sir, Kannada is among the first living languages of the world in the history of continuous writing system spanning three millennium like Hebrew, Chinese and Tamil.

SHRI JANARDHANA POOJARY (CONTD): Sir, the recognition was given to Tamil. We do not grudge it. Now, Sir, when the world recognises Kannada, in India...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please, put your question.

SHRI JANARDHANA POOJARY: ...step-motherly treatment is being given to Karnataka. Agitations are going on in Karnataka. About three days back, about one lakh people gathered. Everyday, it is going on. Has the Government recognised this? Is the Government going to take any action on this, and by what time?

SHRI SHIVRAJ V. PATIL: Sir, Kannada is a very rich language, ancient language. The matter is before the Committee of Linguistic Experts constituted by the Ministry of Culture. This matter is now with the Ministry of Culture. They are looking into the matter. There are demands made by one other section of the society with respect to their language. Now, these demands are being looked into by the Expert Committee, and after the Expert Committee comes to any conclusion, the Ministry of Culture will take a decision in the matter.

SHRI JANARDHANA POOJARY: Sir, in reply to Unstarred Question No. 1381, it was stated, "The Ministry of Culture had received presentation from various quarters for declaring Kannada as classical language. A Committee of Linguistic Experts has been constituted to examine the claims of any language classical language status. This Committee will advise the Government in the matter." This answer was given on 6.3.2006. Subsequently, to me also, the Minister of Culture has replied saying that it has been referred. Now, the question before the House is as to how long it will go on like this. There is a limit to the patience of the people also. They are losing their patience. You may not believe, but they are condemning and criticising the Parliamentarians and saying that Karnataka M.P.'s are dormant; they are inactive.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please, ask the question. Don't make a statement.

SHRI JANARDHANA POOJARY: How long will the Government take a decision? After being referred to the Expert Committee, there has been a lapse of one year, what action is going to be taken by the Government?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Poojary, this is a supplementary question. Please, ask the question. Don't make a statement.

SHRI SHIVRAJ V. PATIL: As a matter of fact, this question should have been sent to the Ministry of Culture. But, because, the notice was given to us, and the notice was given at the last moment, the question was accepted and we are replying to it. As a matter of fact, it is only the Ministry of Culture which is in a position to take a decision with respect to this, and I would like to say that the language should unit; language should not divide. Many languages in our country are rich languages and they should be a source of our unity rather than division. So, it would be necessary for all of us to tell our brothers and sisters in the States that on the basis of language, division should not be created. Because the languages are rich; because the languages are ancient; because...(Interruptions).

SHRI JANARDHANA POOJARY: There is no...(Interruptions).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please, let the hon. Minister complete his reply...(Interruptions). Poojaryji, please, don't interfere.

SHRI PENUMALLI MADHU: Sir, the question is different.

SHRI SHIVRAJ V. PATIL: There are forces in the country which would like to use these kinds of things. The Government is quite sensitive to this matter. The Government has been looking into this matter and that is why, two languages in India have been recognised as classical languages. If there are other languages which have to be examined for this purpose, it will be done. But, then, before the decision in this respect is taken, it is our responsibility to see that it does not become a divisive factor.

DR. K. MALAISAMY: Thanks a lot, Chairman, Sir. While we are very happy that Tamil has been rightly recognised as the classical language, our grievance is that Tamil happens to be a very rich language and in spite of that, it was belatedly recognised. I am inclined to ask as to what is the reason for recognising Tamil language so late.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Question, please.

DR. K. MALAISAMY: Is it due to want of pressure or want of taking cognisance by the Committee...(Interruptions). It ought to have been recognised long-long back. It is an ancient language.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not relevant.

SHRI SHIVRAJ V. PATIL: May I very respectfully submit to this House that the concept of classical language is not as ancient as the language is?

SHRI SHIVRAJ V. PATIL (CONTD.): It was accepted in 2004. That is why that language has been recognised as a classical language. You should not find fault with it. If you say that it was not recognised in time, again, it becomes a divisive factor. Please don't do that.

SHRI M. V. MYSURA REDDY: Mr. Chairman, Sir, the hon. Minister had replied to Unstarred Question No.2292 on 22.3.2007. The same reply was given regarding Telugu language that the request for declaring Telugu as a classical language had been forwarded to the Sahitya Akademi. The same answer was given. I want to know from the hon. Minister whether the Committee has recommended to recognise Telugu as a classical language. If not, I want an assurance from the Minister to fix a time-frame for the Committee.

SHRI SHIVRAJ V. PATIL: Sir, the demand for recognising the Telugu language as a classical language is also before the Government. But, as I have already said, this matter is not with the Home Ministry. This matter is with the Ministry of Culture. As it was wrongly referred to us, we have not just thrown it out and we are answering the question. I am not in a position to give any kind of assurance.

SHRI PENUMALLI MADHU: Sir, the straight question to the hon. Minister is that a request has been made to the Minister for Culture and to the Minister for Home Affairs that Telugu should be recognised as a classical language. The Minister had answered this question in last March that they were going to refer it to a Committee of Experts. The Committee has been constituted. I would like to know from the Minister by which time this assurance will be honoured and whether there is any time-frame for that. Or, does he go on referring to the same thing? I request the hon. Minister to answer this.

SHRI SHIVRAJ V. PATIL: Sir, I think, I have replied to this kind of questions.

SHRIMATI BRINDA KARAT: There should be a straight answer.

SHRI SHIVRAJ V. PATIL: No, there can't be any straight answer. Let us understand that we are all very responsible Members sitting in this august House. Each one of us appreciates the value of culture and language and that is why we shall have to take a considered view. It is true that Telugu language is a rich language; Kannada language is also a rich language. There are 22 languages included in the Eighth Schedule and there are 37 demands pending with the Government for their inclusion in the Eighth Schedule. Now, these issues are real issues. If we don't handle these issues in an appropriate manner, instead of uniting, it will become a divisive force. That is why I request that it should not be done. (Interruptions)...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please. Your question is over. (Interruptions)... Please, hon. Member. (Interruptions)... No. (Interruptions)...Please, hon. Member. (Interruptions)...If the Members wish to have a discussion on this, that is a separate matter. (Interruptions)...But it is not in the Question Hour.(Interruptions).. Q. No. 283. (Interruptions)...

I'm pretty sure, that this and a 4 year long decision process is convincing enough for an infobox notification, besides the newspaper source, which confirms the constitutional decree claim. --Kalarimaster (talk) 05:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I dont think wikipedia gives credence to Fowler's opinions as to which language is classical and which is not, and what the opinions of scholars outside the expert committee is. Is it official or not? and is it notable or not? is all the matters.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Let's put a footnote next to the four languages name in the infobox. Alongside each language, we add the dagger symbol (†) that leads to a footnote that says that these languages are marked as classical by the GoI. Too much of an issue is being made about a trivial matter. The scope of the infobox is to present information in the most simple manner for a reader to understand, not confound a user on the vagaries of classification of Indian languages by the Government of India. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amen to that...I support Nichalp's proposal. AreJay (talk) 15:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will go along with this as long as the footnote says, "These languages have been declared to be classical by the Government of India, but not by the Constitution," since the information box is about languages (both official and schedule VIII) that are in the Constitution. I do this very reluctantly, since under no definition of "classical language" can Kannada and Telegu be considered even remotely classical. They are irredeemably vernacular and no political decision will change that. Wikipedia, I believe, should not be putting out incorrect information, even in an infobox footnote. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would never consume a medicine invented by a phony pharmaceutical company and forced by ignorant politicians (with apparent stakes in such a decision) to be recognised by FDA. Having said that, I will go with the majority in the final decision. Docku:“what up?” 15:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nichalp's idea. Seems reasonable, but let us not allow ourselves to add clutter about constitutional details and such in the footnote. BTW, wiki cares two hoots for personal opinions about vernacular vs classical, which is why we have a nine member expert committee.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Foot note is important to let the readers know that classical status is based on Indian sub-standard. It is just fair enough. Docku:“what up?” 16:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can continue railing but no such footnote is going to "pass muster". Dream on. Sarvagnya 16:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Docku, just to clarify, the footnote is important because it distinguishes between what was written in Schedule VIII vs. what was put forth by GoI – not because something is par standard or sub-standard. It isn't for us on Wikipedia to opine on whether something is or isn't par standard, regardless of how we feel on the subject. Most decisions in India are politically motivated, and it's a reality that we have to live with. Thanks AreJay (talk) 16:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This dagger suits for languages only, which are currently not spoken anymore. This is a totally misleading suggestion for readers. Among the classical languages of India, there is only Sanskrit, which is considered dead. Instead of the dagger there should be provided a Classical Languages of India label which is referenced with the official requirements for this recognition to tell the people, that this classification is India-specific. Suggestions of Fowler should be ignored, because he couldn't provide any references for this individual's claims, that the classical languages category isn't linked with the constitution.

For me your suggestion seems to be much more complicated and misleading. Therefore i'm considering to start a petition for my purposal. --Kalarimaster (talk) 16:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Footnote that it is declared by the Gov is important. India is a free republic. We are not here to prove that the decisions taken by her intelligentsia (literary in this case) is standard or sub-standard.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Kalarimaster: There's no need to be exacting here. The languages names are declared to be classical. Detailed information can be detailed out on Classical languages of India (IMO should now have a separate page). Also, what "petition" do you propose? =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the distinction in terms of Schedule VIII. But, isnt it also important to note the different criteria used in India in order to avoid the readers confusing classical latin, greek and other world classical languages with Indian classical languages. Remember, there was a loosening of standards from 2000 years to 1500 years to 1000. Docku:“what up?” 17:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The section will be pipelinked to Classical languages of India just as we have a link to the Eighth Schedule. Beyond that, we cannot help people's stupidity or ignorance.Sarvagnya 17:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the statement. We really cannot help people's stupidity or ignorance. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Fowler, @Dinesh, #Docku: How about this draft: Note: These languages have been declared to be classical languages of India by the Government of India but not by the Schedule VIII of the Constitution? It's more wordy, but its less ambiguous since the label is about Schedule VIII of the constitution.

@ Kalarimaster, your suggestions are too precise and exacting for an article written in summary style. We do have the option of detailing out the exact information you wish to display on Classical languages of India. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revised draft: These languages have been declared to be classical languages of India by the Government of India. Note: They are not listed in Schedule VIII of the Constitution. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)The pipelinkng part I agree with. In fact, I made the exact same suggestion above. But no "...but not by the Schedule VIII of the Constitution?". That would at once be violation of WP:NPOV and a classic case of WP:SYN. The fact is that the GoI declared these languages classical and that is it. Sarvagnya 17:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarvagnya, its not OR. A government declaration needs a simple majority (usually 51%). A constitutional amendment normally requires a 66% majority. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And precisely why do we need to go into those details? Do any secondary sources go into that? Of what relevance is it? And if the GoI "declares" languages as classical, it is only because of the power vested in it by the Constitution. Just because something is not in the constitution does not mean that it is any less binding. Like I said, if this declaration has been without a constitutional amendment, it is because there is no need for a constitutional amendment because of the very constitution you're talking about. There is nothing in the constitution that is against this classification of the government. This entire "not in constitution.." thing is irrelevant. There are several things in the article which may or may not be in the constitution.. it doesnt mean we go around adding qualifications to every second sentence. Sarvagnya 17:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you say sounds good to me Nichalp. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Why have any details regarding -- whether or not a language has a "classical" status by GoI in the infobox? Its simply UNDUE. I oppose any mention of classical "status" in the infobox. We have to draw a line somewhere as to how much detail does a person eager to have concise info on India should be presented. How is the knowledge of any "classical" status accorded to certain langs going help him/her? --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 17:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having a footnote can't hurt much. What do you think? Is it still undue? =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What amuses me is that the entire debate is about the inclusion of a list of four languages that is, by default, going to be in a collapsed state. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I support Nichalp's suggestion of adding the footnote in the infobox. Neither Wikipedia nor GoI cares whether some xyz with some xyz opinion consumes medicine or poison or whatever and decides to die. The fact is that Classical languages are "Official classical languages", recognized by Government of India and they should be mentioned in the infobox as such. India has Official languages, Scheduled languages and now Classical languages and it is fair that it goes into the infobox. Gnanapiti (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it is WP:UNDUE. I believe so especially because this status has no academical value due to the loosening of standards. Docku:“what up?” 18:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can take that up with the nine-member committee of linguists who had the gall to disagree with you. Sarvagnya 18:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Docku, you need to make up your mind in debates. Can't dilly dally around. BTW, who said the standards were being slackened. On the contrary they were made more stringent, from the source I read. Anyway, thats not the issue either so lets focus on the dagger footnote.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I'd like a clarification here, of whether this article is to be written in Commonwealth English or American English. I think it should be the former, but I want to ask before I make the necessary change. S h i v a (Visnu) (talk) 20:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, I have to admit I dont know much about the difference. Nevertheless, does it matter? Can we not have both mixed? Docku:“what up?” 21:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well it comes across as weird. At one sentence, you have "civilization" and the other you have "characterised." Worse, you can have the same term spelled differently in the same article. I am pretty sure it affects the quality of prose and the article, which is supposed to be one of the best here. S h i v a (Visnu) (talk) 22:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like "s" more than "z". :) Docku:“what up?” 22:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's an issue of inconsistency. Spelling on all Indian articles should follow British English spelling. AreJay (talk) 23:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately there is no consistency in British English when it comes to "ize" endings. The Oxford English Dictionary uniformly favors "ize." Thus their primary entries are: "characterize (also -ise)," "plagiarize (also -ise), etc., whereas the Chambers's Dictionary favors the "-ise" endings (if I remember correctly). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I use the -ize spellings for scientific works. Amateur radio in India uses the -ize spelling because that's what the Wireless Planning Commission of the Ministry uses. For as long as its consistent within the article, its ok. For general India topics use -ise. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit uncomfortable about the tendency here to flat-out remove someone's edits if a discussion has not taken place. The principle is good and should be the way to work, but I don't like this practice of actually removing the edit on that excuse. If there is a question or a problem with an edit then that can be discussed immediately, but I don't think anyone should have the right to remove edits without discussion as it should be avoided to make significant edits without discussion. I feel it kinda violates the idea of Wikipedia being a free encyclopedia, and policies I've read, such as WP:BOLD.

I'm not trying to question anyone's intentions or blame anyone and I respect that this article is a WP:FA, but its just uncomfortable and a bit annoying to find one's edit un-done citing "discuss first," when in fact a 2-3 day discussion had already taken place on the talkpage which the person reverting neglected to see. And in one case, where actual spelling mistakes were restored because of a question over the modification of sentences. My opinion is that the person with the question can easily raise and discuss the same point before actually un-doing the edit. Unless its vandalism or something radical, what is the need to flat-out remove edits like this when you can actually discuss that very edit at that point? On the other hand, such a removal is justified, as the edit in question raised a major content and policy dispute.

This article is also semi-protected so new people and IPs cannot edit. Now if this flat-out removing of edits occurs, it makes one very uncomfortable in contributing when the edits do not change the article in a major way. S h i v a (Visnu) (talk) 00:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Such reverts were the subject of a long RfC on this page. The majority decision was that reverts are reasonable in such a "highly trafficked" (if that's the word) feature article, as long as they are polite and ask the editor in question to bring up the issue on the talk page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe f&f is pointing to Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-06-10_India along with the subsequent discussion on this talkpage earlier this year. Shiva browse through the archives and you would get it. --GPPande talk! 14:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC was held in January/February 2007 and is summarized here. (section 4). Obviously, this applies to substantial edits, not to routine corrections of grammar and spelling. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC is interesting, but my point here is that if just 2-3 sentences are being edited, there is no reason to remove the edits outright. You can initiate the discussion at that point and then remove if the consensus allows it. Unless a whole para is being added, or a statement making a major assertion is being changed - like the cause of partition or Muslim conquest or war with Pakistan - it feels like over-policing. S h i v a (Visnu) (talk) 18:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shiva(Vishnu) - Your observations are spot-on. This kind of misplaced and many a time uninformed vigilantism has been the bane of this article for over two years now. Please feel free to make any edits to this and any article as you see fit. Only make sure that you adhere to WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE and you will be fine. This is the encyclopedia that anybody can edit and there is no rule or guideline on wikipedia that requires you to discuss every edit on the talk page. This article is no exception. And as for the RfC linked above, don't you waste your time reading the nonsense. For one, the RfC was nearly two years ago, secondly, it is not a vote around here, thirdly the purported summary there is a joke and fourthly and most importantly, like I said, there is no rule or guideline on wikipedia that requires you to discuss every edit on the talk page. Sarvagnya 16:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a couple of suggestions - shall we merge it with the "Culture" section, given that it is barely 3-4 sentences and very brief in discussing the topic? If not, (2) shall we add details about India's sporting history in the Olympics, Asian Games and Hockey World Cups, etc.? The current section is a bare-bones discussion of sports in India. S h i v a (Visnu) (talk) 02:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Sports section should be improved. --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 13:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the sports section should be updated-Wacky Zingoz 11/03/2008

But please refrain from adding any individual players into this summary style article. --GPPande talk! 20:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I totally agree with Gppande. Don't want any more controversies. --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 17:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]