Talk:India/Archive 40

Archive 35

←

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

→

Archive 45

Rename subsection on poverty to wealth-distribution

I would suggest renaming the Economy section's subheading on poverty to "Wealth-distribution" or economic inequality or something similar. In simple words, the reason is at first sight the heading looks like a fixation from a bad 1950s/60s movie about India. The content of the section actually does describe wealth-distribution and factors underlying the inequalities in income and economies etc.-rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 15:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

The subsection is about absolute poverty rather than wealth distribution. Poverty line, undernourishment, slavery, bonded labor, child labor, these are all absolute poverty issues and not wealth distribution issues. --regentspark (comment) 18:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@RegentsPark and Rueben lys: I tend to agree with RegentsPark. The section is not so much about wealth distribution, as about the outliers of the distribution such as Poverty in India, Corruption in India, Malnutrition in India and Slavery in India. One could in fact be more explicit and change the section title to Poverty, Corruption, Malnutrition, and Slavery in India, or, alternatively, if one wanted a general description, to "Economic Ills of India." However, changing anything on Wikipedia would take so long that it is best to let sleeping dogs lie. In other words, "Poverty" is a good enough general description of India's economic ills. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Subsection on human rights

Hello,

I would like to add a subsection on human rights to the section on politics. Kind regards, Sarcelles (talk) 07:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I suggest the following content: There is increasing pressure on believers of non-Hindu religions. Censorship is common. Many women are subject to forced marriage. Most rapes are not reported. Executions take place. Around 50 million people have been displaced due to development projects in over 50 years. Many prisoners have not had a trial. Torture is used frequently by the police. Corruption is common within the police. There are laws that grant public officials and security forces immunity from prosecution. Kind regards,

Sarcelles (talk) 12:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

This, and the earlier version you added are completely WP:UNDUE. The article is a summary style one and not meant to be a "List of problems in India". Key issues are already included. —SpacemanSpiff 01:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

The only content I have entered above already within the article is the one about forced marriage.Sarcelles (talk) 12:08, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@Sarcelles: In what section are you proposing the put the subsection on human rights? What sort of scholarly references do you have for them? If such sentences are put in, after consensus, they would still require balance. In other words, they would require a scholarly assessment of the pros and cons of human rights in India. For example, if censorship if greater than in a country such as the US, it is also less than the vast majority of developing countries. You are better off first introducing sourced text to a parent article such as Human rights in India. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:38, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

References

Images

Hi,

The article is well written and offcourse it is a featured one. But I think it lags behind in case of some more good images. So, I request someone( especially regentspark) to add more images. Apart from that, a mini article of science and technology section makes it more delightful — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.254.98.190 (talk) 18:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606112149/http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/17/52/39452196.pdf to http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/17/52/39452196.pdf
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5mqfQ6Tl4 to http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/org6_e.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140407092737/http://mruc.net/irs2012q1-topline-findings.pdf to http://mruc.net/irs2012q1-topline-findings.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110417031235/http://www.india.gov.in:80/ to http://india.gov.in/

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

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

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Links work, but #2 and 4 lead to index pages. Don't know how useful they are. Dhtwiki (talk) 16:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Sexual violence

The user RegentsPark undid an edit in the society section concerning child sexual abuse stating that it lacked consensus. This is the sentence about statistics from a government report, "India has the largest number of sexually abused children, with 53% being subjected to sexual abuse, and it is argued to be driven by a higher reluctance to expose relatives, who are often the abusers.". Also, the user Fowler&fowler I think previously brought up in the talk page a while back stating notable issues including Rape in India, Acid throwing, Sex selection among others were missing. Of course, I can modify this to what everybody can agree on. JustBeCool (talk) 05:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2016

The Vedas may have not been composed in the Punjab region I think more needs to be done to stop this article being hijacked my racists and Aryanists. The identity of the origin of the Vedas cannot be pinpointed to Pubjab; Pubjab is one on many regions that the Vedas may have been composed in. The corresponding article on the Vedas (and links from the Vedas) gives further depth to why this is so.

I think the article should change the "Punjab" to "the Gangtic Plain", and refrain from anything overtly "Aryan" by restraining to the usage of words such as "North India" or just "India".

As a South Indian brought up with foreign education, I consider this to still be controversial. And I don't think saying "the majority of scholars" is a fair point because a lot of racist material has been written by scholars in the past.

'"the Punjab region and" should be deleted

Megawave111 (talk) 16:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

•  Not done The article doesn't say that the vedas were composed in the punjab region. --regentspark (comment) 16:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • The article implies that the Vedas have origins in the Pubjab. I think this should be deleted for the reasons stated above. Megawave111 (talk) 16:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is written based on what the reliable sources say. Whether any of us agree with the sources or not makes no difference. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

The reliable sources do not say that they were created in the Punjab. The suggestion does not make it a fact, especially when it's a suggestion among other suggestions. What's more clear is that it was created in North India, in the Gangtic Plains... Megawave111 (talk) 14:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Again, the article neither says nor implies that they were created in the Punjab. The text is The Vedas, the oldest scriptures of Hinduism,[42] were composed during this period,[43] and historians have analysed these to posit a Vedic culture in the Punjab region and the upper Gangetic Plain. Nothing about where the vedas were created but merely that the texts imply a vedic culture in Punjab and the Upper Gangetic Plain. The Upper Gangetic Plain is a region encompassing most of North India, all the way between the Indus and Bengal. Far greater than the Punjab. --regentspark (comment) 21:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Consider having a further discussion to achieve a consensus before submitting a request. Not done for now — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 20:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

India nominal GDP consistency

I have noticed some inconsistencies with India Wikipedia page, the Economy of India Wikipedia page and the List of countries GDP (nominal) Wikipedia Page. For 2016 it seems that India's nominal GDP is 2,288.715 according to the international monetary fund.

I recently changed the Economy of India Wikipedia page back to $2.8 trillion but have noticed that here on the India Wikipedia page that it has been put down as $2.384 trillion which is incorrect according to the international monetary fund and other sources. Also, this figure does not in keep with the linked Wikipedia page List of countries by GDP page which set to the correct figure of $2.28 trillion.

I feel that this should be rectified or at least kept an eye on to make sure that all the pages that reference the GDP of India are kept consistent across the board.

0J1 (talk) 12:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Hindustan

The name Hindustan is not ancient name; It is very popular current name. Can somebody correct it ?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.74.217.94 (talk) 10:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The dating to the 3rd century BC is well sourced so this change cannot be made. Sorry. --regentspark (comment) 14:36, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The wording "It is an ancient name" suggests that it is not used in current times. But in reality, it is THE name used in Indian languages( Hindi/marathi etc). So wording should be " It is a name used since ancient times".

Please see http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Hindustan. In Hindi and every Indian language India is referred to as "Hindustan". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.74.217.94 (talk) 17:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I see what you mean. But in that case the text needs some more explanation. Is it used today as synonymous with all of India or only for Northern India? Also a reference would be helpful. --regentspark (comment) 19:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

The IP is right. It is in fact used as a name for all of India. It was another name considered by the Constituent Assembly, but it was rejected because it had unfortunate political implications (the connotation of "land of Hindus"). It nevertheless continues to be used unofficially, especially in Urdu. I will edit the text in the article. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually most Indian languages use the word "Bharat" to refer to India, so does the media, the textbooks(both public and private), official public documents, the general public etc. everyone knows the word "Hindustan" is used, but Indians prefer and use "Bharat" over it. I cannot cite any references to prove its popularity though. Daiyusha (talk) 12:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2016

We received a request task ID 13400932 that Wiki Page about "India" represented British flag[[1]]. Could you please correct it. Thanks!

2620:10D:C094:200:0:0:1:5E87 (talk) 01:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done that is a facebook page - nothing to do with us - Arjayay (talk) 12:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Typing 'Namak Haram Country' in google gives this page

As raised on my talk and in the media from both countries (ours, theirs); typing this term (meaning "traitor" per this book) we get this article as the first result. Their media finds this funny and ours think it's a hack or SEO glitch because of apparently typing the movie name gives the associated country--I tried this on Sholay, didn't work. Just wanted to confirm, besides this being amusing, that this isn't our fault at all. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Watch out buddy. Daily Pakistan is a reliable source. Don't you try and put your WP:OR spin on it! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Lolz, That is funny! 😁, I wonder who did that! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Well apparently, Google does connect movies with countries [2]. Never knew that! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh well, that explains this. Update: This doesn't work any longer, no doubt they've removed India from the result after media coverage and/or numerous angry complaints on their feedback service. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Indipendence struggle senior edit request

Under Indian independence struggle, more information must be added.

Mahatma Gandhi's last independence movement "Quit India movement" ended unsuccessfully by 1944. So, reference on independence related events between 1944-1946(when British actually left) must be added, notably Royal Indian Navy munity of February, 1946 ( https://www.wiki.x.io/wiki/Royal_Indian_Navy_mutiny ) and events between leader Subhas Chandra Bose and Indian National Army(INA).

These events are important or else the reader will be left to wonder about the time between 1944-46 and the actually reasons for British exit in 1947. Ibaruah (talk) 09:49, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2016

Prasadbaraskar28 (talk) 06:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC) '''INDIA IS LAND OF GOD'''''''''

And this is an encylcopaedia. —SpacemanSpiff 06:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

lead sction

India is a country in south asia --->

• India is a country in South asia that is a federal republic governed under a parliamentary system and consists of 29 states and 7 union territories Saadkhan12345 (talk) 13:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

  Too wordy. Current lead is perfect. --regentspark (comment) 14:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

National language

Everyone,In this country knows that Hindi is our national language and here it shows none.Are you joking??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.58.231.229 (talk) 23:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

No, it is not. Do you have a reliable source? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:57, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Hindi is India's official language, not national language. India does not have a national language. There is a difference between a national language and an official language. — MBlaze Lightning ^T 14:37, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Official language of India (Republic of India)

According to article 343 (1), (2) and (3) of the Constitution of India, Hindi and English are the official languages of the union (i.e. The central government). Government of India [Indian Union] has official languages, India doesn’t. The central government should use Hindi/English in all its documents and boards. However, the central government cannot force other governments or private businesses to use a particular language. The states can set their own official languages. The Article 343 applies only to the Indian Union [Central government] and not all of India. This is why it mentions “official language of the union” and not “official language of the republic”. This article is about India or Republic of India (This article is not about Indian union or Government of India). So it's incorrect to mention official language of India (Republic of India) as Hindi and English in the infobox. So I modified like this. - Ab abhi (talk) 04:11, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

The infobox should be reverted to what it was, the above argument is rather tenuous, of course by nature an official language is that of the government of the entity, in this case India. That is the meaning of an official language. If you wish to debate that meaning then you'd have to take it up with the various dictionaries. I'm reverting back to the long standing version. —SpacemanSpiff 10:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Meaning of Official language - "An official language is a language that is given a special legal status in a particular country, state, or other jurisdiction. Typically a country's official language refers to the language used within government (e.g., courts, parliament, administration)". But mentioning Hindi and English as the official language of India (Republic of India) is incorrect. Because, only the central government is not considered as India. State governments, courts etc are also come under Republic of India. Every state has its own official language and the recommended language in Supreme Court and High court is English, However in High court any other language is allowed to use. Language to be used in the Legislature is official language or languages of the State or Hindi or English. Saying Hindi and English as official language of Republic of India is completely wrong, when it is clearly mentioned that Hindi and English are official languages of the Union. So it's better to mention Hindi and English as "Official language of the Union" in the infobox..- Ab abhi (talk) 13:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Your argument is with the definition of official language. THat doesn't belong here. —SpacemanSpiff 13:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

My argument is - Hindi and English are not declared as official language of 'India' or 'Republic of India'. Please read this, They haven't mentioned the official language for whole India or Republic of India. Because it is different for central government, state government, court and legislature - Ab abhi (talk) 14:28, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

You are arguing on the definition of Official language. Please refer a dictionary. —SpacemanSpiff 14:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I know the meaning of Official language and here I'm talking about official language of India. Please read the constitution of India - Ab abhi (talk) 14:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're not making much sense. Official language of an entity refers to whatever languages are declared official by the government of that entity. India has official languages and those are mentioned in this article. Indian states have the same or other official languages and, presumably, those are listed in individual state articles. --regentspark (comment) 21:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2016

The India's Nominal GDP per capita is incorrect, it is currently shown as $1,800 Nominal, but according to World Bank latest (2015 data), India's Nominal GDP per capita is $1,582 and also according to United Nation's (2014 data), India's Nominal GDP is $1,586. Source Wikipedia (https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita) Please make the necessary corrections. Thank you.

Abidin100 (talk) 02:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

More Pictures!!!!!

The wikipedia article on India is in desperate need for more pictures. The pictures that are present in the article are inadequate and are not representative of a nation that's as huge and diverse as India. Wikipedia pages of neighboring countries such Pakistan and Nepal have impressive gallery of amazing photographs. I could try uploading non-copyright images onto Wikipedia. If any of you contributors would be willing donate photos for the article, it will surely go a long away in making the article more pleasing and it will better represent India.Vamar123 (talk) 04:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Vamar123. There are plenty of images related to India available on Commons and the ones included here have been arrived at after a long discussion (see the talk archives). I'd suggest going very slowly if you think the images need to be changed or new images added. Note also that many images are included in a gallery format so there are a lot more images on the page than you can see at any one time. --regentspark (comment) 15:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

India stuff

I scanned pass this page and seen that there is a lot of lion content, like ashokas pillars, and lion history in it, I found this content which was cited by the land-shut (german newspaper)

1851 a German explorer along with a group of indian natives witnessed a lion kill a tiger at the ganges river.

Perhaps it should be added into the article, as Asiatic lions did once play a big role in india. It would also be cool to see what other records india has on the lion as of its history.

Bernate (talk) 00:21, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

IAST in lead

Is there a necessity for the IAST in the lead of the article and the infobox? Nowhere in WP:MOSIN does it say that IAST must be included in the lead. And WP:INDICSCRIPT says, "It is suggested that IPA be used for help with pronunciation". "Bhārat Gaṇarājya" is not IPA. And even if it were, is "Bhārat Gaṇarājya" supposed to help English readers pronounce "Republic of India"? I think it's completely unnecessary and I've removed it. - Nirinsanity (talk) 20:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with you, "Bhārat Gaṇarājya" is unnecessary in English article. Even the pronunciation of Bharat and Hindustan in Etymology should be removed. Because there are many other languages in India and the name, pronunciation is different in different languages. - Ab abhi (talk) 20:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@Nirinsanity: You may have a legitimate reason to remove IAST from the lead, but you had no legitimate reason to remove the IAST transliteration from the infobox. That is India's official name in its official union language. It is not intended to aid the pronunciation of English speakers. What it is intended to do, is form a part of this article's encyclopaedic content - which is the entire reason why country articles always have their official, non-English name in the infobox, yet for some reason India appears to be the only country article where people take offence to this. If you have an issue with native names being included in infoboxes, then by all means, feel free to enforce this across every single country article.

By doing so, you violated the previous consensus that allowed for the IAST transliteration to remain there. It was a compromise that was made after the editors decided to do away with Indic script and replace it with IAST transliterations instead. The next time you want to make such a drastic edit, it would be better if you started a talk section first, and discussed it first, before coming to a consensus and then getting rid of it. I have reinstated it in the infobox just like I and many other editors decided when we did away with Indic script in this article. Tiger7253 (talk) 14:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@Tiger7253: First off, IAST transliteration ≠ Native script. Secondly, if you go through WP:LEADELEMENTS, you'd see that by definition, the lead section of a Wikipedia article includes the infobox as well. No one is getting offended here. We'd arrived at a consensus that works for everyone, some time back. And I was just upholding it. So, unless you have any other point, I'll be removing it now.

@Nirinsanity: I think you missed my point. The point here is that a consensus was reached to included 'Bharat Ganarajya' in the infobox, because many people were unhappy with getting rid of Indic script (भारत गणराज्य), and so a compromise was made to include IAST. You're not 'upholding anything', you're just 1) violating that consensus by assuming that you have the right to remove something that is a complete non-issue, and 2) sparking off an edit war by refusing to start a talk section before making any major edits. I'm reverting it back to its original state before you deleted it (with the exception of IAST in the lead sentence, because that was added at a later date by someone else and was not a part of the deal) because your edit was nonconstructive and created a problem where there was none. The next time, it'd be a good idea to start a talk section before making any edit. Tiger7253 (talk) 16:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@Nirinsanity: Also, if I may add on, the meanings of 'Bharat' and 'Ganarajya' are both dissected in the 'Etymology' section. This proves that it has encyclopaedic value. Removing 'Bharat Ganarajya' from the infobox just makes the whole section disjointed because Ganarajya then pops out of nowhere. Having 'Bharat Ganarajya' in the infobox therefore serves as a precursor for the Etymology section of the article; it suggests that this is what India is called officially, and then the meaning of it is dissected in the Etymology section right below. It adds on to its encyclopaedic value. Your edit just threw it off balance and made it feel confusing to the average non-Indian English reader who'd probably be like "what is Ganarajya and why is it here? Is it used in India's official name?" Tiger7253 (talk) 16:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@Tiger7253: Rather than repeating the same thing, you could try linking me to the consensus which the editors arrived at. If such a consensus was indeed reached, why haven't the other editors reverted my edits? And if you'd noticed, I'd started this talk section before making my original edit. I'd rather be bold than wait for others' approval on a seemingly insignificant change. If it was a major change, I obviously would've waited for a consensus before making an edit. Also, it doesn't seem like removing 'Bharat Ganarajya' from the infobox would render the etymology section meaningless. That section looks pretty good and makes sense on its own. Maybe, adding an extra line or two could make it complete. - Nirinsanity (talk) 16:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@Nirinsanity: I will try and dig it out from the archives. As for why they haven't reverted it, we aren't on Wikipedia 24/7. I only just noticed your edit days after you made it. Removing it from the infobox doesn't render the Etymology section meaningless, but it certainly adds value. There isn't any reason why Bharat Ganarajya should *not* be in the infobox just like Ellīnikī́ Dīmokratía should not be in Greece, or Rossijskaja Federacija should not be in Russia, or Zhōnghuá Rénmín Gònghéguó should not be in China. All of these are transliterations, yet they are included. There is already a precedent for transliterations to be included. If anything, removing Bharat Ganarajya from the infobox of a non-Western country where English is not the indigenous language is quite an astonishing and unnecessary move. Also, as far as I am aware, WP:INDICSCRIPT specifically excludes places from the policy, which explains why Mumbai and West Bengal have Indic script in their infoboxes, but why Mughal-e-Azam lacks it. Tiger7253 (talk) 17:18, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Since the above editor has failed to dig out the concerned consensus from the archives, I have reverted his edits. - Nirinsanity (talk) 12:27, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Copyediting by Anglophile27

It is clear that there is opposition to Anglophile27's attempts at copyediting. There have been reverts and two posts (here and here) on the editor's talk page about it. They're not only not an improvement, but have cases of unnecessarily switching date styles and mistakes as seen in the reverts as explained on that talk page. Restoring to as it were before. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:05, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree. In most cases, Anglophile's changes are not helpful. Clearer sentences are muddied and there are quite a few grammatical no-nos (as tiger also points out). I strongly suggest that Anglophile27 lays off copyediting for a while. --regentspark (comment) 14:43, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Ankit21694's big revert

I think this is the right thing to do. Bear in mind that this is a featured article and a lot of thought has gone into the text - not just the content in the sense of what should be included or excluded but also the sentence structure and the wording. That, of course, does not mean that we can't change stuff in the article but it does behove us to be circumspect in making changes. In particular, it would be productive to start a discussion on the talk page when making changes. --regentspark (comment) 01:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I can't figure out the rationale behind this honestly. It looks like the entire edit undid everything back to October 2014 and moreover, it seems unintentional judging by the edit summary. Ankit21694 just mentioned etymology and made that change too among it (I didn't check that). I'm reverting this, it's too bold and rash since there are discussed changes undone and updates. There's something to undo that was better before and we could check it with this diff and separately do it. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 04:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Collapsible list under Republic of India

I have tentatively created a collapsible list of names (see articles: European Union and Indian rupee) with India's official names on the Eighth schedule (lifted from Names of the Republic of India in its official languages). This has not been attempted by any editor before. I think this is a good compromise: Indic script is excluded from view unless someone actively wants to see it (then they can click on 'show'), and all of India's official languages are represented, so there won't be any catfighting over linguistic and regional differences. If any editor feels that this violates Wikipedia policy, feel free to revert it. Tiger7253 (talk) 06:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Nirinsanity (talk · contribs) for being receptive towards my edit! I've been trying to fix the Santali rendering error, but to no avail. Can anything be done about this? Tiger7253 (talk) 05:34, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I weakly oppose this. MOS:FOREIGN says just use it sparingly, MOS:FORLANG says (concerning lead) that more than one should be avoided there. Problem is there's not much in MOS saying what to do about it since its the infobox. Its actual use for a reader, given this is English Wikipedia, is debateable. Besides this, I don't know what's the usual arguments involved for opposing it or keeping it. I don't intend to dwell on them.

The main problem I'll highlight here is, can you vouch for its accuracy? Names of the Republic of India in its official languages has two sources which only support the actual official languages not the actual equivalent scripts, leading me to accept its OR tag. I personally can only understand the ones in Devnagari and we can't possibly expect any editor to know all of them. Say someone says so and so language is spelled wrong or makes a change...how do we verify? Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

rti

Ugog Nizdast (talk · contribs), you have valid points. I think I'll try to verify each and every single name by going over the India articles in their respective language wikis, and then comparing it with the names in Names of the Republic of India in its official languages. I'll also try to find official resources from Indian govt pages and I'll report my findings back by next week. Tiger7253 (talk) 08:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Merely verifying is not enough. It would be better if you could find reliable sources for each name.--regentspark (comment) 13:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, I'm dead against these laundry lists of multiple languages for anything and everything, this doesn't add any value to the reader, just increases article bloat, a link to any relevant articles is more than sufficient. —SpacemanSpiff 14:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

SpacemanSpiff (talk · contribs) Which is why I made it a collapsible list. Anyone who does not want to see it can refrain from clicking on 'show'. Otherwise, from the surface, the article looks exactly the same as it was before. Tiger7253 (talk) 14:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not just visibility, it's also WP:SIZE and this is precisely unwanted clutter, a link is more than sufficient. —SpacemanSpiff 03:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Meitei vs Manipuri

There's a dispute between me and Filpro + Tiger7253 about whether to use the self-designation and more common linguistic name Meit(h)ei (perhaps more common in anthropology as well?) or the official government name Manipuri. Wikipedia has been using the name Meit(h)ei for several years in the main articles on the language and the ethnic group (although recently Filpro has tried to change this).

I suggest that Meitei is preferred following the WP:ETHNICGROUP policy. As stated in Chelliah (1997)'s grammar of Meit(h)ei, the Meitei themselves favor the Meitei term. Generally, it seems that Wikipedia favors self-designation since we use Sami instead of Lappish, Nuu-chah-nulth instead of Nootka, etc.

A secondary consideration involves ambiguity resolution as Manipuri the noun & adjective can refer to (1) the Meitei ethnic group, (2) the Manipuri Bishnupriya ethnic group, and (3) a resident of the Manipuri state. Thus, WP:PRECISE may apply.

Filpro + Tiger7253 apparently give greater weight to using official names than to self-designation, which I suggest is incorrect. Thus, the implicit political bias here favors government over ethnic groups. Therefore, Filpro + Tiger7253 prefer using the redirected Manipuri > Meitei language instead of using my suggestion which is a direct link to Meitei language with the government term in parentheses.

– ishwar  (speak) 17:12, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

This should be discussed at Meitei language. It is preferable to use the same name thru-out Wikipedia. If Manipuri is correct here, then shouldn't the article Meitei language be titled Manipuri language? If that is the case, then before changing it here, it should changed there first. We ran into this with Odia vs Oriya. Even discussing it here is bad, because it spreads the discussion all over Wikipedia, when a discussion about this should be centralized where everyone can post comments and see all the arguments in one place. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 03:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok, that's fine and preferable. But, some folks might not go to that page and actually comment. (I dont know just speculating.) Instead of the back & forth snide edit summaries without any discussion and argumentation, I've protected this page. It's easily unprotected of course. But, let's have some constructive discussion. – ishwar  (speak) 17:00, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ish ishwar: If someone were to edit Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and modify the excerpt "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" to: "...the right of the people to keep and bear guns" because 'Arms' is an archaic term that has mostly dropped out of common usage, it would be wrong, because the excerpt merely documents what is written in the U.S. constitution, and is not affected by Wiki rules pertaining to common names.

This is exactly why people are opposed to you changing Manipuri to Meitei. Think of the list as a snapshot, as an unchanging picture of what is written in a sacrosanct document. I respect your linguistic expertise, but I'm not sure if your reasoning is sound. Tiger7253 (talk) 00:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, it depends on whether weapons are the same as people. If arms = ethnic group in naming respects, then your comparison is apt. However, I reject that and believe that inanimate objects are not the same as people. Therefore, the issues involved in naming them differs. If you do accept they differ, then it depends on whether and/or to what degree you favor naming authority stemming from government or favor naming authority originating from the ethnic group being named.

Of course, feel free to leave a comment at: Talk:Meitei language. – ishwar  (speak) 01:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Ish ishwar, you say I suggest that Meitei is preferred following the WP:ETHNICGROUP policy.. Please explain that. What part of the policy are you referring to? And, how is Meitei preferred according to it? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

§Self-identification: ‘How the group self-identifies should be considered. If their autonym is commonly used in English, it would be the best article title. Any terms regarded as derogatory by members of the ethnic group in question should be avoided.’ Meitei is an autonym and is commonly used in English. – ishwar  (speak) 15:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

See also the similar principle #5 from this paper: https://www.academia.edu/29826079/Some_principles_for_language_names – ishwar  (speak) 15:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, when the Government of Manipur itself calls it "Manipuri", you can't make the claim that the autonym is "commonly used in English". I suggest using something like "Manipuri (Meitei)" or "Manipuri (also known as Meitei)". "Manipuri" has the advantage of being recognizable. Hardly anybody knows what "Meitei" means. It is not our job to right great wrongs. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Sure, I can make that claim since official name status is largely independent of word frequency. (Note, no one has defined what common means here.) As Chelliah states, Meit(h)ei is used by western academic literature while Manipuri is used by the government and non-Meitei Indian literature as well as probably some Meitei Indian literature as well. I suggest using "Meitei (Manipuri)" instead. How are you determining that 'hardly anybody knows what Meitei means'? These terms have been used on Wikipedia for a decade. And, you find the terms reported in the news and in English language academic literature on Meitei-related topics. It's not about righting wrongs. It's about following (or changing) Wikipedia policy. What Wikipedia does not explicitly state is the appropriate weight to give to each policy position. But, to be clear, you favor government/nationalist considerations over self-determination considerations regardless, right? What is your opinion on the ambiguity issue? – ishwar  (speak) 18:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME is reasonably clear to me. "Manipuri language" on Google Books produces over 3,000 hits whereas "Meitei language" produces 800. I recommend that you spend your energies on improving the Meitei language page, which is in dire shape, instead of fighting nomenclature battles on the talk pages. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok, so you feel that WP:ETHNICGROUP is overruled in this case. Can you explain why a common self-determination is to be ignored? Is it that a certain ratio threshold on your chosen Google Books corpus is met? Or, is it that a threshold is met + having official government status overrules a common self-determination? Should the Wikipedia policy be amended to reflect this? – ishwar  (speak) 19:36, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

You are picking and choosing what you want from the policy page, but that is not its intent. It says right at the beginning In general, the common English-language term for an ethnic group should be used, whether in nounal or adjectival form.. I think you have been given enough WP:ROPE. You should drop this now. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I think I can make the same claim that you are picking and choosing what you want from the policy page. It says in the earlier mentioned section: If their autonym is commonly used in English, it would be the best article title. and that those guidelines should be read in conjunction with Wikipedia's general policy on article naming. (I'm assuming article names follow the same principles as terms used throughout Wikipedia. If that's in error, then let me know.) – ishwar  (speak) 20:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Content from 5 February 2016 removed

Content[1] on the state of the Indian economy/population based on Angus Maddison's work[2] has been removed without warning/notification. Any information on why this was done would be most useful in posting an improved version of the content, if required.

Vanya (talk)

[1]: https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?oldid=703385709&diff=prev

[2]: http://www.theworldeconomy.org/MaddisonTables/MaddisontableB-18.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanya (talk • contribs) 04:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

The content mentioned above is:

Economists estimate India to have been the most populous and wealthiest region of the world throughout the first millennium CE. This advantage was lost in the 18th century as other regions edged forward.

References

With this edit the content was added by Vanya in February and then the next day was moved and edited with this edit by Kautilya3. In April it was removed by Fowler&fowler with this edit along with a transliteration of India as Bhārat. Fowler&fowler's edit summary was "Removing Bharat and the Angus Maddison fantasy per lack of consensus on talk page, especially for a WP:FA. Please read WP:Lead fixation". The talkpage at the time looked like this and had nothing about Vanya's addition on it. There was a discussion about the transliteration of India as Bhārat. So it not clear what Fowler&fowler's edit summary refereed to.

All that said, it shouldn't be in the lead if it not in the body of the article as the lead summarizes the article. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Infobox Flag and State Emblem

Could someone help me reinstate the hyperlinks to Flag of India and State Emblem of India in the infobox (example can be seen in China)? It was there a few days ago but then mysteriously vanished - I think I might have accidentally gotten rid of it but I'm not sure. I have no idea how to reinstate it, I'm stumped. Thanks! Tiger7253 (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't know exactly what happened, but it happened on 20 November when you inserted the complex collapsible list just before those parameters. Perhaps some part of the list didn't get closed correctly, or maybe just the length of it causes some hiccup. There's nothing obvious to me. Dhtwiki (talk) 07:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Per the discussion above that list should be removed, so this problem will likely go away without any investigation. —SpacemanSpiff 09:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

WB Poverty and Culture additions

Socking, prevents editors in good standing to have a reasonable discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I've reverted most and the only edit I've kept is the rewording of it to " In 2006, India contained the largest number". Both additions to Culture section cross the level of details here, their subarticles can mention it, if not already. Not to mention 45% misrepresents that source (it says only Pookutty says so). The culture section was redone recently to my knowledge so I don't support it accuracy in any case. Do not BOMBARD refs just to support one thing, that only makes the article worse. One high-quality ref is enough. "According to the World Bank, 25% in 2011," will be checked since you've challenged it. But I've reverted your additions all the same. If there's a mistake, it will be corrected but I doubt four refs need to be crammed in there just for that. I'm looking into it. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC) I included one high quality ref at once. But it was reverted nonetheless, so I added one reference of each possible kind. You can delete rest and keep whichever you like the best according to your taste. Yes, please click on those references, and check the fact, and make the change. All the 4 references tell the same poverty percentage. Also, the 75% source was even worse as it did not say anyone said so. So, at least the other one told us" Pookutty said it". Thanks Pppooojjjaaa (talk) 18:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC) The poverty details say its per WB, thus adding any others would require us to say so and that goes way too much into detail citing more than one study. Multiple refs citing the same report add no further value. It does, check the ref again. See page 2. Add it back. Honestly prefer the Culture section here after the Featured article review, since lot of additions happened since then which haven't been checked. Will do something later. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 00:18, 10 December 2016 (UTC) I checked page 2, but apart from title I can not see it anywhere, but anyway I will add it back. Although I do not agree at all with it. Meanwhile, I feel all are ganging up on me, I have a really genuine request. Please comment on the other 2 sections. I need to know if really structure of India's article has nothing to do with articles of other countries? It is one simple point- 6.3% of India's GDP came from tourism in 2015. India has one of the 7 wonders of the world and a huge number of UNESCO world heritage sites. Government expenditure on tourism has significantly increased in the past 2 years. Why can there not be a tourism section with all these citations. ThanksPppooojjjaaa (talk) 03:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC) I've checked the WB ref (which is a dead link) and scoured through the archive.org copies of it in 2011 but failed to find that page which supports the figure. Problem here is, they revised their standard of living from 1.25$ to 1.90$, so the sources which say 21~% refer to that revised figure. Either we find the proper archive link supporting 25% or completely reword that statement--but that may mean removing the 2006 mention of it being the highest. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 01:29, 11 December 2016 (UTC) Hello Ugog Nizdast and Pppooojjjaaa, may be this can help http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/world-bank-estimates-show-fall-in-indias-poverty-rate/article7727591.ece, it says both things- " India’s poverty rate for 2011/12 to be 21.2 per cent." and The World Bank has revised the global poverty line, previously pegged at $1.25 a day to $1.90 a day. Mousanonyy (talk) 20:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

3 new sections

I want to propose 3 sections-

Socking, prevents editors in good standing to have a reasonable discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Tourism, Education and Science & Technology. Before I provide my citations of their significance or contribution, i would like to know all that other wikipedians require me to provide. Then, after gathering all your insights on the requirements to propose these 3 sections, I will write here the text and citations on those points. Thanks Pppooojjjaaa (talk) 00:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC) This is overkill in a summary style article. We have sections based on importance and ictopical linkage, some points are already covered in the article. If anything in particular has to be added we can discuss one sentence additions with context under existing sections. —SpacemanSpiff 05:12, 9 December 2016 (UTC) I am sorry. Thanks SpacemanSpiff} for bringing to my notice. 3 sections will be too much. I used the wrong word. I meant sub-sections. So I propose- 1. A section titled "Infrastructure" to contain sub section economy- Economy be further divided into existing 2 poverty and sectors and a third new one- tourism. 2. A sub-section education under infrastructure 3. A sub section science and technology under infrastructure. By doing so, we will not increase the total number of sections at all. So, first point we have here is importance. I will keep in mind to bring resources and citations which prove the importance of each proposed sub-section. Please tell me more. ThanksPppooojjjaaa (talk) 13:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC) Hello Wikipedians I am so looking forward to your suggestions. For example, the consensus on the placement of the 3 new sub-sections, and the requirements for their text- like- threshold contribution to GDP, prominence of education Institutes on international level/world rankings, size/success of Space programs compared to others. All these 3 sub-sections have really impressve and promising citations. Just let me know the checklist and I will compile them. Thanks!! :) Pppooojjjaaa (talk) 23:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC) As a Wikipedian, I think you are yet to become one. "Wikipedians" are interested in informing, not in advertising or showing off. Take that as a hint! Infrastructure and education never warrant sections in a country page, because every country has them and is expected to have them. "It is not as bad as you think it is", is not a good reason to include sections in a country article. Science and technology probably merits a paragraph. The right thing for you to do, if you are truly interested in the topic, is to review and develop Science and technology in India and History of science and technology in India pages, and come back with a sample paragraph that we can review. In my opinion, those pages are far from satisfactory. Until they are fully developed, it is premature to consider covering them here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC) This discussion is not to ask you for your opinion of my being a wikipedian. Anyway, so, again, I repeat, "sub-section" is what I am asking for here. Secondly, thanks for the words on Science and Technology. Noted  Done. About this "Infrastructure and education never warrant sections in a country page"- so I think you were talking about sections, but again , I am talking about sub-sections and from poor to rich countries- more than 50% have sub-sections on education and infrastructure. Anyway, noted your point about Science & technology. By the way, so poverty is "information", and tourism, contributing 6.3% to economy (2011 data) is show off? I would be glad if you come here to speak facts and not your personal feelings. Most importantly, India or any other country, does not need a non-profit website (or profit website) to show off, I think that is one fact without needing any citation. India's tourism would not get a boost if wiki creates a sub-section on its tourism. Pppooojjjaaa (talk) 02:40, 10 December 2016 (UTC) I am new/irregular, so I don't know how much this helps/matters- but this article- needs more than just facts to be edited may be. Established editors generally edit this. I agree with your points technically though- as long as they are factual, considerable on GDP contribution, and have proofs in newspapers online for references. But again, that's just my opinion. Mousanonyy (talk) 20:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Indian mountain

it has a mountain called Kanchenjunga which is the third biggest mountain in the worldhttp://www.highhimalayan.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Kanchenjunga.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by AD11444 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, you just stated a fact. May be you should try to tel what you want to do with this. Mousanonyy (talk) 20:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Languages

Proposal 1: to add Devanagari to the infobox.

• Republic of India (present)
• भारत गणराज्य (proposal to add)
• Bhārat Gaṇarājya (present)

Why Devanagari? We all know that India does not have a national language defined, Great. Though India has a set of official languages defined by it's constitution. While we look at any country's article on the English Wikipedia, it bears the country's official language. Here in India, English and Hindi (in Devanagari) is defined as Union official language (central official language - for the entire country). Hence, I think the infobox must carry English, Devanagari and IAST.

Proposal 2: to change "Official languages = Hindi/English; Recognised regional languages = 8th Schedule (22 languages)" to "Union official languages = Hindi/English; State official languages = Assamese · Bengali · Gujarati · Kannada · Kokborok · Konkani · Malayalam · Manipuri · Marathi · Mizo · Nepali · Odia · Punjabi · Tamil · Telugu · Urdu" in the infobox.

When coming to the state official languages, state official languages are used officially by states, whereas 8th scheduled list is just a list of recorgnized languages when some of it are not even officially used in India like Bodo, Dogri, Maithili, Santali and Sindhi. Hence I also propose the display of union/state official languages, instead of official language/8th scheduled.

Regards, Hydloc009 (talk) 15:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

A nation and a government are not necessarily identical. India, as a nation, does not have a national language. Neither does it impose a language on all its people. The Government of India uses Hindi and English as official languages but many states don't include Hindi as an official language. I suppose it is ok for the Government of India article to include devanagri, but it certainly isn't for the India article. --regentspark (comment) 16:47, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

The national map of India is a result of its government's outstanding issues. Government and national are completely identical. A country is upto where its official boundaries are. Anyway, there is this issue again below. And I support the proposal. Quite interesting points written below actually. There may be 300 languages in India but what India is called in those languages is not officially recognized. Mousanonyy (talk) 20:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Devanagari Script (have read the FAQ) Discussion Re-open

Socking, prevents editors in good standing to have a reasonable discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Reopening the discussion- I read the FAQ on why Devanagari is not used for writing Bharat Ganarajya. What I understood was that it is because "India has so many native languages that it will be impossible/non-feasible to write it in each of them". So, 1. like in Indian passports, government papers, VISAS etc, two languages are used- Hindi and English- none other. Because, these two are in a special category called "official languages" as described well in the article itself. 2. Bharay Ganrajya is a Hindi word. Why would someone bother to translate it into another Indian language and then write it? India's official 2 names, according to 2 official languages are Republic of India and Bharat Ganrajya. Any other name in any other Indian language is not its official name. 3. It is English Wikipedia- sure, so without talking about why Greek and all the other names in the world are written in their scripts, I will say- is it a wiki policy to use only and only English characters? The policy should be the same for every article. And since non Englosh characters appear throughout ENglish wikipedia, this argument does not hold any significance. Non-English characters are used to introduce the appearance/feeling related to that article's subject. Pppooojjjaaa (talk) 23:37, 9 December 2016 (UTC) It is not translated, we use IAST. You seriously need to go slow here as you seem to be just trying to stir the pot but not really doing anything to really add value to the article. If so many people disagree with different things that you're trying to do here, then you should realize that the problem is your approach. —SpacemanSpiff 01:13, 10 December 2016 (UTC) Currently two open discussions of mine are open here. One this- and one where I am still expecting really specific and solid advice- "tell me what are the requirements- I will bring all the material". As an Indian, having travelled much of India- if I feel that this article is a very one sided representation which I can not find myself connected to- then there is a problem. And adhering to Wiki policy- not violating any- I invite suggestions on ""all possible"" requirements to make the changes. Unless each and every of those requirements is met- it will not be published. Just that the requirements not be based on personal opinion but wiki guidelines. If I am told tourism can't be there because it does not contribute significantly to GDP, and I present reputed citations that it contributes more than 6%, then it appears more like a stereotyped page for non-Indian readers then a neutral and fair representation of the India I have seen. If there is a poverty section, there ought to be an appearance complementing the fact that India is not only top 20 in per capita poverty, but also top 20 in most millionaires. There is huge disparity, which should be reflected. It is 2016. Coming back to devnagri- Can you please explain what is IAST. And when you say- "It is not translated"- I do not know what it means because I have nowhere mentioned that anything is translated. I said why should there be a confusion/perplexion/worry about translating it to all Indian languages when it is a Hindi word used as it is - with no other counterparts in official use. Only two names- only in two languages- are used for India all over India- English- Republic of India and Hindi-Bharat Ganrajya. Pppooojjjaaa (talk) 01:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC) Wikipedia has a search box at the top right. Please use it. And read the policy pages you have been pointed to in your welcome message. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC) Ok, so kautilya, you give one voteY to allow me to add content as long as it does not violate Wiki policies. Thanks. THough in this section you might as well want to answer one or more of the three points I mentioned about Devnagri. Thanks again Pppooojjjaaa (talk) 02:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC) "Bharay Ganrajya is a Hindi word. Why would someone bother to translate it into another Indian language and then write it? India's official 2 names, according to 2 official languages are Republic of India and Bharat Ganrajya. Any other name in any other Indian language is not its official name." and now you're claiming that you didn't say that? You really need to understand about editing and not waste other people's time with such frivolous arguments.—SpacemanSpiff 02:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC) That is an attack which I might report. Right now , I will say you did not understand what I said- I said that this argument is not making sense- "Devnagri script should not be used because all other translations of this word in all other Indian scripts will also have to be used then". But my point is why should we translate this word to all other scripts when it is an official Hindi word? I hope it is clearer now. You really thought I am so stupid that I will claim I did not say something which is written by me right above? You could have also focused on telling what is IAST. Plus- no one is forcing you to "waste your time". I will go through wiki policies and start editing if talk page results are unproductive. Pppooojjjaaa (talk) 02:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC) It's not a personal attack because you are repeatedly making dubious changes to the article and rehashing arguments here just because you don't like it. You are free to report anywhere of course. You are forcing us to waste our time by correcting the errors you introduce. —SpacemanSpiff 02:26, 10 December 2016 (UTC) From the time I posted on the talk page, I have not made a single attempt to include any sub-section on tourism on the article. Secondly, I assume you understood what I was trying to say earlier about the "translation". Thirdly, what is IAST? Because I feel it was related to one of my 3 points. (in case it was due to the misunderstanding on "translation" thing, I would welcome any further comment on the 3 points I mentioned above.) And yes, calling those original 3 points (that I wrote before the misunderstanding of "translation started") as frivolous is indeed an attack. Also, when I am told tourism contribution to GDP is not significant, and in fact it is more than 6.3%, it is "fact"backed by hundreds of reputed sources, not a subject of my "liking or disliking". Pppooojjjaaa (talk) 02:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC) Given that you've been here for over two years fighting this very battle but are using a six month old account I'm not sure your remonstration can be taken seriously. —SpacemanSpiff 04:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC) SpacemanSpiff (talk · contribs) To be honest, this is one of the reasons why I added the collapsible list (and why I support its inclusion in the infobox). The never-ending squabble over the inclusion of Indic script gets tiring, and the list is a loophole/compromise that makes everyone happy and shuts them up too. Tiger7253 (talk) 19:28, 10 December 2016 (UTC) This is so unfair, I propose we write it in all the Languages of India; at least the 122 major ones. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:48, 12 December 2016 (UTC) I actually support it. And I also agree with the points he/she has said. It is a Hindi(devnagari) word, and need not be translated into any other language. Dharmadhyaksha actually he/she already answered it - why to think of translating in all 122 languages- when 2 official languages are the only ones which have official name of India. Mousanonyy (talk) 20:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC) Both Bhārata and Gaṇarājya are Sanskrit words dating back to times before Christ. And, IAST is a perfectly fine way to write Sanskrit. Let it go people! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC) Yes, origin is definitely Sanskrit, but today- official names of India are 2; one in hindi one in english. Tomorrow, they made be again different. Sure whatever everyone decide just feeling free to drop my opinion on a talkpage. Mousanonyy (talk) 20:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Lead changing in FAQ

I think we should add something regarding changing the lead wording in /FAQ. There's the issue of repeated additions which aren't even mentioned in the body, thus failing WP:LEAD instantly, and of course, due weight. The first statement gets a lot of attention too and evidently multiple editors agree it's fine as it is; that coupled with its last FAR version being almost the same. Before I dig through the archives, which are the main discussions links regarding this? Ugog Nizdast (talk) 22:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

The current first statement is too brief and vague. If you look at other good or featured articles (e.g. Germany & United States), they usually mention the political system, which is highly correlated with the country itself, instead of simply saying "it is a country" (that sounds like "I am a thing"). Futher, I'm afraid I can't see the reason why my edition is too cluttered. This is not an article in Simple English Wikipedia but a featured article in (adult) English. I guess the language also matters for maintainng its quality status which is supposed to be a model for others.

I agree that the lead should be a precise and concise summary of the whole article without giving undue weight to a particular issue or mentioning sth not in the article. That may be a concern.

Cheers!

^{In dialogue with} Biomedicinal 03:11:00 Thursday, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

The problem is, the most cited reasoning is comparing to other articles for that edit. As such, there's no "more right" way of doing this. So changing it would be just a matter of style preference to me. I feel both are equally fine, since the lead just needs to stand on its own, the first para or sentence doesn't. Add this to it being the long-standing agreed-on version. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 00:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey RegentsPark, do you agree with the FAQ additon and I was hoping you would know something about my initial post about linking the correct archive? Ugog Nizdast (talk) 00:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I assume this refers to adding 'parliamentary republic' or some such to the lead? I personally don't like the idea because a country and its form of government are two different things. --regentspark (comment) 16:08, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes besides that I meant regarding adding another clause in the /FAQ regarding changing the lead. Like which discussion to link to? Do you recall any specific one, given that you were there during its FAR? rather than me manually searching. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 16:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

This was the post FAR version which sticks to plain old country. I don't think the parliamentary stuff was discussed during the FAR and I don't think we've ever formally discussed whether country should be replaced by the form of government. Perhaps @SpacemanSpiff: can help?--regentspark (comment) 17:05, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I personally don't have a specific preference on this. While country is concise, the government types are quite descriptive to the reader and if it comes in early on instead of searching for it then it adds value to the reader. I could go either way on this —SpacemanSpiff 05:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

@Biomedicinal, Ugog Nizdast, RegentsPark, and SpacemanSpiff: India is the oldest surviving Featured Article on Wikipedia. The US is not a featured article; to my knowledge it never has been. Traditionally, many FAs were modeled on India. I agree though that the lead is a little light. At the time of the last FAR, and of the significant rewriting of the page, or soon thereafter, there was a discussion also on the rewriting of the lead, but consensus eluded us on how best to summarize the article in four meaningful paragraphs. So the old lead stayed. The lead, as most of you no doubt know know, is the place where most drive-bys and POV warriors attempt to leave their mark on humanity (per WP: Lead fixation). These people hardly ever bother with reading FAQs, but an FAQ is still useful for mention in an edit summary during the inevitable revert by vigilant editors. As for the order of topics in the lead, when I came on board Wikipedia in 2006, the advice in WikiProject Countries on how to write a country page lead was taken quite literally. Although skimpy, it did talk about an order in the writing, beginning with geography, moving to history, and only then to the forms of governance. I will try to look for that discussion soon after the last FAR. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@Biomedicinal, Ugog Nizdast, RegentsPark, and SpacemanSpiff: I did manage to find the discussion. My proposal for a revamped history section in the lead received conditional approval from Saravask, but never elicited much discussion thereafter. It is at the end of this section from October 2011. My proposal, with some corrections, would now read:

India's history encompasses local histories, imperial histories, and bonds with other cultures. The earliest neolithic cultures of the Indian subcontinent belonged to an arc of similar cultures cutting across West Asia. The bronze age cities of the Indus Valley Civilization participated in a broad trend of urbanism running through southern Eurasia. The iron age Indo-European languages-speaking culture that created the mythologically opulent Vedic Hinduism in India had also spread among pastoral people in Central and West Asia. The major political consolidations of ancient India, under the Maurya and Gupta empires took place not long after Buddhism and Jainism arose in India, Hinduism matured, and the caste system created uniquely Indian hierarchies, even as it excluded large swathes of India's indigenous adivasi people. The culture and political systems of early medieval Southern India were spread to Southeast Asia by the Chola and Pallava empires around the same time that Zoroastrianism, Christianity and Islam arrived in India and helped shape its diverse culture. Much of late medieval Northern India was influenced by the Turko-Persian tradition for several centuries during which syncretic cultures took hold under the Delhi sultanate and the Mughal empire. From the mid-18th century, India was gradually annexed and unified by the British East India Company. From the mid-19th century it was ruled directly by the United Kingdom, becoming a colonial economy which was exploited for its resources, but also modernizing and allowing some Indian elites to engage the Western world. Eventually, a more inclusive nationalist struggle emerged, which under Mahatma Gandhi was noted for non-violent resistance, and led to India's political freedom in 1947.

Perhaps we can have another discussion on this, if there's appetite. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I'll put something in the FAQ regarding basic lead guidelines (which do get broken) and not to simply revert between to a different style (in terms of copy editing, rearranging it without adding anything) when there's no net benefit.

I think we'll all agree the lead can be expanded; it fails WP:LEADLENGTH as it can do one another para--given the size of this article. Problem is I (we?) don't know what to include and as you've said, no one has the appetite for it. Probably previously, there were more incentive and editors; now, with an already polished lead, no one has the energy to discuss making it even better?

Two preliminary questions about this draft: doesn't it expand a little too much just on the history? There should be four paras, this one would make one of them a little too big. As usual, your language is brilliant...I daresay too much..."mythologically opulent","pastoral people", "large swathes", I'm all of plain English and a more disinterested tone. Really just a minor quibble and no offence, but I can tell sometimes you've been the editor of some articles just by your trademark writing. :) Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:44, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

As far as history is concerned, I am more or less happily with the current second paragraph. We don't need much more than that in a country article. I would want to add a prominent mention of the Mughal Empire which was the first to politically unify India in modern times (an honour I notice Fowler wants to claim for the East India Company). We also need something on the caste system, which has been a 'defining feature' of the Indian society for a long time. The Caste system in India article has improved a lot over the last year or so, which is not yet reflected in this article. I think F&F's draft is overweight on the "bonds with other cultures". While such bonds are undeniable, India is also endowed with a subcontinental geography which led to its relative isolation and indigenous developments. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

@Biomedicinal, Ugog Nizdast, RegentsPark, SpacemanSpiff, and Kautilya3: In a new section below, "Lead redux" I will soon be copying my original proposal of October 2011, (and not the hurriedly amended one of a few days ago). It is long to be sure, but attempts to say something more than Kautilya3's paraphrase of it. As for "pastoral," the Indo-Aryan culture was very much pastoral in contrast to the urban IVC, but I do agree with Ugog Nizdast that some over the top flourishes can be done away with. Please continue in that section. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

6th vs 7th largest economy

The Forbes guest column is by a grad student and has been subsequently refuted by a journalist with vast experience at The Hindu, Live Mint, The Financial Express (India) etc. I've reverted back to the original version, unless some well established analytical survey (IMF/WB etc) is published, we should stick to the current factual one. —SpacemanSpiff 13:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 December 2016

National game of India is hockey. This has not been mentioned in the article. Shreyasharma2120 (talk) 18:38, 25 December 2016 (UTC) National symbols[1]

→→Game Not declared[177]

 Not done See the FAQ above which will answer your question. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:25, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2016

49.207.232.40 (talk) 07:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Blank request. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Sections missing and Featured Article problem

On what criteria is India is supposed and selected to be a Featured Article on Wikipedia. I see there are numerous logical problems in this. The Wikipedia article "India" does not compare near to China (which is now recently has become a good article) or the United States of America. I am not sorry to say, that India's article is shoddy and not to the standard of a featured article.

• First, there is wordiness in sentences in the lead part of the article. How does an international encyclopedia have sentences constructed like these?
  • It is the seventh-largest country by area, the second-most populous country (with over 1.2 billion people), and the most populous democracy in the world.
• Second, to have the below sentence(s) as first paragraph on a country's article should be wrong. There is again wordiness in sentences. The below sentence should be like the 2nd or 3rd paragraph (somewhere later down the lead; looks like some kind of advertisement).
  • It shares land borders with Pakistan to the west; China, Nepal, and Bhutan to the northeast; and Myanmar (Burma) and Bangladesh to the east. In the Indian Ocean, India is in the vicinity of Sri Lanka and the Maldives. India's Andaman and Nicobar Islands share a maritime border with Thailand and Indonesia. Its capital is New Delhi; other metropolises include Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai, Bangalore, Hyderabad and Ahmedabad.
• Third, how is it that India which is seventh-largest sovereign country and second-most populous country has these following sections missing in India main article - Science and technology, Education and Infrastructure. China article as a whole has 504 supporting sources, whereas India has only 350 sources.
  • Under the new section, Science and technology, there should be mention on Mars Orbiter Mission, Supercomputing in India and Thirty Meter Telescope. The Mars mission made ISRO the fourth space agency to reach Mars, after the Soviet space program, NASA, and the European Space Agency and the first Asian nation to reach Mars orbit, and the first nation to do so on its first attempt. Government of India approved the launch of the National Supercomputing Mission in 2015. The first of the 70 supercomputers will be ready by August 2017. In addition, Indians were the first people to win Nobel Prize from the continent of Asia.
  • Under the new section, Education, there should be mention on Indian Institutes of Technology, Indian Institutes of Management and other global ranked and popular schools like Indian School of Business, Indian Institute of Science, Institute of Chemical Technology, Birla Institute of Technology and Science, University of Delhi and University of Mumbai.
  • Under the new section, Infrastructure, there should be mention on Delhi Metro, Kochi Metro, Bangalore Metro, Rapid transit in India, Diamond Quadrilateral and Mumbai–Ahmedabad high-speed rail corridor.

Thanks, Motbag12 —Preceding undated comment added 17:49, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

If you haven't already, read the FAQ above. To prevent old arguments from being repeated, suggest you search the archives for old discussions regarding this. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:33, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Read it. Does not have much sense in it with a trash logic. Thanks, Motbag12

Given that, I'm sure you can find a better venue like your own blog to propagate your views, clearly, an encyclopaedia doesn't seem to be right for you. —SpacemanSpiff 08:12, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Republic versus Constitutional Republic

@B.Lameira:, could you clarify your reasoning from your edit summary for this? I don't know why one should be preferred (no opinion on this, right now) but that was the long-standing wording. It's also a redirect to it anyway. How are both contradictory? Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:40, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

"Constitutional" republic has no special meaning. It is a term coined by American republicans which has no relevant encyclopaedic meaning other than being an oxymoron. Also, the infobox must be kept simple as possible. If all republics abide by rule of law, does it not make having a constitution, either written or unwritten? --B.Lameira (talk) 17:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Dhtwiki:, could you explain me what makes a "constitutional republic" to be any different from just being a republic? As far as I know, this was made a redirect to republic because the term was original research, even the republic article makes no special reference to it. --B.Lameira (talk) 17:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

You called "constitutional republic" an oxymoron, which it is not. You seem now to be arguing that "constitutional" is superfluous to "republic". That's a different matter. The Republic of Venice not being described as constitutional, with its governance not relying on a formal codification of basic laws the way modern republics do, may be an example of a non-constitutional republic. Dhtwiki (talk) 11:23, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Vedas and Indo-Aryans

I'd like to propose the current text on the composition of the Vedas. It now says:

"The Vedas, the oldest scriptures associated with Hinduism, were composed during this period, and historians have analysed these to posit a Vedic culture in the Punjab region and the upper Gangetic Plain. Most historians also consider this period to have encompassed several waves of Indo-Aryan migration into the subcontinent."

I'd like to change this into:

"Most historians also consider this period to have encompassed several waves of Indo-Aryan migration into the subcontinent. The Vedas, the oldest scriptures associated with Hinduism, were composed during this period by the Indo-Aryans. Historians have analysed these to posit a Vedic culture in the Punjab region and the upper Gangetic Plain, the origins of which can be traced back to the Sintashta culture south of the Ural mountains."

This first introduces the Indo-Aryans, who composed and compiled (an important nuance, since part of the Vedas may have been compiled outside India), and then notes that the Vedic culture originated at the Sintashta culture. Archaeological research shows traces of rituals (horse sacrifice, among others) which are described in the Vedas; analysis of the Vedas not only gives information about this Vedic culture, but also about the origins of this Vedic culture in the Sintashta culture, by the rituals and practices which are rooted in the Sintashta culture. If it's worth to mention that analysis of the Vedas 'posits a Vedic culture', then it's certainly worth to mention that the Vedas reveal even more, about the origins of this Vedic culture. It also gives support to the first line in my proposal, which says that the Indo-Aryans migrated into India. This link with the Sintashta culture is established by WP:RS, and relevant for an article on India, given some popular opinions which suggest an indigenous origin of the Vedic culture.

References

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Nope. The Vedic period (and culture) has been posited based on textual readings of the Vedas. The Vedas is all we have, in addition to cognate myths in other Indo-European languages. That is not hard evidence for causality which begins with a culture and proceeds to a text. The current text makes no allusions to where the Vedic myths were originally compiled, if they indeed were compiled in any one culture. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

You wrote "The Vedic period (and culture) has been posited based on textual readings of the Vedas"; that's interesting, I didn't know that. But I don't understand line 2 and 3; there are archaeological artifacts of the Sintashta culture, which resemble descriptions from the Vedas, so the Vedas is (are?) not all we have. See Anthony and Witzel. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

We are talking about an Indian history section, the most compressed we have on Wikipedia, not an article on a hypothesized culture. Since the history section is, moreover, part of a featured article, it has to be vetted for balance (and absence of undue weight). That is why we have largely restricted ourselves to using widely used Indian history textbooks, tertiary sources or survey articles on Indian history, for the sourcing. Until such time as the Sintashta culture makes its way into such history sources we cannot include it here, no matter how compelling its existence might be in investigations of historical linguistics and archaeology. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

"most compressed": yep, I understand. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

No mention of the partition in the opening

The partition was one of the most defining events of India IMO, but it isn't mentioned in the opening when talking about India getting its own independence. I feel like it should be mentioned, what you guys think?FightersMegamix (talk) 09:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

The entire history section (ancient, medieval, and modern) has been reduced to one paragraph in the lead. Even the major empires go unmentioned. By what rules of summarizing content do we include the Partition of India? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:18, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I've raised this at #Lead redux. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 08:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Media upload of historical photographs of India

Dear editors,

I would like to draw your attention to a media upload that may be of relevance to this page:

The Temminck Groll Collection consists of 2,641 historical photographs taken by the Dutch architect and architectural historian Coen Temminck Groll (1925-2015). The photos were taken in regions with which the Dutch have had historical relations, including countries in Africa, South America and Southeast Asia (see the category description for a full listing). The photos were taken during Temminck Groll's travels and study of 'shared cultural heritage' (heritage of the Netherlands located outside the country’s borders) and mainly date to the 1960s and 1970s. The photographs were digitised by the Cultural Heritage Agency of the Netherlands and made available to Wikimedia Commons in the context of the project The Netherlands and the world. If you have any questions about this upload, or have other media requests regarding Dutch shared cultural heritage, don't hesitate to leave a message at the project page!

Kind regards, --AWossink (talk) 14:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2017

national language is HIndi 64.183.13.85 (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Please read the Frequently asked questions (FAQ) above. MilborneOne (talk) 18:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Removal of name of India in Hindi

Why was India's name written in Hindi was removed from the article? Hindi is the principal official language of the Government of India and hence the name should be written in Hindi as well. Interestingly, only the name written in Devanagari script has been targeted and the Hindi name in IAST still appears in the heading. But even the IAST transliteration does not mention that the name is from Hindi. Ankit21694 15:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankit21694 (talk • contribs)

There seem to be some vested interest in removing the word Hindi from the name Bharata Ganarajya. IAST transliteration alone is meaningless. You have to mention which language is being transliterated. I am aware that the name Bharata Ganarajya is also used in several other Indian languages but Hindi is one of the two official languages of the central govt and so warrants a mention. Articles on other countries also mention their name(s) in the official language(s) of their central governments. And the opposition to the mention of the name in Devanagari script is also unexplainable. Surely there is no dispute that Hindi is written in the Devanagari script.

Surely this shouldn't come under WP:INDIC because this is not the case of someone born in one state, having ancestry from another etc. This is about a country where there is no dispute about what the official languages of its central govt are. Ankit21694 05:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankit21694 (talk • contribs)

Let us get some things straight. Hindi is a language. Devanagari is a script. Bharata Ganarajya is a Sanskrit phrase that can be imported into almost every Indian language.

IAST is a Roman script for Sanskrit that has been in use for about two centuries, with varying levels of development. It is a notation that every reader of the English Wikipedia can read and understand.

Now, what exactly is your point? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

And besides being Sanskrit, any mention of just "Hindi" in the lead was always opposed, see the FAQ section above or read the archives regarding any such requests. Per the usual practice, you need to get consensus on talk before making this change. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Republic of India भारत गणराज्य Bhārat Gaṇarājya

Note: The name "Bhārat Gaṇarājya" officially refers to the Hindi transliteration, not the Sanskrit or any other regionally recognised language. "The International Alphabet of Sanskrit Transliteration is a transliteration scheme that allows the lossless romanization of Indic scripts as employed by Sanskrit and related Indic languages." This definitely doesn't mean that "Bhārat Gaṇarājya" is Sanskrit. Browsing around some of the discussions, I fail to see a specific reason why the infobox on the right is not okay. If transliterations are also included for infoboxes where the official language isn't written in Latin, why does this transliteration completely replace the original name itself? For India, its official languages are Hindi and English. English is at the top since this is the English Wikipedia but I don't to see why Hindi is not included. See Bangladesh, China, Japan, Nepal, etc. Why exactly is India a special case? Filpro (talk) 21:27, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Some people are saying that Bhārat Gaṇarājya is a Sanskrit term. It is not, actually. The Sanskrit term will be Bhāratagaṇarājyam (notice the combining of the two words and the 'm' at the end) or Bhāratamahārājyam. Bhārat Gaṇarājya is used by the Government of India (GOI) as the official Hindi name of India, since Hindi in the Devanagari script is an official language of the GOI. Therefore the name should also appear in Devanagari and should be properly mentioned as a Hindi name. I am well aware that this exact same name also exists in several other Indian languages but none of them are official languages of the GOI. See the infobox provided by Filpro. Ankit21694 07:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankit21694 (talk • contribs)

This linguistic discussion of how Sanskrit is transliterated is way over the top, and I don't want to get into it. There are three citations given for the antiquity of ganarājya. Please consult them.

India is an inclusive country and, here at Wikipedia, we respect that. We are not an arm of the Indian government, and there is no reason for us to replicate what the Indian government does. If you want to include the Devnagari script, it is for you to make a case and generate consensus for it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I entirely agree with Kautilya3. The Government of India likes to say K2 is in India, but no Indian has walked within miles of K2 in more than 70 years without a Pakistani visa, let alone climb it. The Government of India also likes to say that it has a land border with Afghanistan, but no Indian has in the last 70 years taken a leap so long as to spring from India and alight in Afghanistan. Even birds flying from India to Afghanistan, typically stop en route in Peshawar for refreshments. In other words, dear Filipro, and Ankit21694, have you written any WP articles lately? Please read WP:Lead fixation. Read it several times. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Two images

I have removed a dubious India in the Vedic Period image that was added in this edit by a user who seems to be banned. It is dubious because it is a map drawn by a Wikipedia editor (who I have known for a long time and who is very knowledgeable), but which nonetheless is based on best guesses of where places and peoples mentioned in mythological texts of India, such as the Rig Veda, might lie on a physical map of South Asia.

The other image, I'm a little uncomfortable about is File:Gandhara Buddha (tnm).jpeg. This has been around for a long time, going back to the major image discussion in 2011 or 2012 (and, who knows, I might have even nominated it). The problem is that the Gandhara culture was an Indo-Greek culture with characteristic statues of Greco-Buddhism that existed for a century or two at the end of the first millennium BCE in the regions surrounding the cities of Taxila and Kandahar in what today are northwestern Pakistan, and northeastern Afghanistan. We wouldn't dare show an image of Taxila itself (a UNESCO world heritage site) on the India page. So, why are we showing Buddha statues that were found in the region of Taxila and now housed in the Tokyo Museum? We wouldn't, for another example, show Lumbini, the birthplace of the Buddha, which is now in Nepal, on the India page. That is because, although it might have been part of a generalized Indian culture in Buddha's time, it is today a part of Nepal. I believe there is a general Wikipedia principle, which may or may not have been written down, but which is nonetheless largely observed, that images shown on a country page should (as far as possible) be of places, peoples, pastimes, or artifacts, that either originated within the present-day boundaries of the country or are a part of its modern day national/cultural identity (such as soccer and Brazil, etc.). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: I'm sorry, but I completely disagree. The Wikipedia principle that you have mentioned should not factor into the thought process of the editors, because as you mentioned, it 'may or may not have been written down' - in other words, it isn't a concrete policy or an established fact. There is no consensus relating to what you just mentioned - I'm afraid it's just your personal opinion. Each country article should be treated as a separate case, not as a monolithic entity with a monolithic policy for all articles. Brazil is hardly a good example; its national identity is largely that of the European colonialists that established the country, while India today is an amalgamation of all the cultures that preceded it - including the British Raj. We can't directly extrapolate editorial standards for Brazil to that of India.

In the case of India, if we were to follow all that you had just said, we would have to delete a monumental, titanic amount of text from History of India, Indian religions, and many other articles on Wikiproject India - and even the lead sentence of India - where the Indus Valley Civilisation gets a mention - would have to be rewritten. What you are proposing would result in a mass rewriting of established history on Wikipedia, and would be a logistical disaster.

The Buddha image should remain. Even if the boundaries of the ancient Gandhara kingdom don't fall within the modern-day Republic of India, employing that kind of rhetoric would lead us down the slippery slope of denying the IVC's Indic character because the bulk of it falls within what is today Pakistan. This would be unpopular with the vast majority of editors, and for very good reason. I respect your intention to uphold the highest editorial standards on Wikipedia, but I do feel that editors as a whole should avoid being overly pedantic in order to refrain from engaging in what might be interpreted as revisionism or erasure. Tiger7253 (talk) 17:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I was not talking about textual content, but about images. The point of mentioning the Brazil page was that that it has an image of soccer by way of a postage stamp because soccer is a very popular game in Brazil, a part of its identity, even though the game itself was invented in England. However, I'm pretty sure, country pages almost never have images of places or artifacts that actually belong to other present-day countries. The India page is careful to use the term "Indian subcontinent" when mentioning IVC. However, there little chance of the India page showing an image of Mohenjo-daro. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Vedic period vs Maurya Empire image

I reinstated an image of India during the Vedic period using a different map, but I think using a picture of the Maurya Empire in its stead would be better and more impactful. It links back to the main India article in more ways than one, considering that the Dharmachakra and the Lion Capital of Ashoka are now India's national symbols. What do other editors think? Tiger7253 (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I've taken out that Vedic period image, as there was never any talk page discussion, much less consensus, for its insertion, per WP:OWN#Featured_articles. As for Maurya period, those are only the Indian government's symbols. The Taj Mahal, on the other hand, is not the Indian government's symbol, but it has always been in the India page, since the page began. In other words, WP does not pay especial attention to how a nation is represented by its government, only to what the reliable sources say are representative of a nation. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Time to update 'regional power'?

Is this source considered reputable enough to warrant a change from "A nuclear weapons state and regional power" to "A nuclear weapons state that has been identified as a great power"? Adding "identified as a great power" as opposed to straightaway saying "India is a great power" adds some needed ambiguity. Tiger7253 (talk) 14:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd say no before even considering the reliability of the source. The very first sentence on India in the linked article says India is often overlooked in lists of the world’s great powers indicating that even this is a minority view. --regentspark (comment) 14:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: Guess we'll just have to wait till 2050 then :P Tiger7253 (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2017

{{Infobox country |conventional_long_name = Republic of India |native_name = {{lang|in|{{big|भारत गणराज्य}}}}<br />''Bhārat Gaṇarājya'' <!--Do NOT remove this from the infobox as infobox translations and transliterations do not fall under [[WP:INDIC]].--> |common_name = India |image_flag = Flag of India.svg |alt_flag = Horizontal tricolor flag bearing, from top to bottom, deep saffron, white, and green horizontal bands. In the centre of the white band is a navy-blue wheel with 24 spokes. |image_coat = Emblem of India.svg |alt_coat = Three lions facing left, right, and toward viewer, atop a frieze containing a galloping horse, a 24-spoke wheel, and an elephant. Underneath is a motto: "सत्यमेव जयते". |symbol_type = State Emblem |symbol_width = 60px |national_motto = {{native phrase|sa|"[[Satyameva Jayate]]"|italics=off}} |englishmotto = "Truth Alone Triumphs"{{lower|0.2em|{{sfn|National Informatics Centre|2005}}}} |national_anthem = {{native phrase|bn|"[[Jana Gana Mana]]"|italics=off}}<br />{{small|"Thou Art the Ruler of the Minds of All People"}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sawahab.90 (talk • contribs) 05:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done given that addition the Devnagari script and Hindi was opposed for the lead per /FAQ. Adding <big> makes it worse. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Adding a new paragraph to lead passage

I think the lead passage is a bit lacking compared to that of other country articles. I was thinking that a paragraph that summarises India's geographical features - like the second paragraph of China - would improve the article. I was thinking of something along the lines of:

"With an area of approximately 3.3 million square kilometres (dropped from first sentence and added here), India is the world's seventh largest state by land area. India is a megadiverse country, with a vast landscape that covers a wide range of geographical features. The Himalayas were formed when the Indian subcontinent collided with the Tibetan Plateau, home to the source of many of India's major rivers that flow through the Indo-Gangetic plain. The Deccan Plateau in the south is bounded by the Western and Eastern Ghat mountain ranges, while the arid Thar desert in the west forms a natural barrier against the Iranian Plateau. The country also spans multiple climatic regions, and is defined by a general tropical monsoonal climate in much of the country, with the Himalayan states experiencing arctic conditions throughout much of the year."

The paragraph above needs improvement, although it's just a general outline. I'm curious as to what the other editors think. I think it's a good idea for country articles to summarise their history and their geography and India's lead passage lacks the latter. Tiger7253 (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

edit: Perhaps something about Coastal India could be added to the paragraph. Tiger7253 (talk) 18:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposal for new Section

Hello Wikipedians!! I am not a regular wiki user or editor. But I would like to share something I noticed. India, the record holder for 104 satellite launches in singe attempt (second highest is just 37 by Russia) - India sets record by launching 104 satellites and also the first country in the world to have a successful Mars mission in very first attempt ([First country to reach Mars in first attempt]) and only fourth in the world to reach Mars has no section on Science and Technology. India's ISRO has many other feats other than these 2. If required, I can provide similar links to India's feats in Technology. Thus, I propose a new section called :Science and Technology. Thank you!! 193.186.8.8 (talk) 15:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

You have to remember that this is an overview article so cant cover everything but also note that most of the satellites were CubeSats so not that notable and I am not sure the being fourth to send something to Mars is probably not that significant in the seventy years that is covered here but it is mentioned at Science and technology in India. MilborneOne (talk) 13:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2017

This isn't really a change, but a small edit, as I would like to add the Hindi transliteration of Bharat Ganarajya, which is भारत गणराज्य. Thanks! Fighter296 (talk) 22:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done See /FAQ. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 01:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2017

India's population should be updated to 1,336,790,000 (Feb 2017 est.). The corruption perceptions index puts India at 79/176 countries at par with Brazil and China and ahead of all the ASEAN nations except Malaysia, Brunei and Singapore as well as ahead of all South Asian nations except Bhutan. There has been significant improvement in curbing corruption as compared to the past five years. I request you to kindly phrase the sentence regarding corruption, poverty as well as quality healthcare with regards to significant improvements undertaken by the govt. in tackling these issues. Thank You.. Tkulkarni1991 (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

References

 Not done Populations figures based on census. Later dates are estimates where one is mentioned already in the infobox. Other changes will require consensus. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 02:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)