Talk:India/Archive 41

Archive 35

←

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

→

Archive 45

Lead redux

2011

Here is the unedited original proposal on expanding the lead, starting with the history section, (after the FAR of summer 2011) and Saravask's feedback. It is not what I would write today, but it might be a good place to begin. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:04, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I read a number of introductions and conclusions in Indian history books, as well as survey articles on Indian history and historiography, and this, in my considered opinion, is the modern historically sophisticated assessment of India's history that has the support of many of the leading historians of India. It is necessarily quite a bit longer than the old lead, but I have seen leads that are longer. With this history paragraph, the lead would be the same size as that of the United States page. Here it is:

Never truly isolated, India has had bonds with other cultures throughout its history. Never homogeneous, its many peoples and regions have charted distinctive historical courses. India's history encompasses the interleaving and mutual play of these bonds and local histories with what one historian has called the unifying "empires of rule, custom, and belief.^a" The earliest neolithic cultures of the Indian subcontinent belonged to an arc of such cultures cutting through West Asia. The bronze age cities of the Indus Valley Civilization participated in a broad trend of urbanism running across 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, but even as large swathes of the indigenous adivasi people of India continued to lead lives largely untouched by these. The culture and political systems of early medieval Southern India were spread to South East 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, as syncretic cultures took hold under the Delhi sultanate and the Mughal empire, as Sikhism arose, and as Southern India was united for the last time under the Vijayanagara empire. Gradually annexed and unified by the British East India Company from the mid-18th century and ruled directly by the United Kingdom from the mid-19th, India became a colonial economy, as parts of it modernized, and as some elites commenced engaging the Western world, leading ultimately to a nationalist struggle noted for non-violence, and to India's political freedom in 1947.

Let me know what you think. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: a Robb, Peter (2011). A History of India. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 31. ISBN 978-0-230-34549-2. Retrieved 25 October 2011.

PS. Of course the explanatory first three sentences (ending ... custom, and belief.") could be left out entirely. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment - But for a few stylistic quibbles, I support this paragraph:

• Like rgpk, I think that Gandhi can be added back.
• The first sentence is somewhat vacuous: other than perhaps pre-contact Nauruans, Rapa Nui, and other island societies, what cultural entity has been utterly isolated? Even the technologically backward ancient Chacoans were trading with Mesoamericans thousands of miles away. Not to mention Arab traders, Varangians, etc. Most everywhere, members of most every group has been seemingly going here, there, and back over the long term. Is there something unique about those "bonds"—were they uniquely strong or tenuous, were they long-run, was there a distinctly Indian way in which those bonds trended or developed? If not, it and everything else not uniquely characteristic of India should be pruned.
• I prefer serial commas for the same reason MOS regular Noetica insists upon them in the "Australia" page—they help rather than hinder clarity. And if we are going to keep this as one paragraph, we should split it into two for (perhaps frivolous) aesthetic reasons: you would otherwise have this huge thing more than twice the size of the preceding one. The current third and fourth paragraphs should be merged for the same reason. Of course it is ultimately Fowler's choice whether and where the break should occur.
• I think there are way too many links—stuff like "Northern India", "Hinduism", "Western world", "South East Asia", "colonialism", "Central Asia", and many, many others, when blue, are just crowding out the really helpful India-related essential-context links like "Maurya empire" or to EIC. The surplus links are either patently obvious in meaning or are mere dictionary terms. See User:Tony1/Build your linking skills.

Again, I cannot offer informed comments on topical balance and other less superficial issues. But this one seems to sink its teeth into the subject. After critiquing is over, it should replace the current paragraph pronto. Saravask 22:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

2016

I think it's a pretty good replacement for the current one but I feel that in this one there is a also lot missing from 1947 to 2016. The paragraph ends as if Independence was the last major historical event in Indian history. What about Nehruvian Socialism, the Indo-Pakistani wars, inclusion of various states into the Union (Kashmir, Hyderabad, Puducherry, Goa, Sikkim, etc), Bangladesh Liberation War, and the millions lifted out of poverty since the economic reforms? Filpro (talk) 04:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the first three sentences are vacuous without greater context and should be removed. I also agree with Saravask that bits not characteristic of India can be pruned for concision. Parts such as "arc of such cultures cutting through West Asia", "broad trend of urbanism running across southern Eurasia", and "also spread among pastoral people in Central and West Asia" are unnecessary, evidenced perhaps by the fact such links are not mentioned in the actual History section (which should bar such information from the lead as well, although it can be added to History if very important). The spread to Southeast Asia is perhaps similarly undue, although this is in the body. The sentence beginning with "The major political consolidations" runs on a bit and tries to do too much on its own, as does the last sentence. I agree that despite the length an additional sentence discussing post-independent history would be worthwhile, although perhaps not mentioning all the events Filpro mentions. CMD (talk) 05:19, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with others that the first three sentences, although polished and evocative, are too vague to remain. "Indo-European languages-speaking" should be hyphenated throughout, or at least have the hyphen break after "languages" rather than before. "...mythologically opulent..." is another instance of evocative but vague language. "...but even as large swathes..." should read "...even as large swaths...". Dhtwiki (talk) 03:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the feedback. Will post a new version here in the coming days. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:21, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Here is the first draft of a new history section of the lead, as discussed above. Please offer feedback

The earliest neolithic cultures of the Indian subcontinent evolved into the bronze age cities of the Indus Valley Civilization. Later, an iron age culture, speaking Indo-Aryan languages, created Vedic Hinduism. Still later, Buddhism and Jainism arose in India, Hinduism evolved, and social stratification emerged, based in caste. Major political consolidations took place under the Maurya and Gupta empires. The early medieval era, saw the Chola and Pallava empires of southern India exert a wide influence, extending as far as Southeast Asia. Zoroastrianism, Christianity and, notably, Islam, arrived in India during this time, much of late medieval Northern India falling under the influence of the Delhi sultanate. Early modern India saw the rise of the Mughal empire and the expansion of India's economy; syncretic religious traditions emerged, including Sikhism. From the mid-18th century, India was gradually controlled by the British East India Company, and from the mid-19th century, ruled directly by the United Kingdom, becoming a colonial economy, but also modernizing in parts. A nationalist movement emerged at the turn of the 20th century, which later, under Mahatma Gandhi, was noted for non-violent resistance and led to India's political freedom in 1947. (Version 1)

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support - Good balance. I like it. The only remaining complaint is that there are a bit too many links. One suggestion is to add, Through trade, immigration and conquest before the sentence Zoroastrianism, Christianity, and notably Islam, arrived in India during this time.... This is partly to break up the back-to-back linked phrases, but also to put "conquest" in perspective. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:14, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Your suggestion certainly improves the flow. For that reason, I'm including it, although I'm a little leery about using "conquest" explicitly, for it begs the question, "Are we sure that the rise of Hinduism, or the consolidation of the Mauryas and Guptas, did not involve conquest?" I do agree, though, that the blue-links are overwhelming. Saravask talks about them as well above, suggesting that linking be limited to "India-related essential-context" links. Here is one attempt:

The earliest neolithic cultures of the Indian subcontinent evolved into the bronze age cities of the Indus Valley Civilization. Later, an iron age culture, speaking Indo-Aryan languages, created Vedic Hinduism. Still later, Buddhism and Jainism arose in India, Hinduism evolved, and social stratification emerged, based in caste. Major political consolidations took place under the Maurya and Gupta empires. The early medieval era, saw the Chola and Pallava empires of southern India exert a wide influence, extending into southeast Asia. Later in the medieval era, through trade, immigration, or conquest, Zoroastrianism, Christianity and, notably, Islam, arrived in India, much of northern India falling under the influence of the Muslim Delhi sultanate; southern India united for the last time under the Hindu Vijayanagara Empire. The 16th century saw the rise of the Mughal empire, and an expansion of India's economy; syncretic religious traditions emerged, including Sikhism. From the mid-18th century, India gradually came under the control of the British East India Company. From the mid-19th century, India was ruled directly by the United Kingdom, becoming a colonial economy, but also modernizing. A nationalist movement emerged at the turn of the 20th century, which later, under Mahatma Gandhi, was noted for non-violent resistance and led to India's political freedom in 1947. (Version 2)

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:39, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm done for now. Please offer further feedback. I have not included the sentence about the history of post-independent India, as much of that history (as written in the history section) is already summarized obliquely in the last paragraph of the lead. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:05, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Two corrections:

• "Vedic Hinduism" is a non-term; there was no Hinduism at that time, but several regional religons, including the early Vedic religion of the Indo-Aryans who migrated to northern India, and the Brahmanic religion of the later Vedic period, as it developed in Kuru-Pañcāla.
• Hinduism 'proper' emerged only after the Vedic period, as a synthesis of various local religions, including Brahmanism.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• Perhaps "Vedic religion" in line with our article title? But, JJ, do note that it doesn't matter when hinduism emerged. Rather, we should look at how reliable sources characterize the culture of that period. Still, if 'Hinduism evolved" gives the wrong impression that Hinduism existed during the vedic period then, perhaps, we should use a term sans Hinduism (and changed 'evolved' to 'emerged').--regentspark (comment) 17:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

  I think these distinctions can be elided in the little summary here. Even though the present-day Hinduism is quite far removed from the Vedic religion, the latter is still a part of it, and "Brahmanism" is just a scholarly term that hasn't yet seen the light of the day. But, more importantly, saying "Vedic Hinduism" will avoid future edit-warring. For the same reason, I would also hyperlink "Islam" to Islam in India. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:41, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

  I should have stuck to summarizing the history section (which doesn't say anything about Vedic Hinduism). How about:

  "An iron age culture, speaking Indo-Aryan languages, composed the Vedas, the oldest scriptures associated with Hinduism. Social stratification emerged, based in caste, and Buddhism and Jainism arose in India."

  I've kept "iron age," even though, strictly speaking, the Vedas span the late bronze age and iron age, but "predominantly iron age" sounds to clunky; besides, many scholars such as Witzel regard the Rig Veda to have been composed in the iron age. To avoid future edit-warring, or, at least, intermittent fiddling with the text, I've hyperlinked "Christianity" to Christianity in India and "Islam" to Islam in India, even though it creates a sea of blue and goes against Saravask's advice (see sub-section 2011). However, I'm removing "trade, immigration, and conquest," as that is how religions arrive (from elsewhere), and the addition becomes a tautology. Here is Version 3:

  The earliest neolithic cultures of the Indian subcontinent evolved into the bronze age cities of the Indus Valley Civilization. An iron age culture, speaking Indo-Aryan languages, composed the Vedas, the oldest scriptures associated with Hinduism. Social stratification emerged, based in caste, and Buddhism and Jainism arose in India. Major political consolidations took place under the Maurya and Gupta empires. The early medieval era saw the Chola and Pallava empires of southern India exert a wide influence, extending into southeast Asia. Later, Christianity, Zoroastrianism, and, notably, Islam, arrived in India, much of northern India falling under the influence of the Muslim Delhi sultanate; southern India united for the last time under the Hindu Vijayanagara Empire. The 16th century saw the rise of the Mughal empire, and an expansion of India's economy; syncretic religious traditions emerged, including Sikhism. From the mid-18th century, India gradually came under the control of the British East India Company. From the mid-19th century, India was ruled directly by the United Kingdom, becoming a colonial economy, but also modernizing. A nationalist movement emerged at the turn of the 20th century, which later, under Mahatma Gandhi, was noted for non-violent resistance and led to India's political freedom in 1947. (Version 3)

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Version 4

I like this as well in terms of content, but the length issue still worries me. This will inflate the middle para of the lead, note that I don't oppose all that is mentioned but it's worth thinking about the history section getting so much weight would imply the other sections be expanded as well. I don't even oppose that, that would end up with all three paras of the lead getting proportional additions. There's WP:LEADLENGTH, if we cross that (even overtly long four paras counts as crossing it), I personally feel we've failed our readers by making the lead not do what it's supposed to do: provide an accessible view. I don't know how the lead of US was made but I think it should be shortened--even given the exceptional circumstances we face on a country article.

Here a some thoughts after reading it the first time; this is what an average reader might think. Just want clarifications, though some might be obvious answers. Can't say if they're actually problems and if they are, what are their solutions.

• "Indo-Aryan" is mentioned but a Dravidian fellow might complain about the lack of any explicit mention.
• "syncretic religious traditions emerged," gives a reader the implication that there's more besides Sikhism
• I'll have to rehash what was posted below as the Partition being not mentioned. I can think of it having a minimum few word mention attached to the final statement on the top of my head, so the question of length isn't an issue. This draft does mention most of the major civilisations now.
• "but also modernizing." just sounds odd to me...can't point out why. Is this part necessary? Ugog Nizdast (talk) 08:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the valuable feedback. Here is a shortened version.

The earliest neolithic cultures of the Indian subcontinent evolved into the bronze age cities of the Indus Valley Civilization . Dravidian languages emerged. A culture, speaking Indo-Aryan languages, composed the Vedas, the oldest scriptures associated with Hinduism. Social stratification emerged, based in caste, and Buddhism and Jainism arose. Political consolidations took place under the Maurya and Gupta empires. The Chola and Pallava empires of southern India exerted a wide influence, extending into southeast Asia. Christianity, Zoroastrianism, and Islam, arrived in India, much of northern India falling to the Delhi sultanate; southern India united under the Vijayanagara Empire. India's economy expanded in the Mughal empire; Sikhism emerged. India gradually came under the control of the British East India Company, and eventually under British crown rule, becoming a colonial economy. A nationalist movement emerged, which, under Mahatma Gandhi, was noted for non-violent resistance and led to India's political freedom in 1947. (Version 4)

However, I don't see that the Partition of India is lead-worthy for the India page, though it certainly is for the Pakistan page. It occupied a sum total anywhere between three and seven years of Indian history. To be sure, it caused a lot of upheaval as well as tragedy in the Punjab, but many famines wiped out ten times as many people ... But let's see what the others say as well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC) PS if there is demand we could add: ", but not before the partition of the British Indian Empire into India and Pakistan." at the end. Fowler&fowler«Talk»

I agree that partition is not needed, given the history paragraph covers millennia of shifting political borders. I think this version is better than the current version, although I agree with the above point that it longer than the existing paragraph which throws that balance a bit. I don't think the Early Neolithic cultures need to be mentioned, as they are notable mostly for creating the Indus Valley Civilisation, which is where the current paragraph opens and which would work here too. The Dravidian language note feels out of place, and perhaps it alongside the Indo-Aryan language note can be removed as without context to how they affected history they may not add that much. Perhaps the word "Early" or words "Major early" (or similar) can be added before "Political consolidations", just to make it obvious that this is not an exhaustive list. The mention of Christianity Zoroastrianism and Islam feels out of place, as does the Sikhism drop, perhaps they could be combined into one sentence even if that means the chronology does not perfectly align with the political changes. CMD (talk) 06:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree and was going to point out the awkward mentions of Sikhism and Dravidian as well. Also same for the Christianity sentence being merged with the Sultanate. Another issue: technically the body doesn't mention these adequately (as the draft says) or at all: Bronze Age, "speaking Indo-Aryan languages, composed the Vedas" (compare the what the body currently says) and Pallava (just a passing mention). See what the body says about southern kingdoms, there's quite a few mentioned, so just asking how these two (Cholas and Pallavas) were picked? Same for Zoroastrianism--there's the issue of mentioning Judaism as well (current lead mentions it)? Before posting version 5, let's see how we're going to iron out these specific instances. Also the current article lead's "played a part in shaping the region's diverse culture." seems valuable, is it important? Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Religions helping to shape culture? Seems like a statement of the obvious to me rather than something valuable. I think the fact that they're important enough to be mentioned in the lead demonstrates their significance. It is however a good catch as it is the only explicit mention of Indian culture in the lead, and the lead would be lacking without it. Perhaps the final sentence can be slightly reworded to get that wikilink back in. CMD (talk) 14:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC).

@Chipmunkdavis and Ugog Nizdast:

• Neolithic should have been linked to Mehrgarh, the most important such site in South Asia, and precursor to IVC. Not mentioning it, in my view, makes Indian history begin abruptly with the loud urban volume of IVC. Mentioning it is a way of fading in the history audio, as it were. I'm open to changes though.
• Agreed, there's no need to mention Indo-Aryan languages, Dravidian languages. One can simply say, "Iron age India saw the composition of the Vedas, the oldest scriptures associated with Hinduism."
• True, "bronze age" and "iron age" are not mentioned in the history section because there we had the luxury of saying, "flourishing during 2500-1900 BCE." A lead summary need not use the same words. However we do need some kind of periodization; otherwise, it might sound that the Vedas (which were transmitted orally in a pre-literate, but later, culture) were composed by IVC, a literate, or pseudo-literate, civilization.
• "Early political consolidations" sounds good.
• As for diversity, how does "In the medieval era, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Christianity, and Islam arrived in India, and Sikhism emerged, all shaping India's diverse culture." sound? Or "all augmenting India's diverse culture."?
• The Cholas and Pallavas were mentioned because they were the ones which had the most influence in southeast Asia. But how about: "The Middle Kingdoms of Southern India traded widely, their cultures and political systems especially influencing southeast Asia."? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I disagree that IVC would be a terribly abrupt entrance, but if the precursors are specifically Indian-related that's an improvement. Augmenting or similar is better than shaping, as it implies to me a process of addition rather than reforming, which is what shaping brings to mind. Can't think of anything additional to say at the moment. CMD (talk) 14:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• ...shaping the diverse culture sentence sounds good, but now there's two broken statements from your draft: " Christianity, Zoroastrianism, and Islam, arrived in India, much of northern India falling to the Delhi sultanate; southern India united under the Vijayanagara Empire. India's economy expanded in the Mughal empire; Sikhism emerged." how are they going to be reworded?
• Like that new Middle Kingdoms of Southern India replacement sentence, but note the difference: "The early medieval era saw the Chola and Pallava empires of southern India exert a wide influence, extending into southeast Asia." -> "The Middle Kingdoms of Southern India traded widely, their cultures and political systems especially influencing southeast Asia.". "Medieval era" is gone and the former's "extending into" for some reason sounds like they expanded till there. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Version 5

@Chipmunkdavis, Ugog Nizdast, RegentsPark, Kautilya3, and SpacemanSpiff: Sorry, I seem to have forgotten about this thread. I have taken your feedback into account into a version 5:

The Indian subcontinent was home to the urban Indus Valley Civilization of the 3rd millennium BCE. In the following millennium, the oldest scriptures associated with Hinduism, the Vedas, began to be composed. Social stratification in India, based in caste, emerged in the first millennium BCE, and Buddhism and Jainism arose. Early political consolidations took place under the Maurya and Gupta empires. In Southern India, the Middle Kingdoms influenced cultures as far as southeast Asia. In the medieval era, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Christianity, and Islam arrived in India, and Sikhism emerged, all augmenting India's diverse culture. Much of northern India fell to the Islamic Delhi sultanate; southern India united under the Vijayanagara Empire. India's economy expanded in the 17th century in the Mughal empire. In the mid-18th century, India came under British East India Company rule, and in the mid-19th under British crown rule, becoming a colonial economy, both comprising its colonial period. A nationalist movement emerged in the late 19th century, which later, under Mahatma Gandhi, was noted for non-violent resistance and led to India's political freedom in 1947. (Version 5)

Look forward to your feedback before this thread becomes archived! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Here's one, the religion for the Sultanate and the Vijayanagara empire has kept getting removed/added between the past drafts, make up your mind! Either keep for both and remove entirely right? I think I've run out of things to say for it and think it's ready. It would benefit additionally though by a fresh pair of eyes but I think it's gotten enough. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Religion scratched. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Looks ok. Might want to change "colonial economy" to "colonial nation" though. --regentspark (comment) 13:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Good catch. I checked the history section. It refers only to the "colonial period." I've snuck it in. Hope that's OK. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis, Ugog Nizdast, RegentsPark, Kautilya3, and SpacemanSpiff: I'm assuming we have consensus, more or less, for the paragraph above. I'm going to put it in the lead in place of the current history section. I am, however, leaving out the reference to the colonial period for two reasons: the link to colonialism is too general, and not India-related, and the reference to the colonial period is a small part of the history of the EIC and the Raj in the history section, not notable in a brief summary. I'm also leaving out the Vedas, as "oldest scriptures associated with Hinduism" says the same for a general reader. Here it is, the final version; hope it passes muster:

The Indian subcontinent was home to the urban Indus Valley Civilization of the 3rd millennium BCE. In the following millennium, the oldest scriptures associated with Hinduism began to be composed. Social stratification, based in caste, emerged in India in the first millennium BCE, and Buddhism and Jainism arose. Early political consolidations took place under the Maurya and Gupta empires; in southern India, the Middle Kingdoms influenced cultures as far as southeast Asia. In the medieval era, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Christianity, and Islam arrived in India, and Sikhism emerged, all adding to India's diverse culture. Much of northern India fell to the Delhi sultanate; southern India was united under the Vijayanagara Empire. India's economy expanded in the 17th century in the Mughal empire. In the mid-18th century, India came under British East India Company rule, and in the mid-19th under British crown rule. A nationalist movement emerged in the late 19th century, which later, under Mahatma Gandhi, was noted for non-violent resistance and led to India's political freedom in 1947. (Version final)

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:15, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Fowler&fowler, just a minor gripe which can be done anytime, sorry for not saying this earlier when there was ample time (seeing it again after long gave me these ideas). Why aren't the remaining religions linked? I hate WP:SEAOFBLUE and prefer avoiding common terms as well but linking just two would be unfair. Also can I pipe link caste to Caste system in India (more specific) and maybe replace "India" with "it" in a few places? Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ugog Nizdast:. I unlinked Christianity, Islam, Zoroastrianism, and Judaism because of Saravask's admonition about not keeping anything that is not a "really helpful India-related essential-context link." I could pipe link Christianity to Christianity in India, Islam to Islam in India, Zoroastrianism to Parsi, and Judaism to History of the Jews in India, but those articles have quality standard issues, and an FA can't send readers off into non-FA land so early in the article. It is the same with Caste system in India: it is a problematic article. In my view, it has had OR and UNDUE added to it in the last year. Caste is the flagship Wikipedia article on this form of social stratification. The lead second paragraph is nothing but a summary of the history section with one mention of "diverse culture." It can't really create content forks for things that are nowhere in the history section. In fact, Judaism and Zoroastrianism are included only because they were already there in the old lead. Their influence on Indian history, or even culture, as a whole, especially of Judaism, is minuscule compared, for example, to those of tribal culture and animism, but the last two go unmentioned in the lead. They were mentioned, after a fashion, in version 1 of the revised lead, which had to be whittled down because of length issues. Finally, as I see it, India can't really be replaced with "it" anywhere, as it would create ambiguity, risking conflating "it" and something other than India. If you have a specific sentence in mind, please tell me. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Fine, more or less. I echo your sentiment about the links but really that cannot be used as a rationale when undoing someone who adds them in future; them being unlinked does stick out.

1. based in caste, emerged in India in the ...2. adding to India's its diverse culture. 3. led to India's its political freedom in 1947.

Fair point regarding ambiguity, I found three places where it couldn't possibly mean anywhere else. 1. just say "emerged in" since it's pretty clear where (unless if, say, we meant just a specific part of it.) plus solved "in" getting repeated. 2. preceding statement stated "India" explicitly 3. Same reason. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 01:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you are probably right about someone, sooner or later, wanting to bring back the links. Please add them again.

However, for the India/its issue, I'm afraid, we do have to say India in each of your examples. The referring "it" is used to continue reference to a noun phrase that has been established as the topic in the text. The very first sentence sentence refers to the Indian subcontinent, mainly because IVC sites are mostly in what today is Pakistan; the second sentence refers again to the subcontinent—as it is widely thought that the Vedas (or at least the earlier ones) were composed in the Sapta Sindhu region of what today is the Punjab in Pakistan and some adjoining regions of the Punjab and Northwest UP in India. In the third sentence we make the transition to India. Buddhism and Jainism arose, pretty much, in what today is India, except for the incidental fact of the birth of Siddhattha Gotama in the terai region of Nepal, bordering India. The third sentence is really about India, and thereafter we stick to "India" (Northern India, southern India etc). We can't use "its" with "diverse culture," as a reader might think we are talking about Sikhism's diverse culture. "It/Its" syntactically refers to what is the last-established topic, which in this instance is Sikhism, even though many people would be cognitively aware that the reference might be to India. It's the same with, "... was noted for non-violent resistance and led to its political freedom in 1947." The syntactical reference of "its" is to "non-violent resistance," not to India. Knowledgeable readers will be aware that something is off, but that we mean India, but new readers will get confused. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

PS Rereading the paragraph, I feel that a bigger problem might be any use of "India, or for that matter 'it'," since we mean different regions of the subcontinent. I've now employed a slightly different lexical subterfuge. See the second paragraph in the India lead. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

The text is great, although I would like to propose a few minor additions and changes (additions in italics): The Indian subcontinent, a cradle of civilisation, was home to the urban Indus Valley Civilization | "...and led to India's independence in 1947." (Independence is the more common term and is easily identifiable with the Indian Independence Movement, 'political freedom' sounds funny) | wikilink (Greater India): influenced cultures cultures as far as Southeast Asia | wikilink (Vedic Period): oldest scriptures associated with Hinduism began to be composed. On a separate note, I'd love to know what people think of my proposal to add a new para to the lead passage (at the bottom of the talk page). Tiger7253 (talk) 14:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I've changed to "independence." Cradle of civilization and Greater India have NPOV issues. There is little chance that either will be advertised in the second paragraph of the India page, especially since neither is mentioned anywhere in the history section whose summary that paragraph is. You may have a point about the geology etc, but I'm traveling and flat out of time. Let's have that discussion in a few months. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:52, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Bit pedantic but shouldn't it be civiliSation as opposed to civiliZation since this article is in Indian English? (for IVC) Tiger7253 (talk) 19:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Good catch. Done. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2017

Wrong Flag published on this Wikipedia Page, as appeared on February 20, 2017, is highly objectionable. 101.63.36.150 (talk) 03:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — Train2104 (t • c) 03:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2017

change the national anthem.The song displayed is only instrumental. RohhitHowlader (talk) 16:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done for now: Reopen the request when you have the file of national anthem with lyrics. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 16:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

World Bank poverty line and figures

For reference, this was raised previously when a recent sock removed the poverty figures stating they were wrong as per WB site. It turned out that WB revised their poverty line in 2015 and now their site only shows figures as per those. I recall that I tried at that time to fetch those old refs to it via archive.org but wasn't successful, maybe someone else might be luckier. Or search for some secondary source from that date covering WB's findings.

So the statement's figures in the Poverty section starting from In 2006, India contained the largest number of people.. till ...in 2005 are all not rechecked. All of those WB links are broken and go to its main site in general with its figures now seem to only show it as per the updated poverty line.

I've added a note with one revised 2011 figure. Also, reverted an addition which showed an estimate post 2011, per WB's main site used, they don't seem to have any official figure past that year and they said it was a prediction (this bare ref url added said this and gave a link to the WB study which I'm reluctant to intepret further. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

March section

Should March section be added to the infobox like it is present on the Bangladesh page ? Indian Armed Forces official march is Sare Jahan se Accha with music by Ravi Shankar. Should it be included ? (I had already added this, however, it got reverted saying consensus was needed).King Prithviraj II (talk) 14:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Does it have any official recognition besides that like national song, anthem etc? Right now sounds more relevant to armed forces than this page. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

It's officially recognized as the official march of Indian Armed Forces (as stated on the Sare Jahan se Accha page). But hey, Armed Forces are the ones that usually march representing the country right ? So thinking that way, I added it. King Prithviraj II (talk) 15:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Is this really necessary? We don't have to add every official thing to the infobox. --regentspark (comment) 18:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

More relevant on the Indian Armed Forces page. MilborneOne (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, this is an important part of India's history as this song was used during Indian independence. Also, if we are adding it on Indian Armed Forces page, where should it be added ? There is no category.King Prithviraj II (talk) 12:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

True, and it probably shouldn't even be put there, as the article is currently. The armed forces page doesn't mention anything about its symbolism etc, and it would be awkward putting just that, let alone in the infobox. IMO, it isn't urgently needed to be put anywhere since the song's page and Republic Day (India)#Beating Retreat, for instance, mention it. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

It is not clear that the Indian army has one official quick march. It seems it marches in quick time to several songs, dozens in fact, which are used on various occasions by various regiments. There is an INA song, whose name I am forgetting, which too has been used in marching to military quick time, and labeled official. That SJSA is the official one, is very likely an urban legend, which began somewhere and has since been making the rounds in increasingly indistinct circles of fact in the Indian media. I'd like to see an official, or a WP:RS, acknowledgement of this. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

GDP ranking

According to Wikipedia french nominal GDP is $2.422 trillion . British Nominal GDP is $2.340 trillion. Indian nominal GDP is $2.607 trillion, but ranked in the reverse order, why not correcting the rank? (117.194.190.236 (talk) 14:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC))

Template creation

My previous experiment with adding the names of India in its official languages in the infobox a la European Union was popular, but was eventually undone because it messed with the infobox wikilinks for the flag and state emblem. I've been thinking of reinstating a list of names outside of the infobox, along the lines of the template found in the Names section of the China article. Although the source code for that template is in the Names section, it appears as a seamless continuation of the main infobox. The source code can be found here. There are parameters for some Indian languages in the source code, and filling them in gives me this result (right):

There are however some issues. The languages cannot be arranged alphabetically (Assamese-Urdu) with the pre-set parameters - Bengali, Assamese, Nepali, Hindi, Sanskrit, Tamil (I've deleted the Prakrit and Pali parameters as they aren't official languages in India). There are 11 'free' parameters that can accommodate other languages, but at least 16 parameters are needed to include the remaining languages, namely Punjabi, Santali, Sindhi, Telugu, and Urdu. I also cannot figure out how to make the collapse parameter work.

I therefore think a whole new template has to be designed from the ground-up, specific to WP:IND. Would this be a good idea? This could potentially solve so many problems. For example, WP:INDICSCRIPT disputes could be avoided with the creation of a dedicated template for Indic scripts. Rajinikanth could have both his Marathi and Tamil names listed in a collapsible template; the same goes for the Rajya Sabha, Lok Sabha, and many other articles in WP:IND that span various linguistic lines. Examples of this template being utilised can be found in Qing dynasty and Ürümqi. I look forward to hearing your thoughts. Tiger7253 (talk) 18:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Names of India
Bengali name
Bengali	ভারতীয় প্রজাতন্ত্র
Assamese name
Assamese	ভাৰত গণৰাজ্য
Nepali name
Nepali	गणतन्त्र भारत
Tamil name
Tamil	இந்தியக் குடியரசு
Hindi name
Hindi	भारत गणराज्य
Sanskrit name
Sanskrit	भारतमहाराज्यम्
Bodo name
Bodo	भारत गणराज्य
Dogri name
Dogri	भारत गणराज्य
Gujarati name
Gujarati	ભારતીય ગણતંત્રcode: guj promoted to code: gu
Kannada name
Kannada	ಭಾರತ ಗಣರಾಜ್ಯcode: kan promoted to code: kn
Kashmiri name
Kashmiri	جمہوٗرِیت بًارتcode: kas promoted to code: ks
Konkani name
Konkani	भारत गणराज्य
Maithili name
Maithili	भारत गणराज
Malayalam name
Malayalam	ഭാരത ഗണരാജ്യംcode: mal promoted to code: ml
Meitei name
Meitei	ভারত গণরাজ্য
Marathi name
Marathi	भारतीय प्रजासत्ताकcode: mar promoted to code: mr
Odia name
Odia	ଭାରତ ଗଣରାଜ୍ଯcode: ori promoted to code: or

• are these all the langauges? I dont see Telugu language here. Also, if we add this to the article page, wouldnt it be too long/lengthy vertically? Instead of putting it in the main infobox, we can put it in some other section. We can do co-op experiments in sandbox (either yours or mine). If you want to reply/mention me anywhere on wikipedia, please add {{reply to|Usernamekiran}} —usernamekiran (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: No, but as I said, the template doesn't have enough parameters for all languages, so we need to customise a new template specifically for WP:IND. The list is collapsible, so the length is not an issue, but again, I can't figure out how to collapse the list. Tiger7253 (talk)

• @Tiger7253: i will look up that function for infoboxes. I dont know how to create an infobox template though. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Please read MOS:DONTHIDE. There are already two collapsed lists in the India infobox. No other WP Featured Article has an infobox that dips well into the history section. This is dead in the water as I see it. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: I reckon the template is still a good idea. Even if not for this article, then for the other articles across Wikiproject India like the ones I mentioned above. It wouldn't need to be collapsed in that case as it'll be significantly shorter, and there's already precedence for this across China-related articles. Perhaps Indic script can be reintroduced via this template without clogging up the lead or the main infobox. Makes everyone happy and doesn't violate WP:INDICSCRIPT. Tiger7253 (talk) 11:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Tiger7253 and Fowler&fowler: you both present a good point. and also, why are people psting here random information? Kindly look at the two discussions at the bottom of this page.
  Couple of days ago, a guy asked to join INC on talk page of Rahul Gandhi. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2017

this is khan student federation page khan student federation is student union in the pakistan it was founded by umer khan durrani in 2000 in islamabad model college for boys

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Khanstudentfederation (talk • contribs) 14:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Khanstudentfederation: good general knowledge. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Religare Health Insurance

Religare Health Insurance is a private sector health insurance company in India. Founded in July 2012, it has till now insured over 27,00,000 lives. Religare Health Insurance has 56 offices with an employee strength of about 2,200 people.

Religarehinsurance (talk) 09:03, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Religarehinsurance: thanks for the genereal knowledge. Always nice to know new things. —usernamekiran (talk) 09:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:06, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Revision 771236868

@Fowler&fowler: i didnt understand the reasong behind the edit. Kindly elaborate. —usernamekiran (talk) 11:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: I really didnt understand the reason, honest! —usernamekiran (talk) 17:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Please see WP:INDICSCRIPT, which explicitly prohibits us from inserting any native Indian scripts into the lead or infobx of an article. Please also read WP:OWN#Featured_articles which suggests that for featured articles you discuss the edit on the talk page first, and gain consensus. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:08, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Fowler&fowler: thanks for the explanation. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify, WP:INDICSCRIPT says nothing about Indian scripts in infoboxes. But nevertheless scripts should only go in infoboxes if they are relevant, and when consensus can be established as to which scripts belong, which is often the case for articles on cities or geographic entities. For this article though, we don't need scripts in the infobox both because of how controversial and disputed the choice would be, and because we already have the Names of the Republic of India in its official languages article. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^тʌʟк 19:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

It says nothing because you just removed it. The editor who put the "infoboxes" in is not referring to the RfC, which any one can read is titled, "Rfc on native scripts in the lead," but further and continual instances of this issue cropping up in the context of infoboxes on the Talk:India page since. I don't see how it is more relevant in Delhi, which can have at least four (English, Hindi, Urdu, and Gurmukhi) scripts, or for that matter the Himalayas (Urdu, Hindi, Nepali, Bhutanese, Tibetan, Chinese,?), or for the river Ganges (English, Hindi, Maithili, Munda, Bengali). It is a slippery slope, especially for a subcontinent very much still in the throes of lingustic-subnationalisms. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I removed it because it claimed that there was consensus on this issue for infoboxes, when there isn't. See User talk:Sunnya343/Archive 1#INDICSCRIPTS. I agree with you about Himalayas and Ganges, but those are decided on a case by case basis. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^тʌʟк 20:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I mean that you don't remove something which is the subject of an ongoing discussion without informing the participants that you've removed it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I removed it after I noticed it had been added, which was after I made my initial comment in this section (which I made while thinking that the page hadn't been changed), and then I informed the user who added it. You're right, I should also have gone back here immediately and added another comment, but you were quicker than me. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^тʌʟк 20:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Mumbai/Bombay

@Genealogizer and Basawala: I am sensing a possible edit war here. So, in good faith, I am going to edit the the article to reflect only "Mumbai". Whether to add "Bombay" at all, if to be added then with or without "formerly", should be discussed. The change would be made accordig to the consensus. As the name "Bombay" is still somewhat controversial in Mumbai itself, and the state of Maharashtra, as the name Bombay has roots with Portuguese, as well as British Raj.

@Fowler&fowler: your suggestion is requested here. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I thought the edit war would be between you two :P. My opinion is that it either should just say Mumbai, or say Mumbai (Bombay). This is because I think there was a consensus on Talk:Mumbai to refer to 'Bombay' not as a former name but as an 'also known as' name (search the archives). I'm not sure what the general convention is on recently renamed cities; whatever it is, we should follow that. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^тʌʟк 19:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Basawala. Mumbai (Bombay) is good enough in the infobox (or Mumbai, also known as Bombay, as on the Mumbai page in the text). Otherwise, we get into other issues that Wikipedia alone can't resolve. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• I think it should be just "Mumbai", or "Mumbai (formerly Bombay)". I will make a request to change the same on the article of Mumbai itself as well. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

This has been discussed before on Talk:Mumbai; I've linked on your talk page two places where it was discussed, but it's your judgment if you want to propose a change again. Ah, and note the 3rd brown box from the top on Talk:Mumbai. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^тʌʟк 21:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Basawala: Thanks for the link to the archive.
  But Consensus can change, I really think we should re-consider all this with a fresh start. :) —usernamekiran (talk) 21:53, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• I rest my case. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

You're completely right that consensus can change, Usernamekiran. :) And ah, alas. My personal feeling is that unless circumstances change noticeably, reigniting a discussion about something as subjective (and controversial) as this would be unlikely to change the status quo, but you never know. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^тʌʟк 22:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• You are right too. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I think using "Mumbai (Bombay)" in the infobox is probably the best idea. Most English speakers still say "Bombay", even though it has become more common to write "Mumbai". Genealogizer (talk) 22:53, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, see WP:WIAN: "Disinterested, authoritative reference works are almost always reliable if they are current." For Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai, Britannica says formerly Bombay, Calcutta, and Madras, respectively. Good luck with the consensus. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

National game

India's national game is hockey Why is it written as undeclared WIZRADICAL (talk) 09:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Please read the Frequently asked questions (Q9) above, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 09:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Government of India's website

I believe the Government of India's website belongs to its own page, not to the India page. Someone has been trying to add it to the infobox. I don't know if this has been attempted before, but if we are agreed on this, then this section can remain as a talk page reference in the future. I'd like to hear from others. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:36, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, i cant be sure about that. I mean, this article is about "Republic of India". And the website, despite the name/domain, does not limit to the government of india only. It is confusing. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Looks like most country pages don't list the government website, and I agree it doesn't make sense to do so. A prominent exception is the United States, but I'll bring it up on the talkpage and see if there's pushback. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^тʌʟк 21:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I've made the change, and see Talk:United States too. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^тʌʟк 21:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2017

172.91.211.82 (talk) 05:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — IVORK _Discuss 07:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Long, article-length edits

An editor has been making article-length edits, whose salient feature seems to be removing semi-colons, or replacing them with, "as," "when," "where," and often altering the meaning. There are other issues as well. In the lead, he has changed the sentence, "A nationalist movement emerged in the late 19th century, which, later, under Mahatma Gandhi was noted for nonviolent resistance and led to India's independence in 1947." to "A nationalist movement emerged in the late 19th century, which under Mahatma Gandhi was noted for nonviolent resistance ..." implying that Gandhi could have been leading the nationalist movement from the late 19th century, not just after 1920, and so forth. Moreover, despite my informing the editor about WP:OWN#Featured_articles , WP:UNRESPONSIVE and WP:CAUTIOUS, there are no edit summaries, nor discussions, in this long article-length edit. I will be therefore reverting these edits. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:19, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, this reminds me of /Archive_40#Copyediting_by_Anglophile27. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

India Map changing its original structure

It is observing from your wikipedia, my country India map changing its original structure i have enquire with various government officials they don't know the change of the my country map structure but wikipedia continuously changing its original structure.

I would like to request please change effected from where it got effect.

Please comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JYjag (talk • contribs) 13:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can see none of the maps have changed recently or or are in a state of continuous change, can you give use clue which map you have a problem with but first have a read of the Frequently asked questions section above particularly Q6: The map is wrong! If that doesnt help then please come back and explain which map and what it wrong, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:22, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Serious changes needed in Early Modern India

I was quite shocked to see just a line of mention regarding the Maratha empire which controlled much of India in 1758. I have a very good amount of credible sources to add in support of my argument (You can get tons off the Maratha empire page itself). I'm surprised that the page does not even mention the Anglo-Maratha wars (and the Anglo-Sikh wars) which paved the way for the British to enter India.--Coconut1002 (talk) 09:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Ancient India

A map showing the Mauryan empire in its fullest extent under Ashoka the Great would be helpful, no? After all, it's the largest empire to have ever existed on the Indian subcontinent...--Coconut1002 (talk) 09:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Sports in India

Indian esports industry has begun to come in the limelight since 2015, its growing rapidly and should be added! --Coconut1002 (talk) 09:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2017

47.187.192.26 (talk) 18:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: no request. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 18:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2017

70.121.11.78 (talk) 01:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Game - not declared - this is not correct , Hockey is the national game

•  Not done See question 9 in the FAQ at the top of this page. --regentspark (comment) 01:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2017

More powerful then U.S.A. DHEERAJSONI1 (talk) 09:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Unclear request: please state your changes in the format of "change x to y" and provide reliable sources when needed. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

National Language field must in Infobox

National Language field is must in Infobox for India, as every time people confuse "Official Language" with "National Language". It must to clarify in a country which has 22 recognised languages in Constitution. unnecessary fields-Date format and Drives on the -removed from infobox. Recently there was another push to make Hindi compulsory language for CBSE schools.
http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Undertheinfluence/mind-our-language-attempts-to-depose-english-subject-our-universities-to-dangerous-social-engineering/
It must be clarified that courts in India have also said that no National Language exists in India
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omSfFK1oNjc --Rashkeqamar (talk) 13:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Apologies. I reverted your edit before realizing that you had used the talk page. Regardless, please get consensus here before attempting to change entries in the infobox. --regentspark (comment) 14:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• Needed National Language field as multi-lingual India always gets confused whether so-much promoted Hindi is national language or not. Its not and its better to remove unnecessary infobox fields and put the necessary field National Language there. In 1965 , there was anti-Hindi protest in my Tamilnadu, so I know many North Indians still dont realize that there is NO National Language in India.--Paneerdhelwa (talk) 14:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support I too like the idea of putting "National language: None", if we only because of the unnecessary arguments we have every once in a while, stating that Hindi is the national language. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support For the same reasons stated above --- Tyler Durden (talk) 17:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
• Comment and  Done: I was the first to revert this edit because I was unsure since I vaguely recalled that this was there before and maybe someone removed it/moved it below (there's a box devoted to all the national symbols at India#Government). Restored to how it was before presumably. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 05:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Military Expenditure: Year 2017 for 2016 Update

The lead part of the India article states currently "ranks sixth in military expenditure among nations." This has changed. Please update the main article.

• The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute latest report released this month in April 2017, shows India has moved from sixth to fifth military expenditure among countries in the world.

--Souce of the link : https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/Trends-world-military-expenditure-2016.pdf

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Panrussia (talk • contribs) 24 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done - Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://india.gov.in/india-glance/profile
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://india.gov.in/india-glance/profile
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721163118/http://forest.and.nic.in/fca1980.pdf to http://forest.and.nic.in/fca1980.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/trai/upload/PressReleases/816/Press_release_feb%20-11.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 17:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot InternetArchiveBot. Did you hear from ClueBot recently bubba? I think he is feeling down. Kindly let me know if you hear something about him. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Don't waste your time talking to bots, Usernamekiran, they're overworked and miserable creatures ;) Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done Dead links were false positives which have been reported; otherwise fine. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ugog Nizdast: lol some bots do need friends. ;-) DPL bot, and Suggestbot talk to me once in a while. I actually love Marvin lol. Alan Rickman's voice did justice to Marvin's character. We even have Beeblbrox on wiki as an admin, but he doesnt respond to Zaphod. —usernamekiran(talk) 11:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ugog Nizdast: I hope you realise I'm not serious, and I'm just joking :-) —usernamekiran(talk) 19:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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/20160201081439/http://rajbhasha.nic.in/UI/pagecontent.aspx?pc=MzU%3D to http://rajbhasha.nic.in/UI/pagecontent.aspx?pc=MzU%3D

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 01:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ugog Nizdast: Would you take the pleasure of thanking our friend? :-) —usernamekiran(talk) 04:10, 4 May 2017 (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/20160708012438/http://nclm.nic.in/shared/linkimages/NCLM50thReport.pdf to http://nclm.nic.in/shared/linkimages/NCLM50thReport.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140909230437/http://lawmin.nic.in/coi/coiason29july08.pdf to http://lawmin.nic.in/coi/coiason29july08.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/trai/upload/PressReleases/816/Press_release_feb%20-11.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/org6_e.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 06:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

See User talk:Cyberpower678#IABot_possible_issue. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 01:46, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done 3 false positives reported but otherwise changes fine. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Request to add "Bharat Janrajya" phrase in the InfoBox of the article in different Indian languages

I would like to request to add the "Bharat Janrajya" string/phrase present in the InfoBox (i.e the |native_name = ... part ) of the article in different Indian languages, or at least the most major ones like Hindi, Bengali. The English transliteration of the phrase does not exactly represent the different languages of India and adding the languages would allow homogeneity with the articles of other nations, which have similar phrases present in English, in the native language, as well as the English transliteration. Daujerrine (talk) 14:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done (edit conflict) See Talk:India/FAQ and search the archives. Also side note: adding any native lang script in the lead or infobox has always been actively opposed and consensus is to avoid them. Despite that, numerous proposals which always nearly have the same end result keep happening. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 16:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 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/20150825155850/http://www.censusindia.gov.in/2011census/C-01/DDW00C-01%20MDDS.XLS to http://www.censusindia.gov.in/2011census/C-01/DDW00C-01%20MDDS.XLS
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141001005409/http://www.rajbhasha.nic.in/UI/pagecontent.aspx?pc=Mzc%3D to http://rajbhasha.nic.in/UI/pagecontent.aspx?pc=Mzc%3D

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 08:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion of a new section.

There is no mention of India's stride in the field of science and technology.There should be a seperate head where India's achievement in the field of science and technology is highlighted. Proud Indian 4 (talk) 12:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2017

Madhav Subramaniyam (talk) 22:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: it's unclear what changes you want to make. ProgrammingGeek ^talktome 22:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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/20110728164230/http://www.bostonanalytics.com/india_watch/Healthcare%20in%20India%20Executive%20Summary.pdf to http://bostonanalytics.com/india_watch/Healthcare%20in%20India%20Executive%20Summary.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 17:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2017

The Indian Flag present in the below URL(that is the page on which i'm requesting to edit)isn't proper:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India

It should be like the picture available in one of the other wikipedia URL given below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_India

Kindly Process the same as soon as possible. 203.143.188.11 (talk) 07:14, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Both articles contain the same flag image. --regentspark (comment) 14:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Addition of image of Elephanta Cave

Hi, I wanted to add this image of Elephanta Caves, declared World Heritage Site by UNESCO, to the article, I think that it could improve the section of art and architecture. What do you think? Bye, --Elisardojm (talk) 15:36, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

For reference, the prior discussion (at the time of the last FARC) is at Talk:India/Archive 36#Arts image section rotation. I think the Elephanta image was rejected because we have the other set of caves -- Ajantha included, no point in repeating caves with so little real estate. —SpacemanSpiff 23:23, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks SpacemanSpiff. Bye, --Elisardojm (talk) 23:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

National Bird- Peacock not Peafowl

Indian national bird is Peacock, not Peafowl. Peafowl would imply that both Peacock as well as Peahen are collectively national birds, which is not the fact. In Indian languages it's the Mayur that's the national bird, not the female Mayuri.

Only the male bird due to its iridescence and tail canopy. Also, the Govt of India website that has been cited has a broken link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.177.1.217 (talk) 03:47, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I've changed "peafowl" to "peacock", the resulting links (one in a caption of a randomized photo) are now redirected to "Indian peafowl", which is perhaps the cause of the confusion. I didn't do anything to improve the referencing, which is a bit of a mess. The good Indian portal link is used by one reference, the dead sfn link cited at the symbols table by another. The two might be combined, or an archived snapshot of the dead link obtained (I'm not entirely sure it's not dead because it wasn't set up properly). Dhtwiki (talk) 09:28, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

This has already been discussed in Talk:India/Archive_38#Indian_peafowl. If you want to change anything, please establish new consensus here in light of the arguments advanced in that archive thread, which are fairly comprehensive. @Dhtwiki: It is not a good idea to change anything on this FA (per WP:OWN#Featured_articles, until new consensus has been established. I will therefore be reverting "peacock" back to "peafowl." Again please read the archive carefully. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:36, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I looked at the archived discussion some time ago, but I haven't gotten around to giving a detailed response. The upshot of what I found was that some people use "peacock" to refer to the species and that correctly should be "peafowl", but in the case of Indian symbolism, it is definitely only the male that is meant, since the female lacks the distinctive plumage. At Peafowl#Cultural_significance, which should be relied upon to properly make the distinction, "peacock" is used almost exclusively when discussing the bird's symbolic role. As far as consensus having developed around the use of "peafowl" instead, I saw no active seconding of your analysis and I count now three editors who have problems with the usage. Dhtwiki (talk) 17:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

This shouldn't be hard. Presumably there is some official pronouncement on the national bird of India. If it says "peafowl", then peafowl. If it says "peacock", then peacock. --regentspark (comment) 21:40, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

This government site https://india.gov.in/india-glance/national-symbols has "The Indian peacock, Pavo cristatus, the National Bird of India, .." MilborneOne (talk) 22:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't make it any easier, they seem to be using the term peacock for the species and not as a gender specific term as per this statement from there: "The male of the species is more colourful than the female, with a glistening blue breast and neck and a spectacular bronze-green tail of around 200 elongated feathers. The female is brownish, slightly smaller than the male and lacks the tail." —SpacemanSpiff 23:14, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

They make it somewhat unclear by that wording: to use "peacock", with the scientific name in parenthesis. How likely do they mean "the male of the species Pavo cristatus", which is my interpretation, and how likely are they confusing "peacock" with "peafowl"? Dhtwiki (talk) 14:10, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

"Peacock" is not infrequently used to refer to peafowl of either sex. Strictly speaking, this may be "incorrect", but there's not much use getting all prescriptive with word usage. (It's roughly analogous to "cow", which is widely used to refer to cattle, males included.) Webster's New World Dictionary's entry for "peacock" says:

a. any male peafowl, esp., one of a species (Pavo cristatus) with a crest of plumules and long, brightly colored upper tail coverts that can be spread like a fan and have rainbow-colored, eyelike spots. b. (loosely) any peafowl.

American Heritage Dictionary and Random House have similar entries. Chambers specifically lists it as a synonym of "peafowl". Based on the above, I think it would be safe to change it to "peacock" in the article. And adding the Latin species name, as well, wouldn't hurt. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 16:57, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

"Social stratification, based on caste, emerged in the first millennium BCE"

Is there a citation for this? There is disagreements as to how caste came about and when. Bajirao1007 (talk) 07:45, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Editing questions

This is a featured article and with that classification I expect the layout to be exemplary but would someone look at the Subdivisions section. With the images to the far right there is just a whole lot of blank white nothing that to me does not give a good appearance. Otr500 (talk) 08:52, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. If someone with formatting skills can clean that up, that would be helpful. The mess is from when someone converted the list of states into a table. For example, no white space here. --regentspark (comment) 12:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

After reading RP's post, I did a simple minded fix, by making it a left aligned two-column table. The order there needs to be corrected, but in full screen mode it does ride up to become parallel to the map and there is no whitespace. But if you make the window smaller, eventually it will slip down. To make it permanently to the left of the map will require more sophisticated programming, which Otr500 might know about. If not, Otr500, if you want to do it my simple-minded way, you could put my table in the correct order and perhaps reduce the font size to 85% to give it some stability. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:35, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I just made a change that puts rather squished text to the left of the map, which now equals the width of the table, for a neater appearance. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks: It does look better. Does the table have to be under the image? IF not I was wondering how it would look if the table was to the right of the image. Otr500 (talk) 01:09, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I recently restored the appearance of the section as of April 2015, which makes even better use of space and uses two lists rather than a table, which should allow for more flexibility with formatting and updating with new information. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

No, please don't unilaterally do things, Dhtwiki, when you are this clueless. Have you considered what happens when you shrink the window size? Your numbers ride into the map. Next time please discuss your ideas here first, or like me, make an edit and but then undo it, so that you can make your point here, but the article is not compromised if you've made a booboo. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:51, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Dhtwiki's change looked good to me. There were no numbers riding into the map, at least on my browser. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 04:42, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Did you reduce the window size using the cursor? If so where did the numbers go as you made the window gradually smaller? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:05, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

OK. In the absence of a reply, I have fixed the problem in the way I described above. Here is the version. If you all like it, you may make this the current version. In full page size, the table floats to the left of the map. As you reduce window size, it eventually slips to below the map. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:51, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I would have replied sooner but rarely talk in my sleep anymore. OK, I reduced the window size and the numbers did bleed onto the image, but only when I reduced it a lot—by about 50 percent or more. I was toying around with possible layout solutions to this a few days ago, and I gave up. There either are limitations of wikimarkup that cannot be overcome with this specific content or no one has hit on the perfect solution yet. Your changes are functional (which is the most important thing) but it still looks clunky with all that white space, imo. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 13:26, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

F&F's fix puts the table below the map always on my netbook screen, at whatever resolution. Making the map smaller, using the optional width parameter, might help there. I would hate to have to view that section in such a small window that the table won't sit beside the map. Is this a problem for pad or mobile users, who are probably the only people using smaller screens than mine (but probably with higher resolution)? Dhtwiki (talk) 15:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I too see the table below the map with lots of white space on my Chrome browser. --regentspark (comment) 16:24, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and implemented F&F's fix but adjusting the image-width parameter to 380 pixels, which is about the upper limit to enable the table and map to sit side-by-side on my screen. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. But as I pointed out my fix is a simple minded one, and, as RegentsPark points out, it doesn't show parallel displays on all browsers. We should redouble our efforts to locate people who might know how to do this stably. How about contacting the person who made the map (of India), or others who have made similar maps in Demographics of India or Crime in India? They might be able to suggest a more robust solution. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:23, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

• @RexxS: can you be of assistance here, in placing the map and the associated table/content without the text going haywire. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 05:02, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  • @SpacemanSpiff: I can try. The principal problem with the current layout is that a screen-reader will announce the table entries by default from left-to-right, then downwards, so you would hear "1. Andhra Pradesh"; "19. Nagaland"; "2. Arunachal Pradesh"; "20. Odisha" and so on. That's really not a good experience for a visually impaired visitor. In terms of whitespace, once you have images and other fixed elements, you can't eliminate whitespace for every size of monitor and screen resolution, so you do the best you can. My advice is to convert the table into what it should be: a simple list. Then you can use {{div col}} to put that list into columns that adjust with the screen width. I've prepared three demos of the Subdivisions section and the following one in my user space:
  • User:RexxS/India (20em cols)
  • User:RexxS/India (15em cols)
  • User:RexxS/India (no clear)
  • As you can see if you change the window width, they behave reasonably well down to about 980px, where horizontal scroll bars appear anyway. You can check in mobile view by using the link at the very bottom of each page. All of them look OK to me on my phone as well. The 15em columns looks better to me on narrow screens, while the 20em columns version has a little less whitespace below the text on a full HD screen 1920px wide - each of those has a {{clear}} after the text to prevent the large image from impinging into the next section. On a 2560px wide screen, nothing looks good. Don't use windows that wide is all I can recommend. If you really must get rid of whitespace, then take out the {{clear}} as I've done in the third demo. That's a matter of taste, I guess. I won't be offended if you don't like any of them, but I hope they are an improvement, if only for the folks using screen readers. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 13:39, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
    • The third option looks the neatest on my computer, and it also works on my phone. It looks even better with the text above the list instead of below it, but I guess that might be asking for trouble if the text were expanded or shortened significantly. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 14:40, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
• Review: Thank you all very much as it looks a lot better. At the time of my observation I was on my 17" screen, which might have contributed to the large white areas looking even bigger. Seeing the work required to find a happy medium I suppose I should check these things out on my phone browser as I imagine it was even worse. I suppose some "white area" is to be expected but it certainly looks better. Otr500 (talk) 15:51, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks @RexxS:, for those great options. And thanks for the information. However, now that I've got thinking about this issue, I'm wondering if the real problem might not be the map or the list/table, but that there is very little text in the section. Typically, in a Wikipedia section, it is text that forms the fluid body in which a figure floats. When you shrink the window size, the text trickles into the created empty spaces and fills them up. All the other sections of this article have much more text space than figure/table space. Do you think adding text will help in resolving our issue?

If so, a more general question arises for all Talk:India editors: why there is so little text in this section, a section which claims Administrative divisions of India and Political integration of India to be its parent articles? Well, the first parent has the same problem: it is all figures, tables, and lists with no text. So, there's not much that can be added from it, at least for now. But the second parent is the finely chiseled FA by user:Vadakkan. Would someone like to summarize that article into a couple of paragraphs that we can then use in this section? In addition, would someone like to add text to the first article, and simultaneously add a summary version to this section? Also, in our section of interest, I noticed that the text follows the diagrams. It should really precede them, as it also serves as an introduction.

Meanwhile, thanks again RexxS for the solutions. Any other insights would be very welcome. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:43, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

The new fixes by RexxS are not an improvement for me. All render the list of names as one column—unless I zoom out on my notebook, at full screen—and leave some state/territory names inconveniently distant from the map. I agree that the text in the article section acts as an introduction and could go before the graphics. Dhtwiki (talk) 04:31, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I wondered about the lack of text and most articles I read do have more. I like templates, that summarize content in an easy to find area, but prefer prose included. I have only glanced at the article before the large area of white grabbed my attention but what I read I liked. I have seen too many articles downgraded by the wrong editing so I will simply toss in my two cents and let you great editors work out the details. I will check back in to enjoy the improvements. Otr500 (talk) 21:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I tested my extra prose/text idea, by pasting three copies of the paragraph we already have in the section, making four paragraphs in all. I also changed the margin settings for the table to left, right = 1.5 em. If you do that, you'll see that there is enough text there to fill up any white space that might be created by changing the window size. See here. It is pretty good, but not perfect, for in one small range of window size the column of text between the two figures is so thin as to look a little unsightly. Other than that, it seems to work fine. Of course, there is still the problem RexSS points out: namely as a featured article, this page and all its contents, need to be accessible to visually impaired editors, and the indexing of the table makes it confusing for them. But this does show that if someone can summarize the two articles I mention and add some more text in our section of interest, not only will the section become more encyclopedic but our whitespace problem might be fixed as well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:48, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

That's hard to read. You're asking readers to switch from one side of the page to the other, and then, at the bottom, have to read double-wide lines. Better to have some whitespace in some formats than to impose meandering text on people, even if that text is justified in providing needed information (rather than just put there so there's no whitespace). Dhtwiki (talk) 17:56, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2017

2405:204:6686:5863:4D91:4A3C:22FC:8FCD (talk) 05:14, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

The pic showing India on the globe is wrong.... Actually Tropic of cancer passing through West Bengal, Madhya Pradesh,Rajasthan and Gujarat...but in the pic it showing different

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 05:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

If you're referring to File:India_(orthographic_projection).svg, IP user, it doesn't appear to depict the Tropic of Cancer. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 05:33, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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/20120509061653/http://nasscom.org/indian-itbpo-industry to http://www.nasscom.org/indian-itbpo-industry

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 11:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Editing questions

This is a featured article and with that classification I expect the layout to be exemplary but would someone look at the Subdivisions section. With the images to the far right there is just a whole lot of blank white nothing that to me does not give a good appearance. Otr500 (talk) 08:52, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. If someone with formatting skills can clean that up, that would be helpful. The mess is from when someone converted the list of states into a table. For example, no white space here. --regentspark (comment) 12:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

After reading RP's post, I did a simple minded fix, by making it a left aligned two-column table. The order there needs to be corrected, but in full screen mode it does ride up to become parallel to the map and there is no whitespace. But if you make the window smaller, eventually it will slip down. To make it permanently to the left of the map will require more sophisticated programming, which Otr500 might know about. If not, Otr500, if you want to do it my simple-minded way, you could put my table in the correct order and perhaps reduce the font size to 85% to give it some stability. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:35, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I just made a change that puts rather squished text to the left of the map, which now equals the width of the table, for a neater appearance. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks: It does look better. Does the table have to be under the image? IF not I was wondering how it would look if the table was to the right of the image. Otr500 (talk) 01:09, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I recently restored the appearance of the section as of April 2015, which makes even better use of space and uses two lists rather than a table, which should allow for more flexibility with formatting and updating with new information. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

No, please don't unilaterally do things, Dhtwiki, when you are this clueless. Have you considered what happens when you shrink the window size? Your numbers ride into the map. Next time please discuss your ideas here first, or like me, make an edit and but then undo it, so that you can make your point here, but the article is not compromised if you've made a booboo. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:51, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Dhtwiki's change looked good to me. There were no numbers riding into the map, at least on my browser. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 04:42, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Did you reduce the window size using the cursor? If so where did the numbers go as you made the window gradually smaller? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:05, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

OK. In the absence of a reply, I have fixed the problem in the way I described above. Here is the version. If you all like it, you may make this the current version. In full page size, the table floats to the left of the map. As you reduce window size, it eventually slips to below the map. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:51, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I would have replied sooner but rarely talk in my sleep anymore. OK, I reduced the window size and the numbers did bleed onto the image, but only when I reduced it a lot—by about 50 percent or more. I was toying around with possible layout solutions to this a few days ago, and I gave up. There either are limitations of wikimarkup that cannot be overcome with this specific content or no one has hit on the perfect solution yet. Your changes are functional (which is the most important thing) but it still looks clunky with all that white space, imo. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 13:26, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

F&F's fix puts the table below the map always on my netbook screen, at whatever resolution. Making the map smaller, using the optional width parameter, might help there. I would hate to have to view that section in such a small window that the table won't sit beside the map. Is this a problem for pad or mobile users, who are probably the only people using smaller screens than mine (but probably with higher resolution)? Dhtwiki (talk) 15:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I too see the table below the map with lots of white space on my Chrome browser. --regentspark (comment) 16:24, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and implemented F&F's fix but adjusting the image-width parameter to 380 pixels, which is about the upper limit to enable the table and map to sit side-by-side on my screen. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. But as I pointed out my fix is a simple minded one, and, as RegentsPark points out, it doesn't show parallel displays on all browsers. We should redouble our efforts to locate people who might know how to do this stably. How about contacting the person who made the map (of India), or others who have made similar maps in Demographics of India or Crime in India? They might be able to suggest a more robust solution. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:23, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

• @RexxS: can you be of assistance here, in placing the map and the associated table/content without the text going haywire. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 05:02, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  • @SpacemanSpiff: I can try. The principal problem with the current layout is that a screen-reader will announce the table entries by default from left-to-right, then downwards, so you would hear "1. Andhra Pradesh"; "19. Nagaland"; "2. Arunachal Pradesh"; "20. Odisha" and so on. That's really not a good experience for a visually impaired visitor. In terms of whitespace, once you have images and other fixed elements, you can't eliminate whitespace for every size of monitor and screen resolution, so you do the best you can. My advice is to convert the table into what it should be: a simple list. Then you can use {{div col}} to put that list into columns that adjust with the screen width. I've prepared three demos of the Subdivisions section and the following one in my user space:
  • User:RexxS/India (20em cols)
  • User:RexxS/India (15em cols)
  • User:RexxS/India (no clear)
  • As you can see if you change the window width, they behave reasonably well down to about 980px, where horizontal scroll bars appear anyway. You can check in mobile view by using the link at the very bottom of each page. All of them look OK to me on my phone as well. The 15em columns looks better to me on narrow screens, while the 20em columns version has a little less whitespace below the text on a full HD screen 1920px wide - each of those has a {{clear}} after the text to prevent the large image from impinging into the next section. On a 2560px wide screen, nothing looks good. Don't use windows that wide is all I can recommend. If you really must get rid of whitespace, then take out the {{clear}} as I've done in the third demo. That's a matter of taste, I guess. I won't be offended if you don't like any of them, but I hope they are an improvement, if only for the folks using screen readers. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 13:39, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
    • The third option looks the neatest on my computer, and it also works on my phone. It looks even better with the text above the list instead of below it, but I guess that might be asking for trouble if the text were expanded or shortened significantly. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 14:40, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
• Review: Thank you all very much as it looks a lot better. At the time of my observation I was on my 17" screen, which might have contributed to the large white areas looking even bigger. Seeing the work required to find a happy medium I suppose I should check these things out on my phone browser as I imagine it was even worse. I suppose some "white area" is to be expected but it certainly looks better. Otr500 (talk) 15:51, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks @RexxS:, for those great options. And thanks for the information. However, now that I've got thinking about this issue, I'm wondering if the real problem might not be the map or the list/table, but that there is very little text in the section. Typically, in a Wikipedia section, it is text that forms the fluid body in which a figure floats. When you shrink the window size, the text trickles into the created empty spaces and fills them up. All the other sections of this article have much more text space than figure/table space. Do you think adding text will help in resolving our issue?

If so, a more general question arises for all Talk:India editors: why there is so little text in this section, a section which claims Administrative divisions of India and Political integration of India to be its parent articles? Well, the first parent has the same problem: it is all figures, tables, and lists with no text. So, there's not much that can be added from it, at least for now. But the second parent is the finely chiseled FA by user:Vadakkan. Would someone like to summarize that article into a couple of paragraphs that we can then use in this section? In addition, would someone like to add text to the first article, and simultaneously add a summary version to this section? Also, in our section of interest, I noticed that the text follows the diagrams. It should really precede them, as it also serves as an introduction.

Meanwhile, thanks again RexxS for the solutions. Any other insights would be very welcome. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:43, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

The new fixes by RexxS are not an improvement for me. All render the list of names as one column—unless I zoom out on my notebook, at full screen—and leave some state/territory names inconveniently distant from the map. I agree that the text in the article section acts as an introduction and could go before the graphics. Dhtwiki (talk) 04:31, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I wondered about the lack of text and most articles I read do have more. I like templates, that summarize content in an easy to find area, but prefer prose included. I have only glanced at the article before the large area of white grabbed my attention but what I read I liked. I have seen too many articles downgraded by the wrong editing so I will simply toss in my two cents and let you great editors work out the details. I will check back in to enjoy the improvements. Otr500 (talk) 21:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I tested my extra prose/text idea, by pasting three copies of the paragraph we already have in the section, making four paragraphs in all. I also changed the margin settings for the table to left, right = 1.5 em. If you do that, you'll see that there is enough text there to fill up any white space that might be created by changing the window size. See here. It is pretty good, but not perfect, for in one small range of window size the column of text between the two figures is so thin as to look a little unsightly. Other than that, it seems to work fine. Of course, there is still the problem RexSS points out: namely as a featured article, this page and all its contents, need to be accessible to visually impaired editors, and the indexing of the table makes it confusing for them. But this does show that if someone can summarize the two articles I mention and add some more text in our section of interest, not only will the section become more encyclopedic but our whitespace problem might be fixed as well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:48, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

That's hard to read. You're asking readers to switch from one side of the page to the other, and then, at the bottom, have to read double-wide lines. Better to have some whitespace in some formats than to impose meandering text on people, even if that text is justified in providing needed information (rather than just put there so there's no whitespace). Dhtwiki (talk) 17:56, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2017

Vice President name change - Venkaiah Naidu 115.248.178.161 (talk) 10:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done for now: He is not the Vice President of India, he is the Vice President-elect - he will take the office as Vice President on 11 August 2017. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 10:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Shoud the Indus Valley Civilization be discussed in the opening section?

I think we need to differentiate between the modern "Republic of India" and the older kingdoms and empires that existed on the continent. I'm open to allowing pre-modern information in the rest of the article, but I don't think this should be discussed in the opening section. Lankandude2017 (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

We differentiate between the modern Republic of India and older entities by the context of the time frame in which we are discussing. If you are open to the article containing pre-modern information, then you are de facto open to allowing it in the lead, as the lead contains a summary of the salient points in the rest of the article, by definition. --RexxS (talk) 00:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Dear @Lankandude2017:, Thanks for your post. @RexxS: has already made a cogent point. I would add that typically, there are only two other ways of answering that question. We can either look at precedent on Wikipedia or at precedent in the sources, tertiary and secondary. Other country articles United States, Canada, even FAs Australia, Japan, all mention a past in the lead that beats India's hands down. But then India is the oldest continuing country FA on Wikipedia, so you could argue that the precedent of exhibiting a remote past in the lead was set on the India page. So we look at the tertiary sources. The second paragraph of Britannica's India (lead) begins with, "It is known from archaeological evidence that a highly sophisticated urbanized culture—the Indus civilization—dominated the northwestern part of the subcontinent from about 2600 to 2000 bce." As for general histories of India, for example, Burton Stein's A History of India, the section, "Antiquity of states" in the introduction begins with, "Politically the consideration of Indian state formation must reach back very far in time, since Indian states are nearly as old as any in the world. Impressively large politics, dating from 2500 BCE, seemed to be implied by the vast cities in the northwestern subcontinent." Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2017

Kapil kumar wiki (talk) 10:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. nihlus kryik (talk) 10:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

References

National game

Hockey is national game of India please added. Regards Gokulakannan. G Gokulakannan.G (talk) 15:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Please refer to the Frequently Asked Questions section above as to why it is not the national sport. MilborneOne (talk) 11:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2017

183.87.146.69 (talk) 06:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — IVORK _Discuss 11:41, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2017

2405:205:1107:220:C00E:539F:9F73:29CF (talk) 11:14, 26 August 2017 (UTC) 

 Not done Unclear what changes you want to be made. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 11:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Ram Nath Kovind

Its written in the article that he will take oath but this has to be changed to he took oath PremMilindGujrathi (talk) 13:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I've updated the text. Dhtwiki (talk) 18:11, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Its my pleasure PremMilindGujrathi (talk) 12:44, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2017 - Chief Justice of India - Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra

please change Chief Justice of India from Jagdish Singh Khehar to Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra because Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra is the new Chief Justice of India since August 28, 2017.

Source : http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/chief-justice-judges Devashishpoddar (talk) 05:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 06:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2017

fix map as some parts are discoloured Rupai wiki (talk) 10:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

 Not done the reasons for the different colours are clearly explained in the map key. - Arjayay (talk) 11:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Ancient India

I recall a pretty detailed discussion at Talk:Vedic_period/Archive_1#Indigenous_.2F_non-Indo_Aryan_people and later made better edits were made to main article.[1] I am seeing bigger issue with this article though with the sentence "caste system arose during this period, creating a hierarchy of priests, warriors, free peasants and traders, and lastly the indigenous peoples who were regarded as impure; and small tribal units gradually coalesced into monarchical, state-level polities". 2 sources are used, but only K&R source supports the information, but it is contradicting scholarly consensus as well as every other article. @Kautilya3: had made lengthy explanation before as well. Nothing like that has been be supported by Upinder Singh source.[2]Capitals00 (talk) 16:25, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I have modified it now, with a more recent Routlede source. Capitals00 (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Your "more recent Routledge source" says (p.89, as referred to by you):

...slaves, labourers and artisans were degraded into the fourth group, the shudra [...] many pre-Aryans would have been on the bottom rungs.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

And the Talkpage-thread you're referring to also says:

BTW, did you notice that the word "slaves" was omitted in the earlier revision? Very dodgy.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:15, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I have replaced the source, with one from Cambridge University Press. I could add couple more but this is a featured article, overciting can be a concern. Capitals00 (talk)

The replacement, Lady Hartog (2014), India in Outline, Cambridge University Press, is a reprint from 1945... From the blurb: "This book will be of value to anyone with an interest in Indian history and Britain's historical perception of India." Upinder Singh also treats the varna-system, from p.202 onwards. NB: p.204 says that the slaves stood even lower than the sudras; so, a different social class. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Capitals00, please don't make unilateral edits based on your understanding of some sources. Please discuss them here first for a reasonable length of time, and gain consensus before changing anything. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Just now we had a lengthier discussion on Talk:Vedic period#Slaves. It seems that Kulke & Rothermund is contradticting the scholarly consensus regarding the caste system and the classification of the castes. @Kautilya3 and Ms Sarah Welch: who participated there. Capitals00 (talk) 05:10, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't care who made what argument where. It has to be made here with respect to the text currently in place, "The caste system, which created a hierarchy of priests, warriors, and free peasants, but which excluded indigenous peoples by labeling their occupations impure, arose during this period."([39] cited to Kulke-Rothermund). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:45, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Addition of new pics

Hey guys I want to update some pics in Clothing and Economy Section. Anyone who opposes please reply IndianEditor (talk) 08:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Can you link to the pictures you were trying to add? Capitals00 (talk) 08:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Capitals00

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AMumbai-Skyline.jpg and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3ADesigner-saree-1006688_960_720.jpg First one in Economy Section and second one in Clothing Section and will add Similar pictures in that will be in Loop --IndianEditor (talk) 08:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I am very sorry, and I don't mean any ill-will to you personally, but neither picture qualifies for this featured article. Please read the long discussions in 2013 on this talk page about what pictures are most appropriate for this article. In general, the pictures have to either be iconic pictures like Ajanta, or Gandhi-Nehru, or present something visually unusual but at the same time encyclopedic about India. The first picture moreover is photoshopped, has no camera information; and the second is an advertisement. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Bhimbetka rock shelters

There's something wrong with either this article orHomo Erectus about the dates, although this source gives a 100,000 year old date for the art and HE, which contradicts the article in which it's used as a source insofar as the rock art dates go. I started a discussion on the talk page but it was Bladesmulti who responded. It's a bit of a mess. Doug Weller talk 12:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Doug Weller I think problem is with Homo Erectus because I have 3 reliable sources about age of the shelter.Recently I added another one.IndianEditor (talk) 12:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the contested text from the article. If there is consensus, it can be re-added. --regentspark (comment) 12:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

And it was replaced and I have removed it again. We know that there is 30000 year old rock art there made by modern humans. If it was indeed homo erectus leaving traces of art there 100,000 years ago, and that might be the case, that's irrelevant as the sentence is about modern humans. Doug Weller talk 13:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Doug Weller has it right. There may have been lower paleolithic cultures in the region as in the Soan Culture in Pakistan. But the paintings are not that old. The UNESCO World Heritage Site] says, "The Rock Shelters of Bhimbetka are in the foothills of the Vindhyan Mountains on the southern edge of the central Indian plateau. Within massive sandstone outcrops, above comparatively dense forest, are five clusters of natural rock shelters, displaying paintings that appear to date from the Mesolithic Period right through to the historical period. The cultural traditions of the inhabitants of the twenty-one villages adjacent to the site bear a strong resemblance to those represented in the rock paintings." In India, the historical period dates to no older than 3500 KYA, i.e. to the coming of the Aryans. The preeminent historian of early India, Romila Thapar says in Early India, "Rock shelters and caves in Madhya Pradesh and elsewhere that were habitation sites with paintings and engravings on the rock surface, continue to be found after careful exploration. Some are of the mesolithic period, but at other more extensive sites such as Bhimbetka the practice of painting continued into historical times. The latter can be dated from scenes depicting horses and elephants in processions and in battle." Some paintings show humans riding horses, which were domesticated in Central Asia/Eastern Europe no earlier than 7500 KYA. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I think you guys should check this article as of June , 2017. http://indiatoday.intoday.in/education/story/oldest-fossil-of-human-questions-evolution-theory/1/976542.html IndianEditor (talk) 12:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I did; what's your point? Those fossils were found in Africa, not India. Regarding your other sources:

• "World Heritage Sites - Rock Shelters of Bhimbetka". {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help): "The earliest endeavour here other than for mere run of the mill activities for survival is the engravings of small cup like depressions at the end of the Auditorium Rock Shelter, which is dated to nearly 100000 years." If I understand correctly, soemthing like man-made holes in the walls? Not exactly the same as mesolithic rock art... (NB: the mesolithic, by definition, does not start at 100,000 BCE).
• Ali Javid, ʻAlī Jāvīd, Tabassum Javeed. "World Heritage Monuments and Related Edifices in India". p. 17.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link): ""A form of art has v=been ascribed to Homo Erectus" - this too is not about the mesolithgic
• Meera Lester. "Sacred Travels: 274 Places to Find Joy, Seek Solace, and Learn to Live More". p. 79.</ref>: "inhabied [...] for more than 100,000 years" - this, too, is not about mesolithic art, but about the whole sequence of habitation.

At best, the article may state that the earliest traces of human occupation date back to 100,000 BCE, but that those earliest humans were wiped out with the Toboca event (that's the corretc name, isn't it?) at ca. 70,000 BCE, where-after India was repopulated by new migrants. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

If you mean the volcanic eruption near Lake Toba in Indonesia ca. 75 KYA (thousand years ago), there are problems with that. The Toba bottleneck is a theory which is not widely accepted. Besides, it may have occurred before the beginnings of the Homo sapiens migration out of Africa. Certainly no currently accepted estimates place Homo sapiens sapiens (anatomically and culturally (i.e. language speaking) humans) in India 100 KYA. As for Homo erectus, he history section in the India page does not go into hominid (including Homo erectus) prehistory of South Asia, as far as I'm aware. It will probably require a separate discussion. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

You're right; it popped-up in my mind too, that Homo Erectus in India is before that, and Homo Sapiens in India after that. Anyway, the 100,000 years old engravings are not from Homo Sapiens, nor mesolithic. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2017

According to part 1 article 1 of constitution of India is "1. (1) India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.". India recognises itself as a union of states not as a nation. PART XVII and Article 343 establishes that language of the Union of states should be Hindi is devanagri Script. Kindly remove the National language edit from wikipedia and add Union language in place of that. Pasabhishek (talk) 02:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Already done "India is a federal republic governed under a parliamentary system and consists of 29 states and 7 union territories." — nihlus kryik  (talk) 06:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

TFA rerun

Any objections to throwing this article into the pile of potential TFA reruns for this year and next? Any cleanup needed? If it helps, here's a list of dead or dubious links. - Dank (push to talk) 23:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

@Dank: It's fine by me, but then I'm only me, myself, and I. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• Fowler, are you sure all three of you agree?--regentspark (comment) 17:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Good idea Dank, but if it's possible to request a date for a re-run then the next best date would be Jan 26 (assuming you don't have any fresh ANZAC related FAs for that day; don't see any fresh India related ones for then). —SpacemanSpiff 01:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking 15 August, would that work? - Dank (push to talk) 02:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Dank: I think we need some days or weeks to resolve the above dispute first, especially Talk:India#Challenges. It is a pretty big one. Capitals00 (talk) 02:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

A pretty big one it is not. It concerns two sentences for the removal of which no consensus has yet appeared, and I see nothing on this earth's horizon. Little i Issues arise all the time in most FAs, especially the much-trafficked ones. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

You are correct here, I expect that these issues will be resolved soon, 26 January or 15 August, both will be fine. Capitals00 (talk) 03:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually upon rereading the discussion upstairs, I agree that the dispute could involve a significant change, but also agree that it will be resolved well before the dates proposed. I've scratched out a couple of sentences above. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:18, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good, unwatching. Ping me if there's anything I can do. - Dank (push to talk) 04:28, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2017

India is a vast South Asian country with diverse terrain – from Himalayan peaks to Indian Ocean coastline – and history reaching back 5 millennia. In the north, Mughal Empire landmarks include Delhi’s Red Fort complex and massive Jama Masjid mosque, plus Agra’s iconic Taj Mahal mausoleum. Pilgrims bathe in the Ganges in Varanasi, and Rishikesh is a yoga centre and base for Himalayan trekking. Loknath chatterjee (talk) 16:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

No actual request for change made only commentary. You need to say what needs to be removed, added or changed supported by reliable references, thanks MilborneOne (talk) 21:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for

—103.242.23.180 (talk) 12:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

You've neglected to explain what problem you're reporting, and I'm unable to identify any error in the coordinates in the article, so I'm closing this without action. Deor (talk) 12:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2017

1.186.173.179 (talk) 05:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

india rank seventh in terms of area

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 06:02, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Official name

The lead mentions the transliteration of भारत गणराज्य as Bhārat Gaṇarājya, however, this isn't proper. While Bharat is transliterated according to Hindi transliteration conventions without the schwaa, Ganarajya is transliterated with the Schwaa, which is Sanskrit transliteration. To make it uniform, it should be either Bhārata Gaṇarājya (Sanskrit) or Bhārat Gaṇrājya (Hindi). Opinions ? 86.97.128.199 (talk) 09:36, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

WHat you say makes perfect sense, just noting that GoI seems to use both Gaṇrājya and Gaṇarājya but with Bhārat. Not sure how to deal with this, but whatever fix is made here should also be made at Names of India in its official languages and other related articles. —SpacemanSpiff 10:17, 23 September 2017 (UTC)