Talk:India/Archive 58

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

Archive 58

Freedom from want?

The last sentence of the history section says:

"India's sustained democratic freedoms are unique among the world's newer nations; however, in spite of its recent economic successes, freedom from want for its disadvantaged population remains a goal yet to be achieved."

I find it difficult to understand what this sentence is trying to say. Is it trying to say that people in India want its disadvantaged population and being free from this 'want' is a goal not achieved. Or, is it trying to say that disadvantaged population of India wants several things in their lives, and making them free of this 'want' is a goal not achieved.

The source simply points out that we would not claim that work is complete in regards to poverty eradication, and this poverty limits freedom of a huge number of people in India.

I think the source could be probably paraphrased in a better way. Or, is 'Freedom from want' a common technical concept that I am unaware of? Rahul (talk) 15:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

"Freedom from want" was one of the Four Freedoms outlined by Franklin Roosevelt. In formal law, it can be interpreted as another name for the right to an adequate standard of living, although I'm interested to see if the connection between FDR's specific term and the human right is historical or just synthsised here on Wikipedia. W. Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_c) 16:45, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

It means neither, nor was Roosevelt the first to use that expression (in 1941) "Want" in the sense of "the state of lacking the necessaries of life; penury; destitution" goes back to Middle English. (OED) Notable users include:

a1616

Scarcity and want shall shun you, Ceres blessing so is on you. W. Shakespeare, Tempest (1623) iv. i. 116

1766

Here to the houseless child of want My door is open still. O. Goldsmith, Ballad [the Hermit] in Vicar of Wakefield vol. I. viii. 70

...

2002

May you live for ever and never die in want. J. McGahern, That they may face Rising Sun 239

India has by far the largest population of malnutritioned children of any country in the world.

The nationalists who won India its freedom were able to stop outright starvation among their population, but not poor nutrition. Penury and destitution are still a glaring fact of life in India. The expression has been at the end of the modern history section for more than ten years. Nothing has really changed in India (despite its highly touted rate of growth) for the sentence to merit a revision. You are welcome to attempt a new consensus per WP:ONUS if you'd like. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:32, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

"Want" is obviously not being used in the meaning of desire or yearning. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:36, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

"world's most populous democracy" is propaganda, not a statistic

whether you agree with it or not, the claim that a country is a "democracy" is a statement of political ideology, and not a simple fact about which an article lede can claim to report objective statistics. i don't necessarily believe it isn't true, but I don't think it should be listed next to uncontroversial facts. 128.114.255.157 (talk) 06:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

WAY too many links!

I just want to put this out there hoping somebody might do something about this. There are FAR too many links in this article, especially in the lead. So many, it was totally unreadable for me personally. So much so I actually found a Firefox addon to strip the link styling completely from the page. Most readers wouldn't know to do what I did and, if they have the same issue I do with too much style changing, won't bother reading the utter mess I encountered before I found the extension.

Can someone please take some time to minimize the links on this page? The way it is now is just ridiculous. 2601:18C:4300:84E0:D81C:F778:C17F:1DA7 (talk) 04:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:FARGIVEN

This article was listed as need a Featured article review about three years ago. There are still too many images with MOS:SANDWICHing and poor layout, the lead is too long, Administrative divisions is an unnecessary list which could be simply summarized from the sub-article, there is still dated information (eg "The 522-million-worker Indian labour force is the world's second-largest, as of 2017" and "According to a 2011 PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) report, India's GDP at purchasing power parity could overtake that of the United States by 2045"), it is easy to spot content that could be in sub-articles rather than here (eg, "Averaging an economic growth rate of 7.5% for several years prior to 2007," from Economy, and almost every section can be trimmed. Some of the footnotes are so long that copyright concerns might be raised. The layout in the government section is a list sandwiched between an image and a table. It doesn't seem that the work that needed to be done three years ago has been undertaken; trimming, tightening, and taming the images, plus bringing the lead down. The Featured article review should proceed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree to a FA Review. Rewriting the lede seem to be eminent, IMO. There have been multiple constructive edits which sometimes I feel were turned down just because the article is an old FA. Getting consensus for removal also is a lengthy procedure for such a highly watched high traffic article. Copyright concerns also raise a flag. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The FAR nomination was held off years ago as improvements were supposedly underway; someone should nominate this at FAR now, as it appears these improvements aren't happening. The datedness of some of the text is surprising. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Multiple duplicate requests

India politics The current President Dr. Kamaljit Das. Dasriju (talk) 12:04, 29 December 2023 (UTC) Replace Dr. Kamaljit Das as incumbent President of India in lieu of Drupadi Murmu Dr.Kamaljit Das the current President of India. Dasriju (talk) 12:14, 29 December 2023 (UTC)  Not done: Not according to any reliable sources. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 12:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC) Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 December 2023 {{subst:trim|1= official_languages = {{hlist |No official laguage in india|English Tamil Asad (talk) 10:55, 14 December 2023 (UTC)  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC) Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 December 2023 (3) Please change the flag to India flag. Someone put the pakistani flag on the india article. Vijayallenraj (talk) 04:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)  Already done The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC) Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 November 2023 Change the language of the anthem and national song from Hindi and Sanskrit, respectively, to Bengali (and maybe Sanskrit). "This source", currently used in the article, is apparently controversial, according to this news article. There are references online that mention the anthem having been written in Bengali and sometimes also Sanskrit (e.g. here, here, and here). Also, this report from the Constituent Assembly debates on January 24, 1950, mentions a Hindi translation of the Constitution, but not a "Hindi version" of the national anthem. Unless a different document mentions it, the reference to a "Hindi version" appears to be inaccurate. It's common knowledge in India that the national anthem was written in Bengali, though I don't have a written source for that. The page Jana Gana Mana also mentions that it was written in Bengali, and that it was adopted by the Constituent Assembly, but not that it was adopted in Hindi. The confusion might have arisen because, according to Jana Gana Mana, there are official lyrics in the Devanagari script, which is commonly associated with Hindi (though other languages use it too), but that is a transliteration, not a translation. Also, jaage, maage, and gaahe are all recognizably Bengali third-person singular verbs, not Hindi or Sanskrit verbs, while the noun naame is a Bengali locative, but as far as I know not a valid word in either Hindi or Sanskrit (the locative singular of naaman can be either naamni or naamani in Sanskrit). "Vande Mataram" is written in Bengali according to this, and in Bengali and Sanskrit according to Vande Mataram. For the national song, it's a complicated issue, as seen here. Htysc (talk) 06:57, 19 November 2023 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Shadow311 (talk) 16:19, 7 December 2023 (UTC) Mention 'ganges' as 'ganga' it's more realible akankshavishwas132.154.58.254 (talk) 15:49, 17 November 2023 (UTC) true as it is the Ganga river. Brits called it Ganges pronunciation as ganjees for their comfort The Indoman 360 (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2023 (UTC) Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 January 2024 Change India to Bharat MrBoyBoyBoy (talk) 11:28, 8 January 2024 (UTC) It is difficult to see how you can have missed the prominent notice answering this point which showed up when you edited this page. As you were told, we use the name most commonly used in English. JBW (talk) 11:42, 8 January 2024 (UTC) India that is Bharat The name of the country is both India and Bharat. In the Indian constitution it is 'India that is Bharat' , should be added as such in the lead. Note : Bhārat Gaṇarājya is the name in it's official language which is added , but the second name of the nation ,Bharat, mentioned in it's constitution is not added The lead should be : India that is Bharat, officially the Republic of India (ISO: Bhārat Gaṇarājya), is a country in South Asia. It is the seventh-largest country by area; the most populous country as of June 2022 Afv12e (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)  Not done. The phrase "India that is Bharat" makes no grammatical sense. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:56, 17 December 2023 (UTC) India, that is Bharat is directly taken from constitution of India. for grammatical correction this sentence can be taken : India, also known as Bharat and officially the Republic of India (ISO: Bhārat Gaṇarājya), is a country in South Asia. It is the seventh-largest country by area and the most populous as of June 2022. Please edit the lead sentence to reflect this changes Afv12e (talk) 22:37, 17 December 2023 (UTC) Seems like they forgot a comma. "India, that is Bharat". Rolando 1208 (talk) 19:58, 31 December 2023 (UTC) Thank you for correcting. Can you please add this then to the article ? Afv12e (talk) 20:32, 31 December 2023 (UTC) @Afv12e: Opening multiple identical edit requests after getting declined constitutes disruptive editing and can resulting in the losing of editing privileges. Kindly keep that in mind. Thanks and happy editing. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:22, 17 December 2023 (UTC) See Clémentin-Ojha, Catherine (2014). "'India, that is Bharat…': One Country, Two Names". South Asia Multidisciplinary Academic Journal. 10.. DeCausa (talk) 19:53, 17 December 2023 (UTC) sorry, I'm new here and as you can see the above first request was for a edit extended request. It was declined citing i should have to make a consensus before that . So opened this for a discussion Afv12e (talk) 22:35, 17 December 2023 (UTC) Don't worry. You're fine. You certainly did not "open multiple identical edit requests after getting declined". Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:23, 18 December 2023 (UTC) Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 December 2023 The name of the country is both India and Bharat. In the Indian constitution it is 'India that is Bharat' , should be added as such in the lead. Note : Bhārat Gaṇarājya is the name in it's official language which is added , but the second name of the nation ,Bharat, mentioned in it's constitution is not added The lead should be : India that is Bharat, officially the Republic of India (ISO: Bhārat Gaṇarājya), is a country in South Asia. It is the seventh-largest country by area; the most populous country as of June 202 Afv12e (talk) 02:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC) References  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:56, 17 December 2023 (UTC) Clarify The History of the India The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. The actual Indian History starts from the Ancient kingdoms called Mahajanpad's but on the Wikipedia page it is starting From it's independence from UK Which is so bad as a country with this vast history and a strong culture who has historic background not even imaginable to many. So it is my request to Wikipedia to add the Mahajanpadas and many later major kingdoms, empires ( native empires and kingdoms for example the Cholas, hoysala's, Rashtrakutas, Rajputana and Marathas as well as empires and kingdoms established by foreign power's such as Delhi sultanate, moghuls etc) so pls consider my request to avoid wrong information about the Indian History 🇮🇳🙏 The Indoman 360 (talk) 17:29, 9 December 2023 (UTC) The History section starts 55,000 years ago and covers the periods you refer to. You don't seem to have read it. DeCausa (talk) 17:33, 9 December 2023 (UTC) I meant with the section which is direct under the map and not the parts below pls u also confirm The Indoman 360 (talk) 17:36, 9 December 2023 (UTC) You mean in the Infobox? There's a few major milestones on the establishment of current polity i.e. the Republic of India. It's not meant to cover the country's whole history - that's not it's purpose and it wouldn't fit anyway. We have a major section in the article for that. DeCausa (talk) 17:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC) As DeCausa mentions, the purpose identified is wrong. It's not a History timeline, it's a Sovereignty timeline. CMD (talk) 01:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC) then why in Chinese Wikipedia article the whole history is written which starts from formation and even the admission of Macau is also written. Pls explain that 😄 The Indoman 360 (talk) 04:11, 10 December 2023 (UTC) The first imperial Dynasty of china did not even encompass 5% of today's China. Just clarifying the point so no one says that janapadas did not have a significant territory to be on the infobox.. The Indoman 360 (talk) 04:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC) and I forgot to write that the Janapadas were a kind of a confederal empire similar to today's India. The Indoman 360 (talk) 05:22, 10 December 2023 (UTC) They're not equivalent situations, and at any rate this is a much higher-quality article so the learning is being taken in the wrong direction. CMD (talk) 06:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC) how they are not equivalent situation s. Because if one country's infobox has a proper information about its origin so the other one also needs the same. Pls explain me now how are they not equivalent situations The Indoman 360 (talk) 06:30, 10 December 2023 (UTC) Both modern countries emerged from very different historical processes. The article here properly notes the origin of the sovereign state of India. CMD (talk) 07:07, 10 December 2023 (UTC) the Chinese were also invaded by a foreign power like mongol empire as it was not a native Chinese Dynasty. As well as the Indians were invaded by foreigners such as arabs, turks, Afghans etc. both had several kingdoms and empires within their current territory, the only difference is that within a period of 200 years India was controlled by a foreign power British and china was partially controlled by foreign powers like Soviet Russia and Japanese empire. So the major changes between the both in terms of sovereignty actually had started something around 200 yrs ago. The Indoman 360 (talk) 19:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC) As you said, major changes between the both in terms of sovereignty actually had started something around 200 yrs ago, which is exactly what is covered currently in the infobox. The current form of India in it's fullness was first reached after British occupation. Hence, it is covered so in the infobox. Thanks and happy editing. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:41, 11 December 2023 (UTC) pls first read about the Mahabharata the ancient Indian historic text and then about the Mauryan Empire, Gupta Empire, Maratha Empire all of the empires about whom I have wrote here had territories all around India. Sobefore writing that the India in its fullness reached after the British occupation check these ones The Indoman 360 (talk) 07:15, 11 December 2023 (UTC) Irrelevant. It has already been explained to you that the Infobox parameter is about the political sovereignty of the current polity, not a general history of the country. How difficult is this to understand? The sovereignty of Republic of India begins with independence in 1947. There is no chronological continuity with the polities you mention - the gap is hundreds or thousands of years. On the other hand China's sovereignty has been continuous for 2,000 years. It's a completely different history. DeCausa (talk) 08:10, 11 December 2023 (UTC) on the article of Kazakhstan (which became a republic in 1991 after getting independence from Soviet Russia) the infobox has the information about the Kazakh khanate which is the first to unite Kazakhstan. But the kazakh's were under the Russians for something around 150 year after which in 1991 it received its independence from Russians and became a republic the current polity. But the Indian and the Kazakh matters are similar of being under a foreign power for many years still on Kazakh infobox there is a mention for previous Kazakh Independent governments. But on Indian page it only shows the mention of current polity Republic Of India The Indoman 360 (talk) 18:10, 11 December 2023 (UTC) The Kazhakstan article Infobox is wrong. It should start, in my opinion, with the creation of the Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic in 1936 which was the entity given independence in 1991. But that's irrelevant - this talk page is about this article. See WP:OTHERCONTENT. This article is a Featured Article whereas Kazhakstan is c-class. DeCausa (talk) 18:44, 11 December 2023 (UTC) Exactly! The infobox should only contain information about the current polity in all of them to make them more relevant. Or to add the whole historic background in it. Because it looks weird that in many articles there is the whole historic background and many have only a short mention This is my opinion if it could be considered and implemented Thanks 🙏 The Indoman 360 (talk) 12:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC) OK. You'd better go over to the Kazakhstan article and get it changed then. Thanks. DeCausa (talk) 14:13, 12 December 2023 (UTC) I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to express my concern regarding the representation of Indian history on your platform. The current depiction suggests that Indian history began with its independence from the UK, overlooking the rich heritage and ancient kingdoms known as Mahajanpadas. India boasts a profound historical background, encompassing diverse kingdoms and empires like the Cholas, Hoysalas, Rashtrakutas, Rajputana, Marathas, as well as those established by foreign powers such as the Delhi Sultanate and the Mughals. Omitting these significant periods and entities can lead to a skewed understanding of India's historical narrative. I kindly request you to consider updating the Wikipedia page to incorporate the Mahajanpadas and various later major kingdoms and empires. This adjustment would contribute to a more accurate and comprehensive representation of India's extensive history and cultural richness. Thank you for your time and consideration. I believe that this enhancement will help in providing more nuanced and accurate information to the readers. 59.96.64.223 (talk) 17:51, 27 December 2023 (UTC) No it doesn't as explained above. DeCausa (talk) 21:58, 27 December 2023 (UTC) Support to your comment🇮🇳🙏 The Indoman 360 (talk) 16:25, 29 December 2023 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 January 2024 (Clarifying my edit request from November) Please change the language of the national anthem from Hindi and Sanskrit, respectively, to Bengali. This source, currently used in the article, is controversial, according to this news article. Apart from that source, the anthem is consistently characterized as having been written in Bengali (e.g. here, here, and here). Also, this report from the Constituent Assembly debates on January 24, 1950, mentions a Hindi translation of the Constitution, but not a "Hindi version" of the national anthem. Unless a different document mentions it, the reference to a "Hindi version" appears to be inaccurate. It's common knowledge in India that the national anthem was written in Bengali, though I don't have a written source for that. The page Jana Gana Mana (citing various sources) also mentions that it was written in Bengali, and that it was adopted by the Constituent Assembly, but not that it was adopted in Hindi. The confusion might have arisen because, according to Jana Gana Mana, there are official lyrics in the Devanagari script, which is commonly associated with Hindi (though other languages use it too), but that is a transliteration, not a translation. Also, jaage, maage, and gaahe are all recognizably Bengali third-person singular verbs, not Hindi or Sanskrit verbs, while the noun naame is a Bengali locative, but as far as I know not a valid word in either Hindi or Sanskrit (the locative singular of naaman can be either naamni or naamani in Sanskrit). Htysc (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC)  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. You may open a RfC for the same. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC) Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 January 2024 To the EDITORS of wikepedia this is a request to add Indian sub-continent along side the word South Asia because this could lead to many misinformation and can be mis-interpreted in lot of ways. This request purely based on intellectual intrest because the term Indian sub-continent has always been used before. Thankyou you very much for giving your time in reading my heartfelt request. 106.222.225.155 (talk) 16:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC)  Question: What misinformation and misinterpretation can result from this current term? Please elaborate. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:47, 26 January 2024 (UTC)  Not done: no valid reason given for the change and no reply from the IP. M.Bitton (talk) 15:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC) History There are very few things in the history section after independence. I see many new users trying to add stuff randomly without starting a discussion, so I want to start one to see if we can add something. I understand that there is History of India and History of the Republic of India, but it seems odd that India still does not have much information of its history after independence. Pharaoh496 (talk) 14:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC) Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 February 2024 From "Official Languages" to "Lingua Frankas". S. Abbhijithram (talk) 14:45, 28 February 2024 (UTC)  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 15:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC) Problems with paragraphing and title (Discussion moved from The Herald's talk page) There is clearly a problem with the paragraphing and title of the article. Foreign relations and military clearly do not belong to the same category and should be separated into two secondary headings. The previous G8+5 and other organizations no longer exist. India once hosted the G20 summit, which is an important part of India's foreign policy and should be included. The diplomatic relations column of all countries includes the economic organizations in which they participate. There is a paragraph dedicated to economics below and should not be listed separately. It is in line with Wikipedia's standards to classify diplomatic relations as a first-level heading of politics. This is true for the United States, Russia, China, the United Kingdom and other countries, and India should not be an exception to keep the article organized. User Fowler&fowler used the reason Wikipedia:Ownership of content to revert the normally edited content without any reason, which does not meet the standards of Wikipedia. Apart from splitting diplomacy and military, there have been no large-scale modifications, and there are reliable reference sources for both. Eupakistani (talk) 06:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC) Moving to the talk page of the article for further input and discussion. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC) But this article is an exception. None of those other articles are featured. So, everyone gets to keep adding whatever they want without regard for WP:SCOPE and WP:BALASP. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC) The so-called characteristics of this article are only because the old paragraphs were retained during the review, and its content is obviously lagging behind. For example, organizations such as G8+5 no longer exist, and the main reference materials are still quoted from the 2000s. No one would think that the three different categories of military, economics, and diplomacy are suitable to be put in one module. I think Wikipedia’s standard format should take precedence over the knowledge of a small number of reviewers, and only one user relies on his own Subjective thoughts to delete corrections from other users. In terms of Indian diplomacy, there have been some new changes after Modi came to power, such as the G20, which should also be updated. Eupakistani (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2024 (UTC) Moreover, Wikipedia's specifications do not stipulate that an exception cannot be made to make small-scale modifications. The standardization of first- and second-level headings does not destroy the structure of the article. Is there any basis to show that the previous layout is reasonable? I suggest a user vote on whether to separate diplomatic relations and military like other countries. Eupakistani (talk) 20:18, 4 March 2024 (UTC) Featured content itself is changeable and can even be revoked. This does not mean that featured content is completely correct and cannot be modified. Eupakistani (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC) The title formats of Australia, Japan and others, which are also featured content, are consistent with Wikipedia's specifications. There is no reason why India should not format them this way. Eupakistani (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC) History It's strange that British colonial rule has been summed up in so few words and all their evil deeds have been concluded in just one line -( " rights" promised to Indians were granted slowly). In one paragraph it's written India rises from being destitute to fastest growing economy. But it's not at all explained that who was responsible for bringing the country at that position. Major changes in the history section required!! 152.58.184.75 (talk) 15:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC) agreed DreadLordaj (talk) 13:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC) Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 March 2024 Drive side - Left 103.98.209.124 (talk) 14:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC) And that is what our article says. RegentsPark (comment) 14:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC) Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 March 2024 I would like to link Myanmar on "In the Indian Ocean, India is in the vicinity of Sri Lanka and the Maldives; its Andaman and Nicobar Islands share a maritime border with Thailand, Myanmar, and Indonesia." 117.194.36.160 (talk) 03:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)  Not done: It's already linked in the sentence above. More linking will cause overlinking per MOS:SEAOFBLUE. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC) Request to remove pic "US president Barack Obama addresses the members of the Parliament of India in New Delhi in November 2010." It is a very bad quality picture and the Parliament building too has changed. My suggestion is to refrain from adding non-Indian people in the India article, specially under its politics para. 122.187.117.179 (talk) 11:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC) Updated the new parliament building. Makks2010 (talk) 11:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC) The caste system, which created a hierarchy of priests, warriors, and free peasants, but which excluded indigenous peoples by labelling their occupations impure, arose during this period The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Are the only sources for this coming from 2 Germans who lived in the 20th century Jamesman666 (talk) 03:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC) text removed. not factually correct, rather seems like personal opinion of Germans. Wondering, why they believed the priests & warriors were not the indigenous people in India. Their stupidity made me laugh though. Makks2010 (talk) 11:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. "Voice of the Global South Summit" mass additions The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. User:Makks2010 has created the ‎Category:Countries of Voice of Global South in relation to the Modi-initiated virtual summit[1] and added it to every country that participated in the summit (according to a Indian governmental source), without 1) an article related to it, and 2) without mention of the summit of these articles. When I first reverted some of these additions, @Makks2010 has added some text to Sri Lanka to comply with WP:CATVER, but only using a non-neutral source by the Indian government[2], and now, they have created the main article (which makes my first objection temporarily moot; the article hasn't been vetted for WP:N and WP:V yet). But still, we obviously need independent sources which tells us that the participation in the summit is relevant for each country article. Since this summit is an Indian initiative, I have chosen this talk page to get wider input about these mass edits. Austronesier (talk) 17:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC) PS: @Makks2010 is re-adding the category, disregarding WP:BRD, e.g. here:[3][4]. –Austronesier (talk) 17:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC) I don't care whether the template and the category exist but they don't belong in the country articles. First, you should not be adding categories that can not be verified from the text of the article. Second, the first can not be rectified by adding it to article text because it is extremely WP:UNDUE for any country article, it's not even close. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC) Austronesier, your ping has failed, FYI. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC) Re-pinging @Makks2010: in case you haven't seen this. I assume you have seen it in my talk page. –Austronesier (talk) 18:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Feedback on India wiki page Here is my feedback on India wiki page. It is a badly a formatted article highlighting "not so positive" side of the country (most probably it is by intention of the editors) and hiding "almost every positive aspect". Hence it requires a major overhauling efforts. examples - 1) Mention of "incorporation of untouchability" in the introduction itself is mis-representation of India. though the fact is that the untouchability is matter of past now (abolished 74 years ago), it must be included in the article but certainly not in the introduction as it does not represent the country any more. 2) Pre-history section is totally missing, where as it is available in many courtiers’ wiki pages. 3) History of 'North-eastern' part is purposefully not included in any section of the history. 4) Geography section did not even mention about any of India's islands. 5) Topography is a major topic that missing. 6) Wrong information given about number of state-level political parties mentioned. Number of listed political parties in the EC is around 2500. 7) List of top metropolis cities / largest urban areas is not written, whereas almost every other country's wiki page has it. (e.g. U.K.) 8) A separate section should be provided to the languages under demographics for one of the most linguistically diverse country of the world. 9) Architecture section more look like an advertisement of Taj Mahal, Though India has many more architectural wonders other than Taj. The section should be re-visited. 10) No mention of India's Transport infrastructure work done in last 10 year. A separate Transport section would be appreciated. 11) No mention of India’s scientific achievements, if they do not represent a country than I wonder what would. Science and technology section should be included. 12) No mention of world's largest media. 13) India's wide diversity should be included in the clothing section, rather than just highlighting saris and Shalwar. 14) World's second-largest education system cannot be summarized just in five sentences. 15) India's contribution in the WW-I & WW-II should also be mentioned under some appropriate section. 16) Healthcare should have been a separate section, considering that India has one of the largest Healthcare infra. 17) India is known for it's Philosophy & Culture. However Wiki page doesn't even consider it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makks2010 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC) Thank you for taking the time to make this evaluation..... I would agree the article hasn't kept up to the FA level we expect especially for country articles.... It follows the format of a decade ago. That being said I think we can work on all these points above. First would be proposal of text and changes with sources. Keeping in mind that changes here is very hard.... thus short and precise changes need to be demonstrated here in the talk.Moxy🍁 18:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC) You may want to look over WP:Summary style, many of your points simply ask for additions to an already not short article. No single page can have everything, but it is perhaps worth looking into whether your mentioned points are in the immediate subarticles. CMD (talk) 01:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC) @cmd of course, No single page can have everything. but basic page size analysis tells a different story that how much info has been included about world's the most populous and the most diverse country. Let alone the accuracy or neutrality of the text included in it. 1) India - 311,514 bytes 2) Lithuania - 316,496 bytes 3) Vietnam - 321,391 bytes 4) Turkey - 333,128 bytes 5) China - 345,292 bytes 6) Bangladesh - 347,376 bytes 7) United Kingdom - 361,544 bytes 8) Russia - 370,238 bytes 9) Italy - 387,194 bytes 10) Pakistan - 401,112 bytes 11) Iran - 401,682 bytes Makks2010 (talk) 05:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC) Those are all lower-quality articles than this one. "Basic page size analysis" suggests that too. CMD (talk) 06:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC) Are we suggesting here that FA like United Kingdom, China, Turkey, Italy & Russia are low quality articles? Makks2010 (talk) 06:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC) Not a single one of those is an FA. CMD (talk) 06:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC) that's a news to me. :D Makks2010 (talk) 06:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC) Look for the golden star on top for an article to differentiate between normal articles, Good articles and Featured articles. India is one of the oldest articles in English Wikipedia, about 20 years old. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC) that's exactly my point, Along with the article, it's text and formatting is also decades older, which may not be relevant in 2024 anymore. Makks2010 (talk) 07:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC) Yes, it still follows an outdated guideline, but recent changes are updated and incorporated into the article after gaining consensus here in talk page regularly. So, it's not that bad or it's not like we use the outdated style. You may check the article milestones in the talk page header to see the reviews that are done time to time. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC) In that case, I would like to question the review process itself. e.g. How come '''untouchability''' be the introduction of any country? - Wondering what review was done about it? Is it fair and unbiased? Makks2010 (talk) 10:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC) I would concentrate on one part of your list at a time. The two that do stand out as being understated in the article are science and philosophy. Note that a number of the topics have their own article (otherwise this one would be far too large), for example Architecture of India or Clothing in India. Black Kite (talk) 10:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC) Let's talk about Architecture of India or Clothing in India only for now. - 1) May I ask India's north-east region is not worthy enough to be included (just a line or two) in the main page of India? In my point of view, it is important because they have unique clothing as well as architecture. 2) Why only Taj Mahal to be included? Let's have short text about Taj and Also include other wonderful Architecture from ancient India? I have not asking a long assay about India, just would like to have more inclusive article. Makks2010 (talk) 10:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC) There is no problem with suggesting other important items that would fit into this article, rather than the sub-articles.; no-one is saying we can't add anything at all to what exists already. Black Kite (talk) 10:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC) Assam is mentioned multiple times in Performing arts and media, where Manipur is mentioned too, and the north-east region is mentioned as a group in Sports and recreation. This may or may not be appropriate weight, but it is more than just a line or two. CMD (talk) 10:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC) @Cmd how abut the history of north-east? Not even a single dynasty from north east is mentioned, However Mughals got plenty of text. Though the fact is Mughals were actually defeated multiple times by the Kings of north-east at multiple occasion. I understand the article would become too lengthy to read if we include everything. However, The point i am making is that the Article should be more inclusive than just praising Mughals. which more sound like western point of view of India. You can go back to article and check yourself, not even a single word mentioned about - 1) Shivaji Maharaj 2) Sikh empire 3) Rajputs kings. Hence I am saying the article should be more inclusive without being lengthy. Hope, I am making some sense without being labeled as "agenda pusher" or "Bhakat". Makks2010 (talk) 11:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC) Also, do you believe any other part of India is more biodiverse than North-East? Yet, north-east itself is not included in Biodiversity section. I have bee saying that article is not really balanced in nature. Makks2010 (talk) 11:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC) Those are not directly related to your specific question of whether "India's north-east region is not worthy enough to be included (just a line or two) in the main page of India", which I answered. CMD (talk) 11:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC) Administrative divisions section doesn't mention about 29 autonomously administrated areas of India. please include Autonomous administrative divisions of India link under Administrative divisions section. There are 29 such areas, which should be given some visibility. Present link : Main article: Administrative divisions of India Proposed change : Main articles: Administrative divisions of India and Autonomous administrative divisions of India Makks2010 (talk) 13:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC) These autonomous administrative divisions are subparts of the main article Administrative divisions of India. There's no point or relevance to provide a link on India's article. It can be given at the see also section of the former article as they form a part of the larger Administrative divisions article. The objective of an article about India is not to give all the possible information in the world crammed up in this one article. Pointers are given for each sub section because of this. The hits and the views that these two articles get is vastly different and a general reader doesn't differentiate between these two. Also, Wikipedia is not for giving more visibility to a specific article or to promote one specific group of ideas (see WP:SOAPBOX). Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC) "Bharat" must be added as the endonym. The word "Bharat" must be added as the endonym in the lead sentence and the infobox WITHOUT changing the common name. Why is the hesitation? Makks2010 (talk) 11:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC) In that case a discussion should be started about it. Black Kite (talk) 11:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC) It's strange that all the exonyms like Latin (India), Greek ( Ἰνδία), ancient Greek Indos ( Ἰνδός), Old Persian (Hindush) were included, But the most used endonym (Bharat) is not being included. All the information from western sources are considered reliable, but source from government of India is being labeled fake. That shows how neutral is wiki article is. Meanwhile, the Neutral point of view policy of Wikipedia cried alone in the corner. Makks2010 (talk) 08:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC) To begin with, the name Bharat Ganarajya is clearly given in the lede as well as in the infobox. Two, the official name of India has NOT been changed to Bharat by any bill or any law or even as per any circular or a notice. No sources are labelledas fake, if they are reliable. Go though WP:RS/P and WP:RS to identify the sources we use in Wikipedia. Here, nobody cares if it is from a government or a king. If the source is not reliable, it is not. No differences from western or oriental or Indian. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC) Which bill or law mentions about Latin (India), Greek ( Ἰνδία), ancient Greek Indos ( Ἰνδός), Old Persian (Hindush)? Going by your logic these should also be removed. Makks2010 (talk) 09:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC) and to be precise, I never asked to change the official name of the country. I have always said that endonym should be included. Makks2010 (talk) 09:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC) & Also, Category & wiki page for Countries of Voice of Global South were deleted by editors two days back because it had references from Government of India which were considered not-reliable. What a shame. Makks2010 (talk) 09:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC) Hey, I would like to urge you to read every messages posted here, and in your talk page in depth before making further statements. The lede do not mention the exonyms or endonyms anywhere. They are in etymology section which comes after the lede. The next paragraph of the section goes into detail about the Bharat terminology. The artcle Names for India goes into an in length discussion about many names of our country. Also, lede doesn't have to include any of these endonyms or exonyms or whatevernyms per WP:LEDE and WP:FACR. There is an entire seperate section for that. Secondly, the category and the subsequent article for Voice of Global South was deleted due to copyright violation (see WP:G12), not due to sources that aren't reliable. Finally, I'd like to say that this article has been a target of discussions for 20 years now and if you think you have something new to add or some changes to be made, there is a really good chance that it was already been discussed here. So, you may go through the huge talk page archive that we have and see if such a step was already done. If not, have a read of WP:OWN (especially WP:FAOWN) to see if you can implement such a change. If such a change need consensus, when it had to be obtained from the consensus and you have to convince over thousand page watchers of this page that that change is justified. If still it is not happening, you can start a WP:RFC and see where the consensus leans to. There is no point blaming the system or the policies and guidelines. This article is a Featured Article that has gone through community review multiple times before getting into the current shape. You can't change something just because you don't like it or it goes aganist your own personal agenda. (Kinda like the democracy of our country. You can't change a law cuz you don't like it, lol). Good luck. Thanks and happy editing. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC) @ The Herald (Benison) Thanks for calling me 'agenda pusher'. Bulgaria is a FA. yet the Romanized name Bŭlgariya is used along with official name. Read - Bulgaria - Bulgaria (/bʌlˈɡɛəriə, bʊl-/ ⓘ; Bulgarian: България, romanized: Bŭlgariya), officially the Republic of Bulgaria, is a country in Southeast Europe. Hence either Bulgaria page should be updated to remove the Romanized name Bŭlgariya, or India page should be update to include Indianized name Bharat. I rest my case. Makks2010 (talk) 11:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC) You are again missing the point, dear Makks. The term romanised in this context refers to the transliteration of България (in Bulgarian language) to Bŭlgariya (in English). See Romanization of Bulgarian for further details. In India, we don't do that because of MOS:INDICSCRIPT. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC) I am confused. The article already contains the romanized name for India, "Bhārat Gaṇarājya", in both the lead and the infobox exactly like the Bulgaria article does. CMD (talk) 12:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC) Yea, we already have the ISO. I think what Makks2010 meant was they want Hindi: भारत, romanized: Bhārat or Hindi: भारत, romanized: India (or something similar) in the lede. The Herald (Benison) (talk) "romanized: Bhārat" is okay. Makks2010 (talk) 12:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC) (ISO: Bhārat Gaṇarājya) is official name, hence shouldn't be touched. Makks2010 (talk) 12:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC) Controversial statement - India, officially the Republic of India (ISO: Bhārat Gaṇarājya),[22] is a country in South Asia. Proposed statement - India (Hindi: भारत, romanized: Bhārat), officially the Republic of India (ISO: Bhārat Gaṇarājya),[22] is a country in South Asia. The proposed statement for India is in line with another FA Bulgaria. Read MOS:INDICSCRIPT. No need to romanize if you can't put Indic script in the lede. You should really pay attention to what other editors are saying and read the guidelines we present and the messages we post. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 15:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC) Second Proposed statement - India (romanized: Bhārat), officially the Republic of India (ISO: Bhārat Gaṇarājya), is a country in South Asia. Makks2010 (talk) 16:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC) That is not what romanization means. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC) So basically, nothing is acceptable. :( Makks2010 (talk) 16:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC) priests, warriors and free peasants were not "indigenous" in India @Makks2010:, what is meant by "text updated"? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC) Yes, I've just reverted a couple of those, I'm especially unconvinced by the removal of the sourced section but there may be a reason for it, however none was given. Black Kite (talk) 11:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC) @Black Kite & @Kautilya3 : How to establish if the source that was added is actually neutral and not a personal opinion of some German guys who living in India in 20th century. Would you agree if priests & warriors castes in India are not indigenous in India? Read yourself below and judge if this is a neutral article? disputed text from the article - Disputed text for discussion Makks2010 (talk) 12:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC) Perhaps it would have been a good idea to actually give a reason for the removal, then? Though I don't see that the nationality of the author or the date of the source has any relevance anyway, the only question is "is it correct"? If it isn't, you'd need to explain why. Black Kite (talk) 12:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC) @Black Kite : Perhaps, it would have been a good idea to actually click bit more and check before simply reverting someone's work. Even a wiki page available for the author of the source. See the wikipage - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Kulke Hermann Kulke (born 1938 in Berlin) is a German historian and Indologist, who was professor of South and Southeast Asian history at the Department of History, Kiel University (1988–2003). After receiving his PhD in Indology from Freiburg University in 1967, he taught for 21 years at the South Asia Institute of Heidelberg University (SAI). He was a founding member of the Orissa Research Project (ORP) of the Southasia Institute (1970–1975), and was coordinator of the second ORP. Specialization: pre-colonial South and Southeast Asian History; early state formation and historiography; regional cultures of India with emphasis on Orissa; Indianization of Southeast Asia and Indian Ocean Studies. He was a visiting professor at Utkal University, Bhubaneswar (1978–1979), Asiatic Society, Calcutta (1986), and Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi (1992). He was also the Fellow of the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, in Singapore (1987) and of the Asia Research Institute of the University of Singapore (2007).11. Makks2010 (talk) 12:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC) You appear to have misunderstood me. I know who they are (because I did check them, thank you very much) - the question is what do you believe makes their work ineligible to source this article? Black Kite (talk) 12:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC) Nationality of the author very much matter, especially in a sensitive cases like casteism, because often they do not understand roots / logic behind, rather they form their own opinion, which often is incorrect. Including such text in a neutral information page would be approving such opinions. Makks2010 (talk) 14:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC) I was hoping you would explain what the problem was with those sources, as opposed to expressing your own random opinions on people from different nations. Black Kite (talk) 14:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC) I already mentioned that considering priests & warriors people an non-indigenous in India is totally wrong and it proves my point. Which a western person with prejudice would never understand, hence whatever was mentioned in the source is not correct. Makks2010 (talk) 14:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC) Trying to claim that no westerner could ever understand the caste system isn't going to go too well for you, so I suggest you don't suggest that. Black Kite (talk) 14:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC) You have not yet explained what you meant by "text updated". You know that Wikipedia is written by summarising reliable sources, right? You have been here long enough. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC) In my next update, I will include as much info as possible. Makks2010 (talk) 14:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC) No, you will discuss them here first. You are experienced enough an editor to know what WP:BRD and WP:EPTALK mean, and you have been reverted by three different experienced editors today. This is especially true as this is a Featured Article. Black Kite (talk) 14:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC) 3RR violation in an indef protected FA. Warned Makks2010. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC) 3RR violation happened because people didn't ponder enough before reverting someone else's work. :S Makks2010 (talk) 18:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC) I am very alarmed to see when an editor believes that "outsiders" (here: a German scholar) are incapable of adequately studying/discussing a topic that is tied to a specific region (here: the Indian caste system), and thus apparently believes that sources written by such "outsiders" should not be used. If this continues to be the rationale of their edits (let's see what happens after 24 hrs), this eventually will call for a TBAN. –Austronesier (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC) It is not as simple as that because we do know the problems of Orientalism. The statement they point out is indeed slightly problematic. I had it in my mind to look for better sources, which I will try again now. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC) Removed along with that statement was a sentence on the "chiefdom stage of political organisation", which does not seem to be sourced to Kulke. CMD (talk) 02:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC) Aye ... probably because it tries to summarise an incredibly complex issue in one sentence. It certainly doesn't mean what Makks2010 thinks it means, though. Black Kite (talk) 09:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC) @Kautilya3: My comment was not about the source, but about the a priori rationale by @Makks2010 in these comments[5][6]. Being aware about existing systemic bias is different from undifferentiated rejection based on the nationality of the author (or add: "editor", and you have the root of chauvinist traveling circus discussions in WP). –Austronesier (talk) 17:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC) Systemic bias is present throughout the western conception of "caste". But German Indology is special still, for having given rise to the infamous "Aryanism". The present text conveys that the priests, warriors and free peasants were not "indigenous", whereas the fourth unnamed class alone was "indigenous" and was regarded as "impure". That is a very strange reading that I don't think you will find outside German Indology. We could just say a caste system with ranked classes of priests, warriors, free peasants and labourers arose, without attaching additional value judgements. There is no need to go beyond that in a breif summary of the history. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC) @Black Kite, @Kautilya3 & @Austronesier : Question is not if any scholar is capable of discussing or studying a topic related to another region. Everyone is entitled to have one's own opinion, even if it is not neutral in nature. But the Wiki article must follow Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, which is not the case here. It is neither 'slightly problematic' nor 'phrasing an incredibly complex topic' issue, rather it is an unreasonable & unfair opinion. If one reads couple of paragraphs rather than just one of two sentences from the book (given in the reference of the sentence in the wiki), one will find that the Scholar's work is too shallow and full of unreasonable prejudice towards the Indian society lacking a complete societal view of India. I have already written a detailed email to the author of the book calling out his hypocrisy towards the Indian society with many examples which of course, he did not consider while writing his book. File:Feedback on the reference book.png Feedback on the reference book Anyhow, the sentence in question must be taken down with immediate effect as it mis-represent the most populous nation of the world and is not following the policy of neutrality. Hope, you all would agree. Makks2010 (talk) 18:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC) @Austronesier : Thanks for getting me blocked, even when I informed you individually that I was in process to improve the article and category, it was not cool though. I will write the article again with all the references and get it reviewed before publishing it. @Usedtobecool Makks2010 (talk) 18:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC) @Makks2010: Again, you are confused regarding your rationales of blocks and deletions. You were blocked for editwarring and the article (and subsequently the category) was deleted due to copyright violation per WP:G12. It doesn't matter if you were in the process of adding the sources then or 2 days later, all the information must be cited when you are entering it in Wikipedia. Please read the disclaimers that comes up before you click publish changes button. You could use sandbox or draftspace when you are testing edits or creating a new article. Also, sarcasm and snide remarks are not going to help your cause. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC) @The Herald (Benison) Any input on the original bone of contention - "priests, warriors and free peasants were not "indigenous" in India"? Makks2010 (talk) 14:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC) I have read through almost every archive discussing about "indigenous people" in the caste system. Everytime, the discussion was either left inconclusively or declined by editors as no alternative text was proposed. Controversial statement - The caste system, which created a hierarchy of priests, warriors, and free peasants, but which excluded indigenous peoples by labelling their occupations impure, arose during this period. Proposed statement - The caste system, which created a hierarchy of priests, warriors, traders and free peasants, but which excluded peoples involved in menial & disgraceful occupations, arose during this period. The proposed statement, IMO, using menial and disgraceful to tag certain occupations sounds very POV and biased per WP:WTW and shouldn't be used. This entire section seems like a WP:BROKE discussion. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 15:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC) first of all, the Shudra or Dalit were actually involved in menial and disgraceful tasks. They can't change their occupations based on Wikipedia's requirements. hence it was proposed. If this can't be accepted then the whole sentence must be moved. secondly, present text that implies the priests, warriors and free peasants were not "indigenous", sound more biased. And factually incorrect. Makks2010 (talk) 15:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC) Second proposed statement - The caste system, which created a hierarchy of priests, warriors, traders, and free peasants, but which excluded peoples involved in unhygienic occupations arose during this period. Makks2010 (talk) 16:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC) @Makks2010: The current version of the statement in the article (which you label "controversial") summarizes what is said on p.19 of the 6th edition of A history of India by Kulke & Rothermund, a standard textbook on the subject. Which comparable high-quality source(s) did you use to formulate your proposed revision? Abecedare (talk) 16:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC) @Abecedare Prof Kulke book A history of India is unreasonably prejudice and factually incorrect. I have already wrote him an email with contradicting the text from his book with a number of examples. See the above "feedback on the reference book" screenshot of the email. Makks2010 (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC) And also what decides which source is a high-quality or low-quality? Is it the nationality of the writer? Sorry, not acceptable. Makks2010 (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC) You again are missing the point. Nobody is bringing up this nationality thing except you for some reason. This entire argument is just another case of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT, it seems. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC) What is factually incorrect, will always remain incorrect. I am not the only one that highlighted this issue with the word "indigenous", there are a lot of people have highlighted the same (check archive) including some of the editors too. Yet. the source from a outsider is being considered more reliable. Just because the author of the book is from certain region. This is actually called "slave" mentality, when people can't think rationally rather agreeing to what their master says. Again, Not acceptable!!!. Makks2010 (talk) 17:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC) Makks2010, see WP:HISTRS for how quality of history-related sources is judged. Your claims/email are not of much value in evaluating the reliability of a textbook written by two recognized scholars, published by an academic press, and whose quality is lauded by other scholars in peer-reviewed publications. If you wish to argue otherwise, you can get other opinions at WP:RSN although IMO that would be a waste of your and other editors' time. Abecedare (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC) Declining status of women during Maurya and Gupta Empires Controversial statement - Early political consolidations gave rise to the loose-knit Maurya and Gupta Empires based in the Ganges Basin. Their collective era was suffused with wide-ranging creativity, but also marked by the declining status of women. I really would like to get this statement reviewed, which makes no sense. General understanding is stature of women in Indian society went south with Islamic invasion. The reference given with the sentence is actually not open to read for all. Makks2010 (talk) 11:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC) Please provide references from reliable sources supporting your claim General understanding is stature of women in Indian society went south with Islamic invasion. Also, the reference is an open access from Google books. Anyone can open it and see. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC) Proposed reference link - https://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Huma/HumaSing.htm Publisher - Boston University Text to be included - The Muslim influence on India caused considerable deterioration in the status of women. They were deprived of their rights of equality with men. @The Herald (Benison) above text from reference link seem more appropriate without mentioning about the time period, hence there won't be any controversy. Makks2010 (talk) 13:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC) Funny how you see 2000 year old Mauryan and Gupta Empire statement (that was researched and there is a consensus among historians) about women's stature declining controversial and POV, but The Muslim influence (as suggested by you) as perfectly NPOV and non controversial. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC) Could you please provide any Indian reference where it is mentioned that women status was declining during Mauryan and Gupta Empire? Makks2010 (talk) 13:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC) Why does it have to be Indian? The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC) here comes the prejudice towards the Indian intellect yet again. Whatever western scholars say is a line on the stone, but who actually went through the situation are the liars. Makks2010 (talk) 13:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC) Here is second reference which mentions that ''' With the advent of Muslims in India, the social movement of Indian women was restricted. When Hindu culture came in the clash with a culture far different from its own, the Hindu leaders of the society began to frame rules and laws to safeguard their interest especially the position of women''' also "With the threats of the invading soldiers roaming countryside, women were prohibited to attend public functions and were placed behind the veil." These were exactly my point of views in my previous statements. https://noteguilty.com/notes/women-law/women-in-pre-independence-period Makks2010 (talk) 13:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC) Here comes third reference which exactly says what i mentioned - "The Medieval period starts with the entry of Muslim invaders in India. The span of this period was about 500 years from the Era of Delhi Sultnate to Mughal era. In the Indian history, the medieval age is considered to be “Dark Age” for the women when many foreign conquests, which resulted in the decline in women’s status." https://magadhmahilacollege.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Status-of-Women-in-Medieval-India.pdf Makks2010 (talk) 13:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC) fourth reference proving my statement - "Medieval India was not women's age it is supposed to be the 'dark age' for them. Medieval India saw many foreign conquests, which resulted in the decline in women's status. When foreign conquerors like Muslims invaded India they brought with them their own culture. For them women was the sole property of her father, brother or husband and she does not have any will of her own. This type of thinking also crept into the minds of Indian people and they also began to treat their own women like this. One more reason for the decline in women's status and freedom was that original Indians wanted to shield their women folk from the barbarous Muslim invaders. " https://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1867/The-Socio-Economic-Status-of-Women-in-India-Ancient-to-Modern-Era.html Makks2010 (talk) 14:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC) Fifth reference for the same statement - "Unlike in the ancient Indian period, the position and status of woman in the Mughal period was not quite high. Purdah and child marriage had become common. Except those of the lower classes, woman in Mughal period did not move out of their houses. The Muslims woman observed purdah much more strictly than the Hindus. The birth of a daughter was considered inauspicious, while that of a son was an occasion for celebration." https://www.govtwomencollegeslm8.org/e_content/English/II%20B.A.%20ENGLISH/NMEC-%20WOMEN'S%20STUDIES/UNIT%20III/ANCIENT%20WOMEN.pdf Makks2010 (talk) 14:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC) (edit conflict)I am an Indian and I do not have any prejudice aganist my fellow Indian historians. If the fact you suggest has reliable references, and you can show it is true (WP:VERIFIABILITY) from independent sources (WP:INDY) nothing can stop you from adding it. But if you are trying to achieve something else by removing a well cited statement about Gupta and Maurya empire, and add a POV statement, we can see right through it. Good luck obtaining consensus for the change. Thanks and happy editing. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC) Already provided links for a paper published at Boston University as well as at Magadha Mahila college, Patna. located at a area which where actually Gupta and Maurya empires were flourished. both writers are independent and verifiable. Makks2010 (talk) 14:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC) @Makks2010: Please do not flood this page with quotes from low-quality sources and random websites and please avoid unnecessary bolding, which in online discussions is akin to yelling. See WP:HISTRS for the type of sources that are needed to add/edit history-related content at this FA. Abecedare (talk) 16:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC) How come Indian sources become "low quality" about a topic related to India and western sources are credible. It is like telling a man, who lived whole of his life as man, that he is never been a man. That's how editors are being acted. Makks2010 (talk) 16:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC) Please stop bringing up author nationality, no-one else has mentioned it. The sources above read as obviously low quality, they have not even been edited for grammar, and that is with no idea who the authors are. CMD (talk) 16:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC) (edit conflict) Makks2010, several editors have already pointed out the error of judging a sources based on the nationality of the authors. So please do read WP:RS and WP:HISTRS, and consult the reliable sources noticeboard if you wish. Simply ignoring the feedback and continuing this tendentious line of argument is likely to get you blocked from this page/topic-area. Abecedare (talk) 16:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC) feel free to block.... this is pure bullshit. Makks2010 (talk) 17:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC) Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Community Economic and Social Development II This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2024 and 5 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Nikhil Kashyap 1. — Assignment last updated by Nikhil Kashyap 1 (talk) 22:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC) Nikhil Kashyap 1, this article is not suitable for student editors. Even an experienced editor needs months to get anything done here, unless you're already one of the major contributors to it. I suggest you pick another topic, or you might fail. My advice is, pick an article that should be detailed but is currently short, or pick an article that needs a lot of copyediting. Is your assignment really due day after tommorrow? And you're starting today? Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC) The student would not be able to edit the article anyway, as it is extended-confirmed protected. Black Kite (talk) 09:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC) I have left a note for WikiEd. CMD (talk) 10:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC) Socio-economic challenges Controversial statement - Despite economic growth during recent decades, India continues to face socio-economic challenges. In 2006, India contained the largest number of people living below the World Bank's international poverty line of US$1.25 per day Reference given - https://web.archive.org/web/20120514143037/https://siteresources.worldbank.org/SOUTHASIAEXT/Resources/DPR_FullReport.pdf Proposed changes - 1) Even the world bank has raised the poverty line from US$1.25 per day to US2.15 per day back in 2017. Hence data mentioned in the article is way too old. Refer to this https://pip.worldbank.org/country-profiles/IND 2) Also editor must consider this before updating - https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/indicators/indias-poverty-rate-declined-to-4-5-5-in-2022-23-sbi-research/articleshow/108029519.cms?from=mdr Makks2010 (talk) 12:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC) ET is not reliable per WP:RS/P. Also, India haven't published their poverty statistics since 2011. You might want to have a look at this report and this post by WB. But if you could get more data regarding India's standing in terms of poverty in 2024, we can update it in the article. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC) How about Point -1? "Poverty rate at $2.15 a day (2017 PPP) (% population): 12.92% in 2021" 2021 is not that far from 2024. Makks2010 (talk) 12:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC) Also, as per government of India - India has registered a significant decline in multidimensional poverty in India from 29.17% in 2013-14 to 11.28% in 2022-23 i.e. a reduction of 17.89 percentage points. https://pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=1996271#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20Discussion%20Paper,reduction%20of%2017.89%20percentage%20points. Makks2010 (talk) 12:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC) There's a big problem with using those dates - Page 1 of the report states "headcount poverty ratios for 2013-14 and 2022-23 have been estimated based on compound growth rate of the reduction in the incidence of poverty levels between 2005-06 and 2015-16 and 2015-16 and 2019-21 respective" So I think you could only use the 2005-6, 2015-16 and 2019-21 figures (and they are the ones used throughout the report anyway). Interesting that the Govt press release doesn't mention the data from the same report, that says that the figure fell from 55.34% to 29.17% between 2005-06 and 2013-14, when presumably it was a different Government. You'd have to mention both time-frames. Also, using the MPI measure can be slightly misleading (I think this discussion has happened previously). If you look at the graph on page 9 of the report, 31% of the population are still deprived in nutrition, 43% in cooking fuel, 31% in sanitation and 41% in housing. So I think this can be mentioned, but you'd have to explain in a little detail what it's actually saying (and push the data points back to 2005-2006, as that's where the greatest improvements happened). Black Kite (talk) 08:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC) Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 April 2024 ADD to initial description after "During the same time, its nominal per capita income increased from US$64 annually to US$2,601, and its literacy rate from 16.6% to 74%." Over 90% of the labor force continues to work in the informal sector which generates about half of India's GDP. Despite the growth in GDP, real wages of workers have largely stagnated in the organized manufacturing industry since the 1980s. Vuquiz (talk) 13:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:46, 6 April 2024 (UTC) References Short Description The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Change Short description: Country in Asia to Country in South Asia. Reason: Current short description says 'Country in Asia'(changed to Country in South Asia), while other countries in Asia have more regional short description (example: China(Country in East Asia), Pakistan(Country in South Asia) Japan(Island country in East Asia), Bangladesh(Country in South Asia), Saudi Arabia(Country in the Middle East) and even countries in other smaller continents: Germany(Country in Central Europe), France(Country in Western Europe), United Kingdom(Country in Northwestern Europe) etc. ) Regards, ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 16:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC) Support, because it is a more accurate and correct short description. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC) Note: The short description has been already changed. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC) Comment - Undid the change since it is under discussion. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC) A week passed, two people supported and there was no opposition. I will change the short description. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 11:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Adding some more context to per capita income rise in short description In the short description it states the following: "During the same time, its nominal per capita income increased from US$64 annually to US$2,601, and its literacy rate from 16.6% to 74%." I suggest adding some more context in a new sentence after this one, giving more context to the suggested rise in nominal per capita income. While this number may very possible be true, this lacks some important context for readers. For one, about 90% of India's workforce works in the informal sector of the economy (which contributes about 50% to India's GDP).[7]https://wol.iza.org/articles/the-labor-market-in-india-since-the-1990s/long [8]https://labour.gov.in/sites/default/files/report_vol_4_final.pdf (in the foreword, page 5) Since this is, by its very nature, not monitored by the government, its about impossible to give an accurate depiction of average incomes in the country as most workers would not be taken into consideration for this statistic. Secondly, the per capita income statistic is reductive in itself. It doesn't give the reader an idea on how these incomes are distributed, by the nature of how averages are calculated. Hence, I suggest adding the information that about 90% of the labor force continues to work in the informal economy. Furthermore, it might be useful to give an example of the development of incomes of an actually formal sector of the economy where accurate data exists. I suggest referencing the findings of a paper by the IZA World of Labor journal. They analyzed the development of real wages of workers in the organized manufacturing sector. Their findings were that wages have stagnated over the last several decades. [9]https://wol.iza.org/articles/the-labor-market-in-india-since-the-1990s/long#izawol.425-figure-000012 Otherwise, it might be useful getting rid of the nominal per capita income number in the short description in general. It's a very reductive term that lacks crucial context (inflation, distribution of said incomes etc.). Put together into a coherent text, the addition to the short description may look like this: Over 90% of the labor force continues to work in the informal sector which generates about half of India's GDP. Despite the growth in GDP, real wages of workers have largely stagnated in the organized manufacturing industry since the 1980s. Please let me know what you think. Vuquiz (talk) 20:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC) add a line about marathas in the (top) section maratha empire is acknowledged by western, british historians (no 1 point) that means it did existed. it also had an area about 2.5m sq km which means it was bigger that 1 m sq km hence a big enough empire to be added in (top) section. it crushed mughal empire by force (but you dont have to write that as it would be equal to indians defeating turks pbuh swt which is not possible so you just write something like "mughal empire was gradually followed by marathas however we dont yet know about how mughals declines"). then add a line stating that three anglo maratha wars resulted in british rule (istead of saying "Gradually expanding rule of the British East India Company followed" like if mughals were the greatest before british Uvrajgupt (talk) 14:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC) Kautilya3, RegentsPark has reverted my edit which can be seen here and asked me to get a consensus for the fact that the Marathas ended Mughal rule and established the Maratha Empire consisting of most areas of the Indian subcontinent but lost almost all those territories to the English East India Company in the Second and Third Anglo-Maratha war using the sources mentioned in the diff (about the establishment of the Maratha Empire). Can you start a, 'Request for Comments" for the same? -Haani40 (talk) 19:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC) Naravane, M. S. (2006). Battles of the Honourable East India Company: Making of the Raj. APH Publishing. ISBN 978-81-313-0034-3.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link) can be used to show that the EIC seized control of India from the Marathas?-Haani40 (talk) 20:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC) Hey, may you please explain more about "request for comments", i would really love to help you out. Making the Raj is good enough (ive only read first few pages) but it doesn't tell you that marathas ended mughal rule, we need another one for the same, we need to find some good source, these days im really busy but will surely look into them in a week or maybe after three or four days, till then if you find something similar, do let me know and tell me more about request for comments, i never heard of it and the web is showing different results for the same Uvrajgupt (talk) 18:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)