Talk:India/Archive 39

Archive 35

←

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

→

Archive 45

Modern humans in India

There is evidence of tools being present in India prior to the Toba explosion that took place 75000 years ago. Please read the wiki article on Toba Catastrophe Theory and then the referenced notes to that article, Nos: 37, 38, 39, 40. Else just read these 2 links: http://anthropology.net/2007/07/06/mount-toba-eruption-ancient-humans-unscathed-study-claims/ http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070702/full/news070702-15.html

Clearly modern humans were present in India at least 75000 years ago...even though this can't be explained by the African migration theory. It's a POV that can't and MUST NOT be ignored! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.228.219 (talk) 07:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done It was written as 73-55,000, which is near to 75k. Since these sources support 75k, Cavalli-Sforza also estimated the same. I have changed it with a better citation. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this. The references provided by the IP don't confirm the presence of modern humans 75,000 years ago. They merely state that the existence of tools from that period. Petralgia's work is contested and not considered mainstream. By stating things the way we do, aren't we giving credibility to a non-mainstream theory? @Abecedare and Fowler&fowler: (the editors who made the initial change.) --regentspark (comment) 16:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Good points, RP. As the sources provided by the IP above (and the Alice Roberts book BladeMulti added) affirm the Jwalapuram tool evidence indicates that there were humans in the region ~75000 ya, but whether they were anatomically modern humans is disputed. The previous version we arrived at here referenced a work co-written by Petraglia, which may not be the best source to cite either. Suggestions for alternate sources and wording? Abecedare (talk) 16:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

75,000 sounds doubtfull to me too. Actually, it sounds like another version of "mine is bigger than yours", in this case "India was first - if it wasn't for the Aryans, then for the survival of humankind." Is there a theory that mankind actually originated in India? - Oh my, to ask the question is to answer it ... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Even worse. Next is, of course, alians who brought life to earth, starting in India - oh my, what did I say? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I would favor dropping the 75000 year thing entirely and sticking with "The earliest reliable evidence of human activity in India dates to about 30,000 years ago" That's pretty much the sum of what's reliably accepted. That's not to say that 75,000 years is not possible but, barring mainstream acceptance, that shouldn't be in this article. Best discussed somewhere else - perhaps in Archaic humans or some such article.--regentspark (comment) 20:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Since the citations provided by the IP and Bladesmulti show that the evidence pertaining to the 75,000 date is still a matter of academic controversy (unlike what I thought before), I too support leaving it out of this 50,000 feet view of history. Suggested wording: "The earliest authenticated human remains in South Asia date to about 30,000 years ago." with a wikilink to anatomically modern humans/homo sapiens and using Allchin-Petraglia as a reference (which in general is a solid academic work).

I think we need to specify, (1) "remains", and not just say activity, since tool finds can indicate the latter, and (2) "homo sapiens", since otherwise we will potentially have editors pushing back the date to ~2 million years referencing homo erectus remains.

Thoughts? Abecedare (talk) 21:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. In the words of Capt. Picard - make it so :) --regentspark (comment) 21:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Aye, aye, captain. :) Abecedare (talk) 21:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:India/Archive_38#.2F.2A_Ancient_India_.2A.2F_Early_human_remain_found_-_dates_are_incorrect is where the 73k - 55k was agreed upon. Abecedare had suggested it. If 75,000 is not very mainstream, what else can be suggested? I know it can be lengthy, we can just think of adding something else.

Mention of Homo erectus would work. Bladesmulti (talk) 01:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this is necessary in this article. 30,000 is the reliably accepted date and our readers understand that "the earliest authenticated human remains" does not preclude the possibility that there were earlier settlements of humans. if we include 75,000 in India we would also need to include caveats stating that whether these were left by modern humans or some other hominids is disputed and we would also need to explain the basis of the dispute. That's too much detail for this article. A note about Jwalapuram in the History of India article would be more appropriate because there we have the space to explain the dispute.--regentspark (comment) 13:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

A few points:

1. The Jwalapuram tool find and their dating has not been contested by anybody. 2. Evidence is not to be fitted into any theory mainstream or otherwise. 3. The presence of tools at Jwalapuram, before and after the Toba explosion period indicate the presence of humans. Academics who have seen the evidence clearly state that these tools are similar to that made by modern humans of Africa and are different from those of the Neolithics. This important fact cannot be ignored or dismissed. 4. There are plenty of theories, considered mainstream that have holes that cannot be explained. That doesn't mean the holes have to be ignored. 5. Just because a 75000 date is inconvenient to some, one must not settle on a 'compromise' date. That's intellectually dishonest and doesn't deserve place in an encyclopedia. 6. It's clear that some people are driving an agenda that resembles the 'my tool is bigger than yours' argument, even though there is evidence to the contrary. 7. Petraglia's acceptance/credibility does not any way diminish the Jwalapuram tool find and the resultant datings. 8. The Jwalapuram finds are used by academics to bolster their arguments, either way, about the survival of humans after the Toba catastrophe. They are clearly considered extremely important finds by all. Clearly if the evidence at Jwalapuram can be used by one set of academics it can be used by any other set...and the educated reader/editor should be able to accept this without bias or reservation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.138.137 (talk) 05:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

We don't need to ignore the jwalapuram findings. They can be included in History of India. See my note above as to why this (India) article is not the appropriate place for disputed information of this sort. --regentspark (comment) 13:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

History of India is right place for these things. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The request is simple:

Under the topic heading Ancient India in the article, the opening line says "The earliest authenticated human remains in South Asia date to about 30,000 years ago." Why can't this line be substituted or prefaced with the line... "The earliest evidence of human activity is as long as 75,000 years ago..." ( picked up from the opening para of the History of India stub) It's accurate, undisputed and sets the tone and context of the subsequent narrative under the Ancient India heading. I don't see any problem at all incorporating my request. The content doesn't need discussion since it has already been authenticated. It's more important to talk about evidence of human activity in this context since we are talking of a significantly earlier period compared to to the 30000 figure pertaining to earliest authenticated human remains. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.163.32 (talk) 04:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The main reason is that we don't want to get into definitional issues in a summary article of this sort. The tools unearthed in Jwalapuram were probably not Homo sapiens, the modern human, but some other, now extinct, hominin. Those are not explanations we want to get into in this article. The earliest homo sapien evidence is from 30,000 years and best to leave it at that. --regentspark (comment) 18:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Reply: 1. If you can mention the 30000yr figure you can mention the 75000 year figure as well. 2. We are talking of evidence of human activity and not about any homo - sapiens, erectus, or otherwise. 3. The Jwalapuram links were presented to INFORM the editors here that the 75000 yr figure has authenticated basis. 4. I wish the editors a) understand the request b) read on the issue c) apply their mind in the edits. 5. "The tools unearthed in Jwalapuram were probably not Homo sapiens, the modern human, but some other, now extinct, hominin." - When you state that, it is YOUR OPINION and not borne by the EVIDENCE presented. Let's keep the encyclopedia clean and away from ignorance and prejudice. 6. Please let me know if you guys are going to handle the request ( please read the sentence which IMO should be incorporated ) or I should escalate the matter, since my request is a) factual b) authenticated c) keeping in line content already present in that para. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.147.158 (talk) 04:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

IP, a has been explained repeatedly above the claim that modern humans (homo sapiens) resided in India ~75,000 years ago is:

• a hypothesis, not an accepted fact (Petraglia et al: ... may suggest the presence of modern humans in India at the time of the YTT event.)
• a controversial one, at that (Nature News: This theory will spur much debate, [Petraglia] admits, because modern humans were not thought to have reached India, from Africa, so long ago. "It's controversial, but it makes a lot of sense"), and
• it's disputed by other experts (Nature News: Stanley Ambrose, from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, disagrees with Petraglia's conclusions.)
• and awaits further evidence (Antopologogy.net column: But until fossil evidence is retrieved from sites like Jwalapuram, we will have no clue as to the true identity of the makers of the stone tools and other sites alluded to by Petraglia)

For these reasons this hypothesis is not being included in this summary style article, and IMO should not be included in the lede of the History of India article either. The right place to discuss such current and ongoing scientific developments is the Toba catastrophe theory where it can be, and already is, discussed in the right context and with the proper caveats.

If you are still not satisfied with this explanation, feel free to escalate the matter using wikipedia's dispute resolution process. Abecedare (talk) 06:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

A point by point response:

1. I have not asserted that it be incorporated into the article that "modern humans resided in India 75000 years ago". I have said that it be incorporated into the article that "The earliest evidence of human activity is as long as 75,000 years ago...". There is a difference between what is being attributed to my request and my actual request.

2. From the same nature.com links provided by the objector I quote " The tools from each layer were remarkably similar, and Petraglia says that this shows that the huge dust clouds from the eruption didn't wipe out the population of tool-using people. "Whoever was there seems to have persisted through the eruption," he says.This is the first archaeological evidence associated with the Toba super eruption, says Petraglia, and it contradicts theories that the eruption had a catastrophic effect on the area that its ash blanketed. Petraglia thinks that modern humans — rather than Neanderthals or other hominins — are the only species that would have been able to persist through an event as dramatic as the Toba eruption. This theory will spur much debate, he admits, because modern humans were not thought to have reached India, from Africa, so long ago. "It's controversial," says Petraglia, "but it makes a lot of sense." Petraglia and his team compared the tools they found to others from Africa from different periods in this week's edition of Science1. The Indian tools look a lot like those from the African Middle Stone Age about 100,000 years ago, when modern humans were thought to have lived, he says. "Whoever was living in India was doing things identical to modern humans living in Africa."

1) I have not picked out words from a quote and out of context to make a point. The entire set of 2 paras have been picked up without any edit to maintain context and the points being made are:

a) Evidence suggests that "tool using people" lived in India through the event that happened 75000 years ago. This authenticates my request that "The earliest evidence of human activity is as long as 75,000 years ago...". b) The current theory that modern humans came from Africa into India at a particular time is not based on fact and evidence but on current thinking. Obviously current thinking is being challenged by the presence of the Jwalapuram evidence and that's the reason the find is controversial... because it re-shapes current thinking on the subject which in any case is not cast in stone! c) While the anthropologists may argue it out about the presence of modern man in India 75000 years ago, my request does not dwell on that but instead states "The earliest evidence of human activity is as long as 75,000 years ago..."...and this is not disputed by any of the evidence presented by way of quotes or links.

2) Again from the nature.com link provided ... Stanley Ambrose merely attacks Petraglia when he says "It is highly speculative to say the eruption had no impact," he says. Ambrose argues that Petraglia's sample size is too small to make proper comparisons with other tools. And, he adds, "stone artifacts cannot be used to differentiate Neanderthals from African moderns." Petraglia says he has plenty more stone tools to back up his suggestions, beyond the ones presented in Science. "We have reported only some of our assemblages," he says.

a) Ambrose is contesting Petrgalia's assessment on the impact of the eruption.. b) He says Petraglia's sample size is too small which Petraglia immediately counters saying that there are more samples available. c)Ambrose says "stone artifacts cannot be used to differentiate Neanderthals from African moderns."...but Petraglia isn't doing that at all! Infact he says "The Indian tools look a lot like those from the African Middle Stone Age about 100,000 years ago, when modern humans were thought to have lived, he says. "Whoever was living in India was doing things identical to modern humans living in Africa."

3. Finally, the last quote is the blog writer's own opinion and not that of established academic thought when he says "But until fossil evidence is retrieved from sites like Jwalapuram, we will have no clue as to the true identity of the makers of the stone tools and other sites alluded to by Petraglia". In any case we are not talking about the true identity of the makers of stone tools.. It suffices that they are accepted to have been made by humans and are an indication of human activity ... and that's the point that comes out in my request "The earliest evidence of human activity is as long as 75,000 years ago...".

I've given a point by point rebuttal and cited material completely from context without getting into the various argument fallacies which seem to plague the objections directed at my request. The objections seem to deflect from the basic request itself and that's the reason I've repeatedly quoted my request so that its focus is not lost. I reiterate that my request to incorporate that phrase "The earliest evidence of human activity is as long as 75,000 years ago...". is well founded, correct, authentic, undisputed, academically non-controversial and in context of the thought flow expressed at the head of the topic under Ancient India.

I had to provide a rejoinder to the points mentioned by way of objections to my request, so that the complete nature of the objections put up and their invalidity is completely understood by all readers/editors. Please let me know if my little request will be incorporated or I still need to escalate! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.186.135 (talk) 07:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• As you point out, current thinking is that humans arrived in India much later - perhaps 40,000 to 35,000 years ago. As Petraglia points out, the possibility of humans in India 75,000 years ago is controversial. We can't possibly include controversial information without properly explaining why it is controversial and this summary article is not suited to that sort of explanation. IMO, if you don't like this response, you should probably seek some sort of dispute resolution. --regentspark (comment) 17:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me! 1. Petraglia never says "possibility of humans in 75000 years ago is controversial"! 2. I have never said nor is there evidence that "humans arrived in India 40000 to 35000 years ago". These are wrong attributes being made to Petraglia and me and deflect from the central request that has been made by me! *Sigh* — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.146.255 (talk) 06:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I think any info on humans in south asia / India should go to this specific article -- Genetics_and_archaeogenetics_of_South_Asia; with a link to it provided on this article. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 07:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2014

I think it would be great to add the population of India in 2013 because it will help the readers to see the actual growth in numbers even it is an estimate.. Indianajones12345 (talk) 16:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done for now. A couple of issue:

• population estimates differ by source and are often inconsistent. For example, Worldbank estimate for 2013 (1.252 billion) > CIA factbook estimate for July 2014 ( 1,236,344,631)
• for the readers to get an idea of the population growth, we would need to give population numbers for at least two time points. It would be simpler to just provide the growth rate itself (although we'd still have the issue of selecting appropriate time period), or leaving the details for the Demographics of India article.

That said, I don't have any strong objections to the principle of the proposal, and if editors can come up with a simple way to present the data, I am fine with that. Thanks for your suggestion, IJ and welcome to wikipedia. Abecedare (talk) 17:20, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

References

Reverted all changes for now - etymology part 3

I've reverted all changes to the etymology section (agnostically!). My suggestion is that you hammer out the prose for the entire section on the talk page, get consensus for that wording, and then change the entire section in one go. The original wording was better and was more in line with what the references say (for e.g., OED doesn't clearly say that Sindhu is a Sanskrit word for river' and the wording "derived from the Persian" is also not exactly in line with OED). This is a featured article so we should make changes carefully and only after the wording has passed muster on the talk page. The long form etymology on OED is here --regentspark (comment) 17:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Ahhh...now here we go again. Your suggestion is good though. So now things that require addressing are --

1. The eponymn Bharat which was not resolved even in Parliament Proceedings -- So specifically mentioning such attribution in the article is not factual. Is it necessary to include this point?
2. I have no prob with the regional / geographic term Hindu derived from Sindhu. However, as you mention source needs to support it.
3. Use of the words 'Northern India' and 'Pakistan' maybe misleading. To a southie, Bengal and Bihar denotes north India; though OED excludes those regions. I suggest being specific in mentioning "in particular the Indo-gangetic plain" (EB) and "north of the Narmada, exclusive of Bengal and Bihar, or, the region covered by Hindi and its dialects" (OED). Looking forward to views of all editors here.

--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 00:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra

Comment: The current version can be improved a bit, but I don't think the voting process set up below is the way to go about it. Instead what I would suggest is that editors' start with a couple of sentences of the current version at a time; specify what they would like to change and why; discuss till consensus is reached; and iterate. Slow and somewhat tedious, but a muti-headed hydra like the one below would be even a greater mess. And FWIW, the extended version, while improved in content and sourcing in some places, has issues of of its own (needs to better match the sources; be copy-edited for grammar, tighter prose, and to avoid close-paraphrasing). So again, voting between the two versions is not useful. Abecedare (talk) 15:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Couldn't have articulated it any better. I completely agree. --AmritasyaPutra^T 16:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Your approach will result in edit war (as it was edging on recently). I prefer Joshua Jonathan's approach of 'discuss first edit later'. However, am not in favor of voting between two editions alone. Hope we are open to overhauling and rewriting, based on discussion initiated by Joshua Jonathan below. Please provide better sources for statements below. Abe, liked your JSTOR sharma source. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 02:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra

India - Indus - Hindus - Sindhu

As per 25 october

"The name India is derived from Indus, which originates from the Old Persian word Hinduš. The latter term stems from the Sanskrit word Sindhu, which was the historical local appellation for the Indus River.(source: Oxford English Dictionary)

Before 25 october (proposed change)

"The name ultimately stems from the Sanskrit word Sindhu, which refers to a river in general, and more specifically the Indus River, but also to "the region around the Indus".(source: Oxford English Dictionary)

The name India is derived from the Old Persian word Hind, via Greek and Latin India.(source: Oxford English Dictionary) Both the Greeks and the Persians extended the name to include all the country east of the Indus.(source: Oxford English Dictionary)"

Source

Oxford English Dictionary:

"India, the name of a country in South Asia, formerly used more broadly to denote all of South Asia, and sometimes also other parts of East Asia and South-East Asia (see further discussion below on the historical usage of the name) < classical Latin India , denoting an imprecisely-defined region of Asia, extending from South Asia to the borders of China, sometimes confused with Ethiopia, Arabia, etc. < Hellenistic Greek Ἰνδία < ancient Greek Ἰνδός the River Indus ( < Old Persian (Achaemenian) hindu an eastern province of the Achaemenid empire (Persian hind India), Avestan hiṇdu , həṇdu river, (natural) frontier < Sanskrit sindhu river, spec. the River Indus; hence the region of the Indus, the province Sindh ( Hellenistic Greek Σίνθος the River Indus; also Σινθία India, Byzantine Greek Σινθίος Indian, all rare); gradually extended by Persians and Greeks to all the country east of the Indus) + -ία -ia suffix1. Compare Ind n., Indy n.1, and also Indies n.

The name India appears in Old English as a borrowing < Latin, as India (see quots. eOE1, OE) and probably also as Indea and Indie (the latter apparently after the Latin genitive singular), although these forms are often difficult to distinguish from forms of the ethnonym (see Indian adj. and n.), especially as ethnonyms are frequently used in Old English to denote geographical areas (compare quots. eOE2, lOE). During the Middle English period the name is more commonly represented by forms borrowed < Anglo-Norman and Middle French Ynde , Inde (see Ind n.). The name India reappears from the late Middle English period onwards (compare quot. a1500), perhaps partly reinforced by Portuguese India , Spanish India , and Dutch India .

From the Old English period, the name India has been used to denote a large country or territory of Southern Asia, and in more recent times also used specifically for the Republic of India. Formerly the name was also used in a narrower sense to denote an area lying east of the River Indus and south of the Himalaya Mountains (in this restricted sense also formerly called Hindustan : see Hindustani adj.); this usage was also extended to include the region further east, between that area and China (sometimes formerly referred to as Farther or Further India ; compare Old English sēo firre India : see quot. OE). See also East India n."

Comments

• No prob I have no prob with the regional / geographic term Hindu derived from Sindhu. However, as you mention source needs to support it.Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 00:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra
• Accept change Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Greek Indoi

As per 25 october

"The ancient Greeks referred to the Indians as Indoi (Ινδοί), which translates as "the people of the Indus".(source: Kuiper 2010, p.86)"

Comments

• Accept Sourced by Kuiper; accept. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• It will work. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Bharat

Official name

First line as per 25 october (unchanged)

"The geographical term Bharat (pronounced [ˈbʱaːrət̪] ), which is recognised by the Constitution of India as an official name for the country,(Source: Ministry of Law and Justice 2008) is used by many Indian languages in its variations."

Comments

• Question The eponymn Bharat which was not resolved even in Parliament Proceedings -- So specifically mentioning such attribution in the article is not factual. Is it necessary to include this point? Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 00:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra
• Include The official name is Bharat, isn't it? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes Bharat is the official name. So that stays. The issue is with the eponym below. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 12:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra

Books rehash the claim without evidence; though there is no proof whatsoever that India's official name 'Bharat' is attributed specifically to one specific character named Bharat (son of Shakuntala-Dushyant). On the contrary, the official source (India's Parliament Proceedings deciding the name 'Bharat'), proves there were several Bharats and India's official name is not attributed to one specific Bharat (son of Shakuntala-Dushyant) alone. Yet, Amritasyaputra claims the official source is not a scholarly source for wiki!! So now what goes, WP dispute resolution? --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 08:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra

Emperor

Second line as per 25 october

"The eponym of Bharat is Bharata, a theological figure that Hindu scriptures describe as a legendary emperor of ancient India."

Second line before 25 october (proposed change)

"Bharata, son of king Dushyanta,(Source: Eck 2012, p.63) the legendary ruler in the epic Mahabharata and other religious and literary texts, is generally regarded as the eponym for that name.(sources: Apte 1959; Eck 2012)"

Comments

• Accept change' Specific, and sourced. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Eck is a great source indeed. However, there is nothing official attributing India's official name Bharat to Bharata (son of Shakuntala-Dushyant); as can be noted from Parliament Proceedings. So not factual to keep the point. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 12:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra

Hindustan

As per 25 october

"Hindustan ([ɦɪnd̪ʊˈst̪aːn] ) was originally a Persian word that meant "Land of the Hindus"; prior to 1947, it referred to a region that encompassed northern India and Pakistan. It is occasionally used to solely denote India in its entirety.(sources: Kaye 1997, pp.639–640; Encyclopædia Britannica)"

Before 25 october (proposed change)

"Hindustan ([ɦɪnd̪ʊˈst̪aːn] ; lit. "Land of the Hindus"), also derived from Persian, traditionally connoted Northern India to its inhabitants,(source:Oxford English Dictionary. Quote: "To its inhabitants, Hindustān is ‘India north of the Narmada, exclusive of Bengal and Bihar’, or, virtually, the region covered by Hindi and its dialects. But from early times, foreigners, Muslim and European, have extended it to include the whole of the peninsula ‘from the Himālaya to the Bridge (i.e. Adam's Bridge)’, and this is the general geographical use.") or the region to the north of the Vindhya range in particular the Indo-gangetic plain;(Source: Encyclopedia Britannica. Quote: "Hindustan (Persian: “Land of the Hindus”) also spelled Hindusthan, historically, northern India, in contrast to the Deccan, or southern India. This area can be defined more particularly as the basin of the five Punjab rivers and the upper Indo-Gangetic Plain. As a mostly fertile and well-populated corridor situated between walls of mountain, desert, and sea, Hindustan has been regarded as the principal seat of Indian power, containing the bulk of Indian wealth and physical energy. The name Hindustan is sometimes used to indicate the lands “north of the Vindhya Range.”") but was more widely used by foreigners to refer to the Indian subcontinent.(Source: Oxford English Dictionary; Encyclopædia Britannica)"

Comments

• Specify "Northern India" Use of the words 'Northern India' and 'Pakistan' maybe misleading. To a southie, Bengal and Bihar denotes north India; though OED excludes those regions. I suggest being specific in mentioning "in particular the Indo-gangetic plain" (EB) and "north of the Narmada, exclusive of Bengal and Bihar, or, the region covered by Hindi and its dialects" (OED). Looking forward to views of all editors here.

--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 00:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra

• Prefer extended version I like the extra info in the quotes. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I think the extended version is too verbose... nothing for or against it except the length in my opinion. --AmritasyaPutra^T 12:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

How to proceed further

Alright, so now it seems everyone involved with this article have commented (Abe, blade, Joshua, myself, Amritasyaputra, Zaketo and a new IP address). Shall we move on to making changes? I have included the GOI source and reworded the sentence pertaining the official name, Bharat. Request all editors involved with this article, to see if it is okay. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 07:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra

I didn't see consensus for your change here, in fact I see consensus not to make that change. I have reverted. I believe, direct notes from a discussion in parliament is not a scholarly source for Wikipedia. --AmritasyaPutra^T 08:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Not surprised :) Following Joshua (JJ)'s approach, I sought "discuss first edit later". You had nothing to say on points detailed by JJ despite being given ample time. You are quick to revert but have not offered to discuss relevant issues in any manner. You did not vote. Yet you seek consensus. On what basis? Please explain why an official source as Parliamentary Proceedings deciding official name of a country is not a scholarly source??! So now who decides? Wiki dispute resolution? JJ, what do you suggest? --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 10:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra

Check your content change and the talk above where it was not agreed upon by Joushua Jonathan too. Similar edits were reverted earlier by editors including RegentsPark, and Abecedare. Talk page discussion is not equal to voting. I already responded: direct notes from a discussion in parliament is not a scholarly source for Wikipedia. You may take it to WP:DRN if you are not satisfied with the response others have offered here. --AmritasyaPutra^T 10:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

This is only the second time am editing a specific sentence in this article. First was to include quotes from EB and OED within ref tags in sources with a specific phrase "or the region to the north of the Vindhya range in particular the Indo-gangetic plain" (this one) which JJ accepted, but you, Abe and Blade did not and hence it has been reverted. My second edit is regarding attribution of Bharat's name as this one. Joshua accepts change on basis there are sources (Eck and Apte). However, note this for which JJ did not reply. Please note, for my change too there is a source; which is an official GOI source. If you had an objection, you could have stated earlier in the discussion by JJ. But nope. You are quick to revert. These direct notes are Parliamentary Proceedings which are official records also available in published book form (Debates: Official Report, Volume 9, Part 2, India. Constituent Assembly, Manager of Publications, 1949). So well, looks like this will go to WP Dispute Resolution. Looking fwd to views of other editors. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 12:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra

Relax, and wait. No need to hurry. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Joshua, took your advice and waited. So now, are we done waiting? --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 08:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra

Maybe, but I think it would be wise if you're not the one to make the changes. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course. If Mayasutra analyzes the above agreement, adequately, no one will revert his edit. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

What is the proposed change? Abecedare (talk) 15:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Joshua, You did not get it. The wait was to decide whether to proceed with WP Dispute Resolution; not for making edits. Am into something time consuming starting tomorrow. Will not be able to allocate time for wiki. However, beginning next week, will do so. Thanks. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 01:19, 8 November 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2014

- Also expand more on the clothing heritage of India for example like kancheepuram and benrasi sarees. The section is very brief for a rich heritage of clothing and textile industry that India has. - In diplomacy/foreign relations section, We could add the various organisations it is a part of like, Asean+India, G-20, a non-permanent member of UN security council, APEC etc - It would be nice to see something about gender equality in the 21st century India and its strides in that field, and something more about tourism and a section on Infrastructure. A wiki page about a country should be able to give a viewer a chance to get a glimpse of the country.

Indianajones12345 (talk) 12:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change - your ideas on which sections need improvement are a general discussion point, not a Semi-protected edit request.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 14:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

SUPPORT. Exactly. They say India's tourism is not proportional to its size. NOT EVEN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY!!!! I would copy paste my above argument here-Many celebrities including Katy Perry, Liz Hurley have held their marriages in the Royal palaces of Rajasthan, India. Though India's tourism is not affected by such weddings but it is just reflective of popularity. India is at the tenth spot in Asia in terms of tourism. No matter what its size is, Wikipedia is a source of information and why shouldn't India have something written about its tourism when it has thousands of tourist destinations. It wouldn't do any harm. Though Estonia is not a protected page, it has sectins like- List of Holidays in Estonia- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonia#Holidays, Science and Technology- India is the first nation in the world to successfully reach Mars in just one trial. It is one of the largest producers of Engineers (along side China).Estonia also has a section about Education and Science where a picture of its first satellite launched in 2013 has been put. India had its first satellite placed in 1975. India has around 60 satellites- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_satellites. India is most cost efficient in launching space missions. It placed Mars Orbiter Mission into orbit in just $71 million. The IIT's are globally acknowledged institutes.This page gives such an "underdeveloped" impression of India. I live here ever since I was born but I can't really get the feeling on looking at the article that the modern India has been depicted well. I sincerely hoe that there is nothinng in favor of Europe or anti-third world countries going on here on Wiki. Regards. Thanks. 14.139.229.35 (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Hey can somebody put the pronunciation in IPA for the Hindi official name of the country as well as a soundbyte on how to pronounce it. Cheers.

IPA for Bharat Ganarajya: bʱaːrət̪ gəɳəraːdʒjə

2.51.235.107 (talk) 19:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Friend! You might rather have the "Bharat Ganrajya" completely removed! Like the word MAJOR in religions was (though I've put logical arguments for it, let's see if someone understands them). Actually, the words "Bharat Ganrajya" are Hindi words, according to above nswers, you might feel its an injustice to other Indian languages to use India's official language Hindi on India's page at all. Wink! :) Mousanonyy (talk) 16:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Space research and aeronautical engg

1. India's Mangalyaan is the world's first project of a country to reach Mars in maiden attempt (named one of the best 25 inventions of 2014 by TIME)- http://time.com/3594971/the-25-best-inventions-of-2014/ 2. India is one of the elite 6 countries which can launch own space vehicles. 3. India has launched 75 Indian satellites http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_satellites (Or ISRO official website. 4. Indian Institutes of technology IITs are renowned. 5. India has tested missiles covering almost the entire Europe and nuclear weapons that can carry nuclear weapons to long distances (I can provide citations).

So a section must contain this information of modern India. 14.139.229.40 (talk) 14:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Knock knock! Any replies? On any of the new sections I posted here- Bollywood, Space research, Indian stock exchange ? Mousanonyy (talk) 22:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2014

I want to add some GDP statistics and update the current scenario of the indian economy which looks quite outdated.

Indianajones12345 (talk) 12:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

What are the new ones? Bladesmulti (talk) 12:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

And what reliable source are you citing them from? - Arjayay (talk) 15:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Arjayay , please see the section - Indian stock exchange on this talk page. thanks Mousanonyy (talk) 08:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Devnagri

I did go through the FAQs but I could not get the answer to a simple question- if Qatar is written in Arabic and Republic of France in French AND SO ON, why can't Bharatiya anrajya be written in Devnagri??

14.139.229.35 (talk) 13:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

You probably started at Q2 in the FAQ. Look at the link in the response to Q1. --regentspark (comment) 16:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

(after ec) See Q1 and Q9 in the FAQ above. In short: because India's language diversity exceeds that of any other country, and there is no neutral approach for selecting one or two (or even four a la Switzerland) languages/scripts from among the mix to include in the lede. The interested reader can follow the inter-wiki links in the sidebar to read in article on India in a language of their choice. Abecedare (talk) 16:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no other country in the world other than India where Devnagri can represent its native language. More than 80% are Hindus , all others are a minority officially. Hindi and English are national languges, not urdu- https://www.google.co.in/search?q=national+languages+india&rlz=1C1WLXB_enIN520IN520&oq=national+languages+india&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.8847j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8. So Hindi and English may well be used here on this page.

Yes, a good solution would be to write in Devnagri and English and then the users interested in official minor languages may use inter-wiki links. thank you. 14.139.229.35 (talk) 10:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Knock-knock!! 14.139.229.35 (talk) 07:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Read the discussion (and your links). There is no national language in India. Many Indians - Hindus even, though why religion is being dragged into this is a mystery - can neither read nor write in Devnagri. Devnagri may or may not be relevant outside India, but then neither are the scripts of Malayalam, Gurmukhi, Assamese, and many others. The consensus is that since there is no national language or script, and since we can't include every script, we won't include any. --regentspark (comment) 02:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

This is TOTALLY SURPRISING IF you would tell me, about the national languages of India, despite my providing links to you. And it is a mystery as well why the issue of how popular Hindi is outside of India is being dragged into this.

1- Devanagari is one of the most used and adopted writing systems in the world. A line from the page- Devanagari, first para- last line. Devanagari is used in India and Nepal.

2- Many Hindus can't read or write in DEVANAGARI??? what citations you have for this???? This is totally surprising! Does almost every country in the world have all the people using exactly one script? No, specially not the second most diverse country in the world.

3- Oficial languages in India- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_with_official_status_in_India

4- ""Devanagri may or may not be relevant outside India""? OKAY! that's why I'm asking to use it on India's page! Not other nations!

5- A link I had provided earlier that Hindi and English are official languages of India. Another link- 4th line- para 3- The Constitution of India has effectively instituted the usage of Hindi and English as the two languages of communication for the Union Government. at page- Hindi.

6- An important point- The very fact that the first line has (Bhārat Gaṇarājya) written in it. Why not what Republic India is called in Assamese or Bengali? Why the Hindi translation only?? So, it is required. And if so, why not NOT IN TRUE FORM? Devanagari?

I am being to the point and I believe I have every logical answer for those who do not want to give any non-whites' language it's good place on wiki. So, hoping for a good and thorough discussion on it, I copy-paste again as my conclusion- Yes, a good solution would be to write in Devnagri and English and then the users interested in official minor languages may use inter-wiki links. thank you. 14.139.229.40 (talk) 13:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Knock Knock! Aint nobody got all the six answers or aint nobody wanting to change the page to better? Come on friends! Mousanonyy (talk) 16:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you read the links you've provided. Then, when you're done with those, spend some time reading WP:TE and WP:DE. --regentspark (comment) 17:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes I read them...all three you said. And I will point out again- (if you tell me how to atach picture I'd highlight the lines and post pics of 'em)

1. Para 3 , line 4- The Constitution of India has effectively instituted the usage of Hindi and English as the two languages of communication for the Union Government.

2. Devanagari, first para- last line. Devanagari is used in India and Nepal.

3. Oficial languages in India- Hindi and English-The Constitution of India designates a bilingual approach for official language of the Government of India employing usage of Hindi written in the Devanagari script, as well as English.[1] Hindi and English find everyday use for important official purposes such as parliamentary proceedings, judiciary, communications between the Central Government and a State Government.- READ AT- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_with_official_status_in_India

4. An important point- The very fact that the first line has (Bhārat Gaṇarājya) written in it. Why not what Republic India is called in Assamese or Bengali? Why the Hindi translation only?? So, it is required. And if so, why not NOT IN TRUE FORM? Devanagari?

5. ""Devanagri may or may not be relevant outside India""? OKAY! that's why I'm asking to use it on India's page! Not other nations!

6.Devanagari is one of the most used and adopted writing systems in the world.- This is a line from the page- Devanagari, first para- last line. Devanagari is used in India and Nepal.

I would be glad if ALL these 6 are answered and then can be logically denied that "India's official languages HIndi and English can be seen nowhere on India's page". Thank you. Mousanonyy (talk) 22:19, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Again Official language of the Union government ≠ Official language of India ≠ National language of India. Also see WP:IDHT and WP:DE. Abecedare (talk) 23:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, is that an insult of the Indian constituion or the Union government? That the "official language" as per the consitution is not worthy of representing India? Mousanonyy (talk) 09:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Lead

The lead states that "Four world religions—Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism" originated in India. I suggest that this be changed by removing "world". Though they may have a few followers in other countries, Jainism and Sikhism are both largely restricted to India, and are not "world religions" in the same sense in which Hinduism or Buddhism are. ImprovingWiki (talk) 06:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

They are world religions because they have been researched by the researchers of every major country. There are 100,000s of Sikh and Jains outside the Indian subcontinent. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:32, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I think I agree with ImprovingWiki. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I think many people want to make the already medieval looking page India to an iron age page. 14.139.229.35 (talk) 16:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

"World religions" implies that they are all religions that have a large numbers of followers around the world, and in the case of Jainism, for instance, that's hardly true. Outside of India, you have only small communities of people following Jainism. It's not the right term. ImprovingWiki (talk) 23:10, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

If that is found to be true, Jainism in particular could be removed. 14.139.229.35 (talk) 14:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I was telling how they can be recognized as world religion, you can remove world from there. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay say "MAJOR" religions then. If you refuse to that too, asking for the definition of "major" religions, I could bring you thousands of questions from pages all over wiki. 14.139.229.35 (talk) 07:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

They are not major now. Even the Swaminarayan and Arya Samaj has more followers than Sikhism and Jainism. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Just removing "world" seems like the way to go. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree. If I recall correctly, the current wording was arrived at after a long discussion when the article was at FAR so a wholesale change would not be a good idea. World doesn't seem right anyway and four religions is accurate enough. --regentspark (comment) 13:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Removed "world" as per discussion above. The adjective must have been added to distinguish the four "major" religions from the many NRMs/sects/"minor"-religions that originated in India. Perhaps at some point we should check what adjective (world? major?) is used by sociologists for such purpose. Abecedare (talk) 15:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey there, a question- please include Swaminarayan and Arya Samaj above "jainism and Sikhism" on this page as you just claimed that they have more folowers- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups 14.139.229.40 (talk) 14:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Knock knock! so do we have Swaminarayan and Arya Samaj in that list now? Mousanonyy (talk) 22:30, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Since the Indian census and major worldwide surveys don't count those as distinct religions in tabulating gross demographic data, we don't do that either at this page. The details of the issue (and discussion of what counts as a distinct religion) are properly discussed in sub-articles... of which the India wikiproject has tens of thousands! Abecedare (talk) 23:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

So, they're not religions. Why were they compared to religions while drawing a major conclusion above- They are not major now. Even the Swaminarayan and Arya Samaj has more followers than Sikhism and Jainism. (followed by-) Just removing "world" seems like the way to go.

Anyway, hands up on this decision. Let's move on to the other unresolved queries. Mousanonyy (talk) 10:05, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Cuisine and Tourism

It is ironical that a country one of the most diverse in culture and having vivid architecture, topography has no mention of them. Countries the size of a states of India (like Italy)(and even smaller ones like Slovenia ) have been covered so well in wikipedia. I request mention and elaboration of cuisine, art (even many martial arts exist), dances (more forms of dances than the number of states), and tourism (India is tenth largest in Asia and is rapidly growing) within this article India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.229.35 (talk) 14:22, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Many of the topics you mention are already discussed in the article, except for tourism and cuisine:

• Tourism: This has been discussed several times before, and IIRC the consensus is that tourism is yet a vary small part of the Indian economy, and relative to its size, India is not a major world tourist destination. So a section on Tourism would be undue in this article, and improvements would rather be made to the Tourism in India article (The same rationale also applies to say a Science and technology section, which is another perennial proposal).
• Cuisine: I personally think a couple of sentences, though not a separate section, on the topic could be added to the article (perhaps under a Food and clothing sub-section). But again this has been discussed before, and other page regulars will better recall why the topic was excluded. Aside: The Cuisine section of Culture of India article needs attention; right now it reads like promotional copy found in in-flight magazines.

Abecedare (talk) 20:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I would like to see some more on the cuisine, cmon guys, india has great cuisine :) Opalraava (talk) 16:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The stumbling block is sourcing. Yes, perhaps India has great cuisine. But what do scholarly sources have to say about it? --regentspark (comment) 16:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

It will be a good idea to insert about cuisine and use scholarly citations. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Many celebrities including Katy Perry, Liz Hurley have held their marriages in the Royal palaces of Rajasthan, India. Though India's tourism is not affected by such weddings but it is just reflective of popularity. India is at the tenth spot in Asia in terms of tourism. No matter what its size is, Wikipedia is a source of information and why shouldn't India have something written about its tourism when it has thousands of tourist destinations. It wouldn't do any harm. Though Estonia is not a protected page, it has sectins like- List of Holidays in Estonia- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonia#Holidays, Science and Technology- India is the first nation in the world to successfully reach Mars in just one trial. It is one of the largest producers of Engineers (along side China).Estonia also has a section about Education and Science where a picture of its first satellite launched in 2013 has been put. India had its first satellite placed in 1975. India has around 60 satellites- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_satellites. India is most cost efficient in launching space missions. It placed Mars Orbiter Mission into orbit in just $71 million. The IIT's are globally acknowledged institutes.This page gives such an "underdeveloped" impression of India. I live here ever since I was born but I can't really get the feeling on looking at the article that the modern India has been depicted well. I sincerely hoe that there is nothinng in favor of Europe or anti-third world countries going on here on Wiki. Regards. Thanks. 14.139.229.35 (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Same IP address user above I am, just created an account. Below, a few editors agree India has soooo many languages... India has actually 415 living languages according to -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_number_of_native_speakers_in_India. Thousands of dances- http://www.culturalindia.net/indian-dance/ Their influence- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dance_in_India . India has a LARGE number of religions, and their influences (eg. Buddha and Krishna in Bahai faith)ALSO ORIGIN of 2 MAJOR WORLD religions and 2 Medium sized religions according to this page- MAJOR RELIGIOUS GRoUPS OF THE WORLD-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups. INDIAN CUISINE IS SO VIVID- 36 TERRITORIES HaVING OWN FLAVOUR- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_cuisine. Indian martial arts are there- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_martial_arts

NOW MY POINT IS- Either remove the (not competitive with Indian cuisine's TREMENDOUS variety-) "cuisine of Estonia" , the info about stonia's handfuls of satellite with pictorial elaboration and not so useful to non-Estonians ""list of holidays in Estonia" from Estonia's page, or these definitely have their place in the page India. Also, below I have written how many satellites India has, Estonia again, is no competition at all. Mousanonyy (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

My opinion, my citations, my experience in India noticeable to anyone here? Friends, the first para of the protected page- tourism in India speaks with references all that is needed to make this topic a separate section of this page (It even answers, with references, an earlier mentioned argument that India's tourism is not significant compared to its size- Here is the para (coy-pasted)-The tourism industry of India is economically important and is growing rapidly. The World Travel & Tourism Council calculated that tourism generated INR6.4 trillion or 6.6% of the nation's GDP in 2012. It supported 39.5 million jobs, 7.7% of its total employment. The sector is predicted to grow at an average annual rate of 7.9% from 2013 to 2023.[1] This gives India the third rank among countries with the fastest growing tourism industries over the next decade.[2] India has a large medical tourism sector which is expected to grow at an estimated rate of 30% annually to reach about ₹ 95 billion by 2015. Mousanonyy (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2014

I am a Indian, please make the changes.....our national language is "Hindi" So make National Language "Hindi" from None You can refer india.gov.in Naveen586 (talk) 07:16, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Hindi and English are official languages, already noted. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Hindi being official language is useless as of now. But as a suggested solution to me (Tea House) says, there is a way. I will look into it as and when I get free from my exams. Mousanonyy (talk) 17:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

There is a way to make it useful? Bladesmulti (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, my friend, if you read the above discussions - the answer is- by writing "Bharat Ganrajya" (actually Hindi words written in English) in Hindi (i.e. in Devanagari) the fact that Hindi is India's official language would be used. Mousanonyy (talk) 12:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Bollywood

I think I made this request earlier but some one deleted it. I think Bollywood should get a vivid place it deserves on this page? With pictures? It's so amazing and has fans around the world. World's second richest actor is an Indian! And that's true! And Pictures like these- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aishwarya_Rai_Bachchan#mediaviewer/File:Aishwarya_walks_for_Manish_Malhotra_at_HDIL_India_Couture_Week_2010.jpg Mousanonyy (talk) 16:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I want to add a picture to the page to add to the few pictures that can tell that a some people in India are rich/or lighter in complexion (and not all farmers or fishermen or women with loads of jewelries or those holding pots on their heads) and or India is not totally underdeveloped, and has a little glitter and glamour. Not a single commoner (common Indian citizen) shown in the pics in the entire article looks like or better than a "middle class" Indian. So, it indicates ignorance towards those middle class or even richer sections that are a major part of Indian PCI or citizenship and are major tax-payers. The proposed file is-

Shah Rukh Khan, a Bollywood star, is the world's second richest actor.

Mousanonyy (talk) 17:40, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Taj Mahal

You have ignored to mention (write and post pictures) most of the Islamic architectural monuments like Taj Mahal (wonder of the world, the identity of India), Lal Qila, Qutub minar, Jama masjid etc. You have mention very less medieval history. Which has dominated most of the Indian culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.204.237.242 (talk) 01:11, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

We have to concentrate as much on the modern, pre-historical, historical period, etc. on this article. If you are interested in the medieval period, you can suggest/make your changes on History of India and Middle kingdoms of India. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Can we then have pictures of Delhi Metro/ Bandra-Worli sea link/ Lotus temple/ Indian skyscrapers or anything modern please? Thanks Mousanonyy (talk) 22:24, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Both Delhi Metro as well as the Mumbai sealink pictures are already included in the article. As also is a picture of the Taj. What you perhaps don't realize is that the images - selected after a long selection process - in the articles rotate. You can see which images are in the rotation by clicking on the edit button at the top of a section and looking at the marked up code. --regentspark (comment) 01:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I refreshed the page many a times and have been visiting on a daily basis. I did not spot a Delhi metro train or the YTaj even once even though I hunted for it. The salt worker and the agrarians were there all the time. Perhaps you don't understand that the point behind all these requests is a few "permanent" images that every visitor sees and gets a glimpse of the better off Indian aspects. Not that one in a hundred gets to see it. Not every visitor knows how to see all pictures involved in the "rotation". Thank you. Mousanonyy (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps there is an issue with your browser. The pictures do rotate for me. But, regardless of all that, do bear in mind that there are plenty of what you dismissively call "agrarians" in India - 70% of the population lives in villages for example, and also do bear in mind that "agrarians" and salt workers are equally a part of India and deserve as much respect as the stock brokers who use the sealink on their daily commutes. The images were selected as representative of India after a long (months long) selection process and that's the consensus.--regentspark (comment) 14:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Prfect, this is solved. Thank you. Yes, around 68% still live in rural area and countryside which might have Asia's largest Universities (like mine- GB Pant of Agriculture and Technology), but due to lack of good markets, infrastructure, are counted in rural areas. Thank you regentsPark, there is nothing wrong with this section :) Mousanonyy (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Some recent changes

Mdayasakii had replaced a few language names from both article and infobox.[1] Reverted them.

I have removed "mostly in present day Pakistan" from lead,[2] See the version from November 1[3] and few days later. This change was undiscussed and made without further investigation. Indus Valley civilization also included the whole the present day Haryana, Gujarat, Punjab. It is not supported by scholars that IVC was mostly in Pakistan.

Changed [[Parsi|Zoroastrianism]] to [[Zoroastrianism in India|Zoroastrianism]].[4]

Changed 1200 BCE to 1700 BCE.[5] Although I couldn't really understand why 1200 CE is even written there. It should be 1100 BCE instead and it should mention about the Vedic literature. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:28, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Can I add some info to the first paragrpahs or so?

On Chinas page, and other countires on here, there are information like "Home to a history of teachings, philosophies, castles, temples, palaces," etc. etc. etc....and I was curious if I could add things like that to Indias page? I know most of you are anti India and wont allow it, but I am just asking then? Who is the emporer of this page that allows this? 96.251.46.221 (talk) 22:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Haha, though your language is completely unacceptable on wiki; I too feel that India's page isn't so flattering as most European countries because coz of some reasons. You can see how my requests of showing India's good side have been turned down everywhere above. They're not even allowing Hindi words to be written in Devnagari. I would suggest you ask for specific changes with suggestions supported by citations; precisely telling what you want to include.Mousanonyy (talk) 18:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 december 2014

In the article the national language is not mentioned.Why?? The national language is Hindi and it should be mentioned and the drive's on is also wrong.It is mentioned as left but India drive's on right side.The steering is on the right side.I kindly request you to put this information correctly--Bhootrina (talk) 12:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I see Hindi mentioned a few times, most substantially "India has no national language. Hindi, with the largest number of speakers, is the official language of the government." Are you worried about the way it is being mentioned? Also, I see left hand driving mentioned, but not very prominently, in the infobox. Is it correct that (as in Britain where I live) driving is on the left and the stering wheel on the right? Thincat (talk) 13:26, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

See Q9 in the FAQs above – Arjayay (talk) 13:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

India Infobox

I was wondering if in the infobox section we should change from "Independence from the United Kingdom" to "Formation". Most countries use the "Formation" standard instead of the "Independence" one, especially those with pre-colonial history. I feel that this is necessary because the predecessor to modern day India is obviously the British Raj in the Indian subcontinent and it defined most of the international and internal borders of India as well as the government structure was really similar. Before that was probably the Mughal Empire. The empires and kingdoms ruling India before Britain also defined how modern India came to be and some are similar in structure.

Here are a few example countries that follow the "Formation" standard in the infobox: Bangladesh, Burma, China, Ethiopia, Italy, Japan, Norway, Pakistan, South Korea, Thailand, United Kingdom.

In the case of Korea, it includes the time of Japanese occupation of Korea.

Germany has been united in the past (Holy Roman Empire) but before recent confederation and unification it was in different pieces throughout the land, similar to the kingdoms of Medieval India.

The United States doesn't follow this but it included "Current Statehood" (the last state to join the union), which I believe is important.

I just want some input on the topic for now and if we need to make any changes we can move further from here. Zaketo (talk) 00:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I prefer sticking with "Independence" in the infobox because:

• The current boundaries, and governing structure, of the nation were indeed defined at the time of its independence/partition but, as you say, the entity "India" has existed before then unlike Pakistan, Bangladesh and some other countries that you list as using the "Formation" field in the infobox. (see related discussion at History of India talk page).
• However, while the concept of Independence of India is concrete and universally understood to refer to its independence from the British Empire, its formation is a pretty nebulous concept and I can foresee future arguments about whether India was really formed on August 15, 1947. For example, Japan and Ethiopia list their dates of formations as 660BC and 980BC respectively, and while it is possible that dates that far back are generally accepted as dates of formations for those "countries" (I haven't checked), trying to come up with analogous dates for "formation" of India is an invitation for POV-pushing, OR and edit-warring.
• Relatedly, and most importantly, do standard books use the term "Formation of India" for the events of Aug 15, 1947 (or any other point in Indian history)? I haven't checked for confirmation but don't recall that term being typically used with reference to India

Abecedare (talk) 03:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Division Map Clamied Error Report

in that Division geo map. here mensioned india occupied Pak & china territory. i feel geo map make fool or if right means can any one clarify me?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mughi101 (talk • contribs) 05:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The map marks territory administratively under the jurisdiction of a country as being a part of that country. So, for example, Aksai Chin is claimed by India but is currently a part of China, therefore the map marks it as "Chinese territory claimed by India". Similarly, Arunachal Pradesh is a part of India but claimed by China and is marked as "Indian territory claimed by China". These markings reflect the reality of boundary disputes and make no judgement about their validity. Hope this helps. --regentspark (comment) 14:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Spread of Vedic culture template

Do we need the level of detail provided by the recently added {{Spread of Vedic culture}} template in this article? I realize that it is collapsed by default, but it still effectively adds 8 images to the page in terms of load-time, and IMO is of more specialized interest than suitable for such a broad overview. Thoughts? (Pinging @Joshua Jonathan: for his input) Abecedare (talk) 15:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking same because it is analysis of different cultures and their relations. It could be suitable for a Asian-Europian article though. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I was wondering about that too. Actually, I'm dubious about the entire template because it is almost an article within an article without the scrutiny that articles get. Templates should be nothing more than a holding place for a collection of articles. --regentspark (comment) 15:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes there is some discussion too, see Template talk:Spread of Vedic culture. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Good point, about the loading time. There are sources for those maps, though. The advantage is that it provides a very concise overview of an otherwise very complicated topic. It took me quite some time to get this overview, and I thought it might help for others to have a quick overview. Ehm, where are we going to centralize this discussion? Template talk:Spread of Vedic culture? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

GHI

Friend.hey [6] was probably right about it. See [7]-[8] Bladesmulti (talk) 22:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Kindly refer the next ticket. Hope it brings more light to make the wiki page better. --hey_pal 08:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Friend.hey (talk • contribs) --hey_pal 08:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Friend.hey (talk • contribs)

I'm not saying he is wrong - In fact I'm sure he is right. I'm just questioning the usefulness of saying that India is 55 on the GHI and the validity of interpreting this number from something other than a reliable secondary source. --regentspark (comment) 14:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

My warm regards to both of you RegentsPark and Bladesmulti for starting a good and healthy discussion which makes me feel good that nowadays the authenticity of wiki content is more robust than ever. People try to bring their wisdom on healthiness of the article. Now, I ask RegentsPark to kindly review the healthy and constructive information, I've provided in those edits (direct reference links below). I do not know which nation you both really belong to and even that does not matter for any wiki editor. Being impersonal, as we all should be to make wiki more authentic than ever, I want to cite the invigorating efforts of system of the Republic of India. In 2006, India was ranked 96 among 119 countries—lower than the hunger hotspot of Sudan by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). India improved its position in the Global Hunger Index in 2014 as it climbed to 55th position. Between 2005 and 2014, the prevalence of underweight children under the age of five fell from 43.5% to 30.7%. This helped improve the severity of the hunger situation in India from alarming to serious. The main reasons were “a final push to expand the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) programme that aims to improve the health, nutrition and development of children in India and establish 1.4 million centres, and the launch of the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM), a community based outreach and facility-based health initiative to deliver essential health services to rural India.” All these efforts are really commendable and this is the reason India has been able to eradicate the the wrath of the pervasiveness of polio -- till 2009, India accounted for more than half the world’s polio cases. Questioning the usefulness of saying that India is 55 on the GHI is plausible but it is unfair to the efforts of millions of people who are working day and nights to improve such rankings and it is commendable to give it place on wiki page so that the continuous efforts can be updated and allow people know that even after India having 20.6% share of world's poorest in 2013, authorities are working at commendable rate. Hope the above gives you enough reasons and positive energy to let me undo those deletions though I always appreciate your concerns for a featured article and appreciate your knowledge and efforts for wiki. Thanks to both of you.hey_pal talk 07:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Read more at: http://www.livemint.com/Politics/rUGpGL9KeroKGBf0xQw4kK/India-betters-its-rank-in-Global-Hunger-Index.html

I read the article and still don't think the GHI number is useful. There are too many nuances. For example, the article says that India is the home to the largest number of malnourished children and 805 million chronically hungry people. It also says that India's GHI score has improved from 20.6 to 12.5 since 1990. Then there is all the stuff about nutrient deficiency etc. etc. A single GHI number doesn't capture this complexity and this summary article is not the right place to address that complexity (perhaps Demographics of India?). --regentspark (comment) 12:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I hope you will give enough reasons which would be satisfactory to all the people indulged with this page that why below is not relevant which has also been deleted by you in same deletion: and kindly include what is wrong in updating the figures(FIG. OF MIN.) which are already there but superannuated(2001) Level of urbanization increased from 27.81% in 2001 Census to 31.16% in 2011 Census. The slowing down of the overall growth rate of population is due to the sharp decline in the growth rate in rural areas since 1991.[3] According to the 2011 census, there are 53 million-plus cities in India; among them Mumbai, Delhi, Bangalore, Hyderabad, Chennai, Ahmedabad, Pune and Kolkata are in order of the most populous metropolitan areas. The literacy rate in 2011 was 74.04%: 65.46% among females and 82.14% among males.[4] The rural urban literacy gap which was 21.2 percentage points in 2001, has come down to 16.1 percentage points in 2011. The improvement in literacy rate in rural area is two times that in urban areas.[3] Kerala is the most literate state with 93.91% literacy; while Bihar the least with 63.82%.[4] Refer link in the end of the page. hey_pal talk 16:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

COMMENTS from people are highly appreciable -- it creates a healthy environment to make the article of a country a better one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Friend.hey (talk • contribs) 16:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC) hey_pal talk 16:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The demographic numbers are ok. I guess I did a blanket revert. You can add the above text back in. --regentspark (comment) 20:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

hey_pal talk 08:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Important updates waiting for wiki recognition

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=India&diff=prev&oldid=644108341

Kindly give your support to 'bring consensus' on below well cited facts waiting for undo the deletion. Even if consensus not approached, any contemplation is hugely appreciative.

The number of hungry people has declined in India with its score on the Global Hunger Index improving to 55th position in 2014 due to progress made in addressing underweight in children.

Level of urbanization increased from 27.81% in 2001 Census to 31.16% in 2011 Census. The slowing down of the overall growth rate of population is due to the sharp decline in the growth rate in rural areas since 1991. According to the 2011 census, there are 53 million-plus cities in India; among them Mumbai, Delhi, Bangalore, Hyderabad, Chennai, Ahmedabad, Pune and Kolkata are in order of the most populous metropolitan areas. The literacy rate in 2011 was 74.04%: 65.46% among females and 82.14% among males. The rural urban literacy gap which was 21.2 percentage points in 2001, has come down to 16.1 percentage points in 2011. The improvement in literacy rate in rural area is two times that in urban areas. Kerala is the most literate state with 93.91% literacy; while Bihar the least with 63.82%. Refer link in the end of the page.

• Chandramouli, C. (15 July 2011), Rural Urban Distribution Of Population (PDF), Ministry of Home Affairs (India), retrieved 24 January 2015 hey_pal 08:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Resolved

hey_pal talk 08:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Space program (Satellite on Mars) - Mangalyan

Could somebody please add a line about Nuclear power and ISRO's success and (Satellite on Mars) - Mangalyan. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.8.176.11 (talk) 13:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure, there is a need to make 1. Infrastructure 1.1 Transportation 1.2 Science and technology. Obviously there is no need to put any nuclear thing here. We can start here to bring consensus and very soon put that all on the actual page.hey_pal talk 19:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC) Few important links are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Infrastructure_in_India http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/infrastructure http://www.ibef.org/industry/infrastructure-sector-india.aspx . Lets start adding the above features to make the page more holistic and comprehensive.hey_pal talk 19:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed text

Mars Orbiter Mission [[:File:PSLV-CA 1.jpg|thumb|PSLV-C8 (CA Variant) carrying the AGILE x-ray and γ-ray astronomical satellite of the Italian Space Agency lifting off from the SDSC, Sriharikota.]] Main article: Mars_Orbiter_Mission The Mars Orbiter Mission (MOM), also called Mangalyaan was launched on 5 November 2013 by the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) It is India's first interplanetary mission making ISRO the fourth space agency to reach Mars, after the Soviet space program, NASA, and the European Space Agency and the first Asian nation to reach Mars orbit, and the first nation to do so on its first attempt.. On 18 November 2008, the Moon Impact probe was released from Chandrayaan-1 at a height of 100 km (62 mi). During its 25 minute decent, Chandra's Altitudinal Composition Explorer (CHACE) recorded evidence of water in 650 mass spectra readings gathered during this time. On 24 September 2009 Science journal reported that the Chandrayaan-1 had detected water ice on the Moon. References

hey_pal talk 19:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

That level of detail would be undue in this article. Perhaps the effort would be better spent reorganizing and expanding the Science and technology in India article, although even on that page Chandrayaan and Mangalyaan together will merit perhaps a sentence. Abecedare (talk) 03:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

True. I think infrastructure should be instilled and it is proposed that it can be like 1. Infrastructure 1.1 Transportation 1.2 Science and technology. and a few lines can then be put in under Sc and Tech then. Thanks for making the above proposed a more formatted and better text. hey_pal talk 15:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Society

I want to add a few lines, kindly provide your valuable comments, Gandhi said "Hindu and Muslim are two eyes of India". A movie namaste london fairly describes the culture where the actor says, "He mentions the time when a Catholic women (Sonia Gandhi) steps aside for a Sikh (Manmohan Singh) to be sworn in as a Prime minister by a Muslim (APJ Abdul Kalam) President of a country which has an 80% population of Hindus."  Gandhi, the father of the nation said, "I am a Muslim, and a Hindu, and a Christian, and a Jew, and so are all of you." Back in 2006, when President George W.Bush introduced his wife Laura to the then Indian Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh. He said and I quote , ” This is the Prime Minister of the most diversified and the world’s largest secular democracy”. The world is aware of the diverse and secular nature of Republic of India. The world secularism means people from different religion, caste and race habitat with mutual understanding and respect for each other. India is the biggest example of secularism. People live each other in peace and share and respect each other’s religious beliefs. It is this country where you will find a Hindu going to Ajmer Sharif, a Muslim celebrating Diwali and people of different religion celebrating Christmas with their Christian brothers and sisters. The people of India have learnt about tolerance and respecting each other. In 2001, President George W. Bush called him to his ranch in Texas and said: “Bob, imagine: India, a billion people, a democracy, 150 million Muslims and no Al Qaeda. Wow!”

I know it has no formal essence but look at the nitty-gritty. Its no issue even if it is rejected, but can we add something like this because its reality. I want a few selected lines to be posted on page, please help me for that, it its no issue if consensus comes out for none. hey_pal talk 06:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

References

How important are publicly available government facts to make wiki better

Should we refer news agency reports rather than publicly available government reports to make the article robust? If not, should I write to wiki authority to change below Template:Sfn (can be searched on link below provided by wiki) as it tells about citing government report.

References Important Book. Big Government Institution. 1996.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Sfn

--hey_pal 08:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Friend.hey (talk • contribs)

@Friend.hey: The above question may be better directed to the Reliable sources noticeboard or the India project noticeboard since it does not appear to be specific or restricted to the India article per se. As an aside, the query was not exactly clear to me (is it about a question about referencing style or source quality ?) So if you do repost it, try rewording it and adding examples of what type of sources you are talking about exactly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abecedare (talk • contribs)

Kindly refer to the "GHI" section below, I am sure that after looking into it thoroughly and the remarks by which my data was deleted will give you enough substance you are asking for. Thanks for your comment. (I believe the figures are most authentic of that of publicly available Govt reports and even for optimistic analysis, however for the criticism, secondary sources can be relied upon). True I want to paste it on more general wiki forum.hey_pal talk 06:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Why no Devanagari name ?

Why is the country name in Hindi in Latin? It should be "भारत गणराज्य". Any valid reason? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.56.211.206 (talk) 00:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

See question 1 in /FAQ. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Hm, I see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.56.211.206 (talk) 12:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Human3015 (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)demonym

Human3015 (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC) We have to see that, in article Taiwan two demonyms have written Taiwanese and Chinese, though entire world and English newspapers recognizes them as Taiwanese, their Chinese demonym is disputed and no one uses it still its there in article. Atleast demonym Bharatiya is not disputed, its widely used. Human3015 (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

No, the demonym Bharatiya is not widely used. And can you please stop creating new sections with every post? Thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Human3015 wikipedia is racist, so drop it. India is not going to stop developing fastest in the world because of wiki. 14.139.229.43 (talk) 08:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

National language of India

NATIONAL LANGUAGE OF INDIA IS HINDI BUT WIKIPEDIA IS SHOWING NONE. IT IS WRONG. PLEASE AMEND THIS — Preceding unsigned comment added by MYMAILS (talk • contribs) 14:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Please provide a source (and take a look at the FAQ above). --regentspark (comment) 14:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

In the constitution, Hindi is declared as an official language and not a national language.hey_pal (Friend.hey)(talk) 12:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2015

i am requesting to change the india's national game. it should be hockey. Prithvi Prakhar 1245678 (talk) 07:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I confess that I don't know the meaning of "national game" or "national sport" (even after reading the article national sport); but I do notice and more or less understand this. If it's wrong, please say how it's wrong. -- Hoary (talk) 07:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done: Also see the ref currently supporting Not declared: "In RTI reply, Centre says India has no national game". Retrieved 4 August 2012. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

demonym

India has two official names, 'India that is Bharat'. one can use both names in any language as both are constitutional names and English version on constitution also refers 'India' as 'Bharat'. so along with 'Indian' demonym should be 'Bharatiya' too. In all Indian languages 'Indian' is called as 'Bharatiya', because its constitutional name. If you call it as non-English then why you wrote 'Bharat Ganarajya' in column of name of country?Human3015 (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The Indian constitution does not specify any demonym, and in any case the question is not what is prescribed/allowed by any official body, but rather what is common usage in English. And as far as that question is concerned, "Indian" is indeed the most commonly used demonym, with Bhartiya used mainly as part of names of organizations (as in Bharatiya Janata Party) and terms transliterated into English. FWIW, note that the article भारत on Hindi wikipedia correctly lists भारतीय as the only demonym, since इंडियन is not commonly used in Hindi. Abecedare (talk) 20:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

as it is said that 'Bhartiya' word used mainly in names of organizations which is absolutely false, then one can say that 'Indian' is used mainly in names of organizations like Indian National Congress, if one can see ground reality, no one in India calls himself or herself as 'Indian' rather they call themself as 'Bharatiya' because most of 'Indians' don't use English in daily speaking. My main point is that, non-Indian readers who don't know hindi language will not read hindi article on 'India' then how they will get to know that demonym 'Bharatiya' is most widely used within India? atleast one should mention it in text. As hindi article on 'India' mentioned demonym as 'Bharatiya' so there should not be any doubt that 'Bharatiya' is not demonym of India, in Indian constitution name 'Bharat' in first article is not written in devanagari script, its a English word.Human3015 (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I have never seen Bhartiya used in place of "Indian" in English-language published sources (and that includes general Indian newspapers). Please remember we use worldwide English-language sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

as many people here saying that they never read word 'Bharatiya' in any english news paper, then why they wrote 'Bharat' in column of 'name of country'? which English news paper use name 'Bharat' for India? or does people call India as 'Bharat' in 'world of English'? no one out of India knows word 'Bharat' so it should not be in column of 'name of country'.Human3015 (talk) 22:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Human3015 is right. We should remove Bharat Ganarajya from the lead and infobox because it isn't much used in English. Also, I don't see a good source for that name in the first place and we shouldn't be using poorly sourced material in a featured article. --regentspark (comment) 22:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: Regarding the infobox, isn't it like France or Indonesia? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Not sure. I'm just concerned that the term is unsourced. An offline Dunlop illustrated encyclopedia from 1973 as a source doesn't exactly inspire confidence.--regentspark (comment) 22:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I think we should have the name "Bharat" in the lede sentence, since that is indeed one of the two formal name of the country per the constitution. But I too don't see any reason to have Bharat Ganarajya.

Btw, what is the case for calling "Republic of India" the official name of the country? Article 1 of the constition says that "1. Name and territory of the Union. (1) India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States." I know that the term Republic of India is often used, especially to disambiguate the nation from the political/geographical/cultural entity that pre-existed... but what makes that name "official"? Abecedare (talk) 22:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Abecedare If you look at Indian passport it mentions the name as "Republic of Indian" in Latin script and "Bharat Ganarajya" in Devanagari script. IMO Republic of India is the name of the political entity. -sarvajna (talk) 23:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

True. Also it turns out I had raised the issue back in 2007(!) and while it is still not clear what exactly makes the name official, there is enough evidence that Republic of India is used as a formal/official designation for the country. So lets set that issue aside.

So the remaining question is whether to mention Bharat and/or Bharat Ganarajya in the lede sentence. IMO we should mention the former and drop the latter. Abecedare (talk) 00:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

That, I think, is the way to go. I seem to recall some discussion on this and that we used Republic of India partly to distinguish it from the various Indias of the past (the entity discussed in History of India, for example). But that logic doesn't need to apply to Bharat. (Though, now that I think of it, there was some discussion on not using Bharat as well. I don't have the time to search the archives and f&f is mia, ....) --regentspark (comment) 17:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The issue is already contentious riddling before the highest authorities. Here is an important and latest link of how The H'ble Supreme Court interprets that. But I want to add that since it is constitutional Article 1, the exact line can be followed to satisfy the myriad of voices acco to my personal opinion. "India, that is Bharat" is verbatim. http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/supreme-court-declines-plea-for-renaming-india-as-bharat-delhi/1/400027.html hey_pal (Friend.hey)(talk) 12:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

References

Agreed "indian republic " means "Bharatiya Ganrajya", "Bharat Ganrajya" means "India republic". No knowledge of Hindi doesnt mean you can modify it the way you want. Lets write French rpublic as "Republica Franco"... Racists. Mousanonyy (talk) 20:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The Heart Of India

Madhya Pradesh, the largest state of India, due to its location in central India is nicknamed the "Heart of India". Rimjhimgolf (talk) 14:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks it is already mentioned at Madhya Pradesh. MilborneOne (talk) 17:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

"[Whereas Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Christianity, and Islam arrived in the 1st millennium CE"

Not correct as to Jews. The substantial population of Christians in Kerala were Jewish before St. Thomas the Apostle arrived in 52 AD and had been there from Palestine for many centuries. The article fails to note adequately that Keralites like sophisticated middle class people throughout the developed world get on just fine today regardless of their reigion, that has been so for a great long timeMasalai (talk) 08:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Tourism

Having historic places like New Delhi, Goa, and hundreds of placs of a variety- mountains, beaches , ancient caves, Taj Mahal, Kashmir (heaven on earth) and what not- India has a growing tourism industry and currently stands at 10th spot in Asia. (Gujrat is about to have the world's tallest statue; India has many projects coming up which will further add to modern tourist sites). It's strange that this page has no mention of tourism. I would like to add a section. Votes? Mousanonyy (talk) 20:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

There is a Tourism in India, mentioned in India#Economy. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I said, I would like to add a ""section"" , reciprocating to the significance of the topic. Votes?? Mousanonyy (talk) 15:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good idea. Tourism, except for the hard economic facts, is not well sourced. Best to leave it in the sub article.--regentspark (comment) 16:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

You mean no on has roofs or sources enough to know Taj Mahal, Red fort, Agra fort, Qutub Minar, AjantaAlora caves, Kashmir exist? Or we don't have prrof enough that people visit there and in how many numbers? Mousanonyy (talk) 10:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2015

The Aryan invasion theory is proved wrong. So technically all the people in India are indigenous to India.. The ancient Varna system according to the Vedas is different from the present day caste system. The caste system is as a result of misuse and misinterpretation of the scriptures which in a long run during the Medieval period, that led to a class based social system in India. 130.126.255.133 (talk) 06:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

References

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. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 14:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Also worth noting:

• Stephen Knapp's blog/books are not a reliable source.
• The Oxford Handbook of Global Religions reference you cite does not the support the proposed sentence it is attached to; in fact the chapter being cited is on Jainism and the page 54 briefly discuss caste-system in Jainism, w/o making the claim the IP the IP is using it to support (for the record, there are other problems with the proposed formulation too).

Abecedare (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2015

Please Change

Most historians also consider this period to have encompassed several waves of Indo-Aryan migration into the subcontinent.[29][27] The caste system arose during this period, which created 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.[30][31]

to

The Aryan invasion theory is proved wrong.So technically all people in India are indigenous to India. The ancient Varna system which was specified in Vedas, is way different from the present day caste system. The caste system, is as a result of misinterpretation of the scriptures which in a long run during the medieval age, led to a class based social system in India.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varna_%28Hinduism%29#cite_note-Sharma1990-7 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varna_%28Hinduism%29#cite_note-4 130.126.255.133 (talk) 07:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

 Not done No specific change proposed. Stephen Knapp is not a reliable source. Also see Indo-Aryan migration theory, which has largely superseded the earlier Aryan Invasion Theory (that you, though not the India article, mention). Abecedare (talk) 16:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

References

Hindi (Devnagri) important

2 changes => 1. Bharat Ganrajya be replaced by or added to the Devnagri form-भारत गणराज्य. 2. Hindi be mentioned as official language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mousanonyy (talk • contribs) 08:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC) ( I think the Devnagri needs a mention in the article and the "Bharat Ganrajya"(Hindi translation of Republic of India) should be written in Hindi too-

My passport and one of India's leading yearbook (Manorama yearbook 2015 edition)-

India's official language Hindi predominates the Indian passport, irrespective of the passport holder's religion and language.

File:Book.jpeg

Manorama yearbook 2015

Knock knock. Replies needed. Mousanonyy (talk) 22:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The article already clearly states the status of Hindi. See the infobox and the demographics section. --regentspark (comment) 11:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

WHy does it seem so difficult for me to believe that you mistakingly missed the whole first point? THanks for clarifying on the second point. Mousanonyy (talk) 07:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

@Mousanonyy: See WP:INDICSCRIPT and previous discussions on this talk-page about the issue. Note that no one is disputing that the union Government uses English and Hindi for its official purposes, including on passports etc (see the relevant constitutional provisions and Official language act). The question always has been that given the linguistic diversity of India; the complicated issue of languages with "official" status especially the scheduled languages; deliberate lack of a national language etc, which languages and scripts should be added to the lede/infobox of which India-related articles. The current consensus, arrived at after much dispute and edit-warring over the issue, is to exclude all non-Latin/non-IPA scripts especially since an interested reader can access the language-specific wiki-article from the left sidebar.

As a side note: the images you have linked above are copyvios, and need to be deleted. Hope you understand that this is not an attempt to suppress the evidence, since no one is even disputing what they show. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2015

Gaurang garial (talk) 15:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC) INDIA's National Game is Hockey.

 Not done See here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2015

"Under 12% of India's landmass bears thick jungle." = "India's landmass is less than 12% thick jungle." 66.74.176.59 (talk) 09:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Done Mlpearc (open channel) 17:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Official Name: Semi-protected edit request: Apr 4, 2015

Official records so far do not have any support on the fact that Republic of India is the official name of the country. The Constitution however, provides that the Central Government may be sued by the name of Union of India. Also, Article 1 of the Constitution of India uses the term Bharat as synonymous of India.

I propose to edit the first list of the article from India (/ˈɪndiə/), officially the Republic of India (Bhārat Gaṇarājya), is a country in South Asia. to India (/ˈɪndiə/), or Bharat officially known as Union of India is a country in South Asia.

We may retain the information on Republic of India as well. Samitus mallicus 15:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

References

Not done: The first source youve linked dosent state what the name is and the second isnt considered a reliable source. If you can finda reliable source that confirms the name then it may be possible to change it. Amortias (T)(C) 11:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

How about this:, in lieu of Reference 2 above. Also, Reference 1 says that there is no official name of the country — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samitus mallicus (talk • contribs) 10:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I think you should use the english timeline. i.e. BC and AC not BCE and CE.

With all due respect to the indian culture and religion, in the ENGLISH version of the WP, it should be AD not CE and BC not BCE.

With Regards. .... added at 23:41, 12 April 2015‎ by 82.11.66.190

Please see this. Incidentally, "AD" is Latin. -- Hoary (talk) 23:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

why delete child in Kurta pic

Why picture posted by me to India page in front of clothing was deleted ,as all know kurta is India traditional dress and that child was wearing thatAmit.pratap1988 (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm neutral as to whether the pic can be included or not but feel that it does merit discussion before being put. I see that there is place for it and text won't get sandwiched. If no one objects within a few days, @Amit.pratap1988: you can put it (see WP:SILENCE). Sincerely, Joel. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

An image in the clothing section would be fine with me, but File:A_indian_child_in_kurta.jpg is not a good candidate because (1) it is low resolution/quality (we should ideally aim for a featred picture or something at least close, given the number of options, and few available slots on the page); (2) it doesn't depict the subject (ie kurta) very well, not giving the viewer an idea of its length, sleeves etc, and what it is worn with; and (3) we should be wary of using images of non-public individuals in which they are recognizable, on the page. Abecedare (talk) 11:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:India/FAQ should be WP:India/FAQ

Please see this thread to comment. Thanks! Wnt (talk) 12:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

National Game Updatation

I think that the National Game of India is Hockey and it should be updated on the page... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.124.74.122 (talk) 07:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

See: In RTI reply, Centre says India has no national game. Abecedare (talk) 09:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Nepal earth quake Maybe due to large amount of chinese fracking, Fracking is 100 percent prove to cause earth quakes and tremmers.

Does anyone know if wiki has a page on Chinese fracking? I hear that the nepal earth quake maybe a result of this massive fracking prossess of china, if enough information can be gathered can we make a page on The damage resul;ts left by fracking in asia?92.236.96.38 (talk) 18:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Hinting information

This is not really the Talk page for this discussion. Try the Talk pages for Hydraulic fracturing, Hydraulic fracturing by country, or List of countries by recoverable shale gas. I doubt that you'll get much affirmation, though. China hasn't been fracking all that long, fracking hasn't been shown to cause massive quakes, and Nepal is in a seismically active region of the world. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2015

Johnnyjohn979 (talk) 10:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC) sir i'm a student in delhi in this page it is showing capital as new delhi and largest city as mumbai please change largest city as new delhi it is the most populated city, most populated urban agglomeration, most populous by city proper,most populous metropolitan area as per as current population 2015 many research articles are showing new delhi as the second most populous city in the world after tokyo

even in terms of land area also new delhi is the largest city of india so i'd be very happy if you incorporate these changes with regards

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 10:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2015

sir i'm a student in delhi in this page it is showing capital as new delhi and largest city as mumbai please change largest city as new delhi it is the most populated city, most populated urban agglomeration, most populous by city proper,most populous metropolitan area as per as current population 2015 many research articles are showing new delhi as the second most populous city in the world after tokyo

even in terms of land area also new delhi is the largest city of india so i'd be very happy if you incorporate these changes with regards Johnnyjohn979 (talk) 11:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC) please change "largest city Mumbai→New Delhi"

 Not done Please provide reliable sources for you claim. And please don't make this request again without reliable sources. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, even given UN source of 2014 says that Delhi is most populous city in the world after Tokyo. read here at UN website. UN says Delhi has 25 million population, while Mumbai has 21 million population. We can't discard this user just because he is talking politely, wikipedia has no place for polite users, we need to be aggressive to make a change, either its in society or in wikipedia. --Human3015 11:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Reference: http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/news/population/world-urbanization-prospects-2014.html

Tourism in India

I think there is need of separate small section of Tourism in India. Many countries have that section in their article (like Pakistan). India is a vast nation and has very much diversity in climate, has various natural sites like from Deserts, Hills, Valleys, Rivers, Sea to forests. Also rich history of various religions left vast number of historic monuments. So it deserves atleast small section on Tourism. There is separate article on Tourism in India, we can link this article to that Tourism section. Currently this article is linked in economy section. Thank you. --Human3015 05:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I think no one has problem with creation of new small section of "Tourism in India", thats why no one is objecting here even after I waited for 48 hours. This page has more than 3000 watchers and thousands of daily readers but no one objected my idea of new section. So I will create new small section on Tourism, don't revert it if you didn't took part here in discussion. Thank you. --Human3015 11:05, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: Posting here doesn't mean you have "the license" to add that just because no one has said anything in 48 hours. Silence is the lowest form of consensus and you still can be reverted later because of such a bold change. Everyone is a volunteer here and not expected to reply for each and everything. This talk page is watched by everyone, but just look at the number of unanswered posts here, not all attract replies. Search the talk archives above, I believe there are discussions regarding this. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, you are talking like Wikipedia gave you "the license" of reverting everything, anyway, no one owns the article, and everybody is free to make changes according to reliable sources. Thanks again. Cheers. --Human3015 12:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

As Ugog said above, if you search the talk page archive you'll see that this has been discussed several times previously and the current consensus is that such a section is undue. If you wish to argue otherwise feel free to make your case and establish new consensus for a section. And having "reliable sources" is a necessary condition for including content; not a sufficient one. There is ample content on India that can be properly sourced, but which belongs in the petinent sub-article and not here. Abecedare (talk) 12:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, Thanks both of you, I have read old discussions. Human3015 13:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Largest Indian City

In the article's right, it says that Mumbai is the largest (i.e. most populated) city in India. But that is outdated information from the 2011 census. According the 2013-2014 census, Delhi is India's largest city and the world's second largest city (the third is Mumbai). This is an edit request. Thanks.

15:52 UTC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tejas Subramaniam (talk • contribs) 15:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

References

The Census data alone is considered authoritative about population data. Last census was conducted in 2011, and next will be in 2021, there is no census in 2013-14. The reference provided does not cite a source, also, sometimes population of Delhi's satellite towns (Gurgaon, Noida, Faridabad, Ghaziabad) is counted in Delhi's population, the source does not clarify if that is the case.User:Samitus mallicus

Accepted, but the satellite town population was not considered by the reference I cited.

--Tejas Subramaniam (talk) 11:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Saraswati river settlements

I have removed the sentence

"Based on the Indian Remote Sensing Satellite data it was observed that the major Indus Valley Civilization sites of Kalibangan (Rajasthan), Banawali and Rakhigarhi (Haryana), Dholavira and Lothal (Gujarat) flourished along the ancient Sarasvati River."

that was recently added to the article and sourced to a Lok Sabha Q&A because:

• it is poorly sourced; the Lok Sabha Q&A may be ok as a source of GoI position, but is not a WP:HISTRS source, which is what we should be using in this article. However sourcing is not my major concern, since we can certainly find good sources verifying that IVC settlements existed along the Ghaggar-Hakra River/Saraswati River.
• More importantly the sentence is simply undue in this high level survey in which we summarize ~30,000 years of ancient Indian history in a paragraph and the whole of IVC history in two sentences. Even if we were to add an additional sentence to the IVC history, it would not be one that simply dropped in the names of a few IVC sites (two of which are already named in the immediately preceding sentence!) without adding any material info.

Abecedare (talk) 20:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: beat me to the removal this time, but the rest of my above statement stands. Abecedare (talk) 20:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, my take is that the students are back for summer holidays. So, expect this torrent of this poorly-sourced undue edits to continue. But sometimes they make a good point even if it is done badly. This was one of those. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 20:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Yup, no problem with mentioning Sarasvati river per se. IIRC Upinder Singh even discusses whether the IVC/Harappan Civilization is "correctly" named, or if those names simply reflect the early finds (to be clear, not proposing discussing any of that here and, correct or not, those names are commonly used even in scholarly literature). Abecedare (talk) 20:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Yup again. If you check our favourite editor's edit history, you will notice that he has created 10 aliases for the IVC, covering his bases in every possible way! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit proposal in the Ancient India, second paragraph, to add few essentially necessary words to the existing sentence regarding Indo-Aryan Migration

After a long discussion with various editors @ Kautilya3 , Joshua Jonathan , Abecedare , etc., If anyone interested to have an overview of this detailed discussion can have a look at it @User talk:Kautilya3 under the title "Sarswati & myth-making". So, my proposal for edit is

In Ancient India section, second paragraph,

Old text

Most historians also consider this period to have encompassed several waves of Indo-Aryan migration into the subcontinent

Proposed minor edit

Most historians also consider this period to have encompassed several waves of Indo-Aryan migration into the sub-continent, thought the present archaeological evidence doesn't testify it.

or something that suits appropriate in mentioning the archaeological stand on Indo-Aryan migration.

My explanation:

The Indo-Aryan Migration is a theory based on linguist approach. The assumptions and theories regarding it change again and again based on the constantly adding up of new archaeological excavations. They will again change in the very near future based on the information that will be made available from the recent large scale excavations of IVC sites that came to light in the Hishar district, Haryana state, India. So, my point is that the assumptions of this theory changes again and again. So, it is essentially necessary to at least mention the archaeological stand regarding this theory. Or else it may mislead people reading the article to think that what is mentioned is true and there are no issues regarding it .

I'm asking for the addition of a few essentially necessary words. The edit proposal I made will not contradict with the previously mentioned information, buts adds some more genuinely necessary information to it.

So, I request all of you to keep your views on this issue.

Thank you. --BodduLokesh (talk) 15:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

You should definitely look at this recent RfC Talk:Indigenous Aryans#RfC: the "Indigenous Aryans" theory is fringe-theory before suggesting changes to the Indo-Aryan migration issues. Historical linguistics decides which language originated from which. That never changes on the basis of anything that happens in archaeology. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 15:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Also worth looking at is this draft article User:Kautilya3/sandbox/Indigenous Indo-Aryans and the Rigveda. It is not yet complete. But the sections that exist (mainly from archaeologists) are already a pretty devastating critique of the indigenous Aryanism. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 16:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The meaning of Vande Mataram needs to be changed in accordance with the Vande Mataram wiki

The literal meaning of 'Vande Mataram' is 'I praise thee, Mother'.

Vande literally means 'I praise/I salute/I worship'. 'I bow', although could pass in spirit, is incorrect.

The wiki for Vande Mataram is accurate in this matter.

I am citing one of the most online sanskrit dictionaries for this.

Vedic Society. "Sanskrit Dictionary". http://www.sanskritdictionary.com/. Vedic Socitey. Retrieved 17 February 2015. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Akashputhraya (talk • contribs) 04:02, 17 February 2015‎

• Time stamping for the bot. —SpacemanSpiff 14:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2015

Please Change below Languages option as "Hindi" in [National language] option

languages_type = National language |languages = None

120.59.83.199 (talk) 07:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

 Not done It already says "National Language - None" Hindi is the Official language as explained in the drop-down box, in the body of the article and in FAQ Q9 at the top of this page - Arjayay (talk) 07:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Etymology - Āryāvarta

Āryāvarta(abode of the Aryans) is the name for India in classical Sanskrit literature.Arayavarta is the name of India that is mentioned in every book related to Sanskrit ,Hinduism & the ancient history of India .The name Āryāvarta become irrelevant only after the complete death of Hinduism and Sanskrit language in India.Even now nearly a billion hindus of this country while going through basic Hindu scriptures see and use these term on a daily basis.Every Puranas mention about Āryāvarta. As pointed out by Joshua Jonathan that Āryāvarta is only used to denote North India is the opinion of a very few historians.Hindu texts like Puranas ,Epics like Mahabharata and Ramayana explicitly notes that Arayavrata is the area between Rameswaram in South to Kailash in North and to Gandhar (present Kandahara in Afganistan) in West to Tripura ( an eastern state of India) in East.They denotes Arayavrata as a place where "Aryas" live.Here the term Arya is meant to denote people who are "noble",only to indicate the character not as a "race " of people as postulated like few historians(eg- Max Muller).Even before the age of Max Muller, the epic Mahabharata specifically explains all about it.Also an another important text called "PARASURAMA KALPA SUTRA" the back bone of all Tantric related works & also used for the construction of temple,the ultimate authority in regarding to temple ,social life of people living in the Indian subcontinent explains a lot about Āryāvarta. Āryāvarta term is based upon the noble character and the life style people followed in the subcontinent.It is not restricted to North India because Hinduism was and is present entirely in the Subcontinent .Again in modern era Former Indian prime minister and historian Jewaharlal Nehru in his book "The Discovry of India" and S. Radhakrishnan in his book Eastern Religions and Western Thoughts talk about it.

• Eastern Religions and Western Thoughts by S. Radhakrishnan, Oxford University Press; 2014 edition (December 31, 2007) ISBN 978-0195624564

• The Discovery of India by Jawaharlal Nehru Publishers: Oxford University Press ISBN No: 0 19 562359 2

Arjunkrishna90 (talk) 08:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

@Arjunkrishna90: Thanks for starting this discussion but you thesis above that Aryavarta referred to the whole of India etc. is not even supported by the very sources you cited in your edit (if you think otherweise, feel free to cite the relevant extracts). And in any case this article is primarily focused on Republic of India and "aryavarta" has no etymological link with any common contemporary name of the country. Abecedare (talk) 08:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Arjunkrishna90, You are right in some extend. But this is a featured article, we should use terms which are most common. "India" and "Bharat" are official names, "Hindustan" is still most commonly used though it is not official name. If you see any official statement by Government of Pakistan in their official language Urdu regarding India, they still call India as "Hindustan". "Hindustan" is included for being used most commonly. That is not case with "Aryavart". It is no where used now a days. Still their is a page linked in same section Names of India, that page do have section named "Aryavart" which is unsourced. You can improve that section with these sources. People who are interested in "names of India" will surely click on article Names of India and will read your edits. --Human3015 Say Hey!! • 08:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

@Abecedare:,As regarding the source,please go through the book Eastern Religions By Michael David Coogan,Oxford University Press,2005,ISBN-10 : 0195221915 Page 70-71. From the book and i quote The idea of India as a sacred land began around the beginning of the Common Era.Manu,the author of a book on 'dharma' and right behaviour,defined a region south of the Himalayas and between eastern and western oceans as the holy Aryavarta (Country of the Noble Ones) .

Human3015 Your point duly noted but i would like to point that all books related Hinduism, mainly epics calls this nation as either Bharatha or Aryavarta.There is nobody calling the name India or Hindustan in the Sanskrit literature or in the history of this nation.The name India is put forwarded by British and it came up nearly 200 years ago!!!.Nearly 80% of the population of the country knows this and still uses the term Aryavarta in a daily basis knowingly or unknowingly.If we ask anyone living in India and ask what is Aryavarta they will surely say its the name of this country.No other country in the world have this name.For the argument that its not widely used, its massively used in written language especially in Hindi and Sanskrit.The Indian speaking population of the country or the westerners may not be aware of it but in everyday life these words are widely used.In every temples ,every place where Hinduism related activities are going on Aryavarta is widely used.If somebody says the name Aryavarta is not used in this country anymore i would politely point out that everyday in every temple in India while using for rituals or religious related activities they use the word Bharatha or Arayavarta, NOT EVEN THE NAMES LIKE INDIA OR HINDUSTAN.

If anyone want to add additional links please add Eastern Religions By Michael David Coogan,Oxford University Press,2005,ISBN-10 : 0195221915 Page 70-71Arjunkrishna90 (talk) 11:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

"Every book"? That's a bold claim. And "North India is the opinion of a very few historians"? That's also a bold claim. Aryvarta denotes a limited area within northern India:

• Michael Cook (2014), Ancient Religions, Modern Politics: The Islamic Case in Comparative Perspective, Princeton University Press, p.68: "Aryavarta [...] is defined by Manu as extending from the Himalayas in the north to the Vindhyas of Central India in the south and from the sea in th west to the sea in the east."
• Jason Neelis (2010), Early Buddhist Transmission and Trade Networks: Mobility and Exchange Within and Beyond the Northwestern Borderlands of South Asia, BRILL, p.194: "Aryvarta begins east of where the Sarsavati disappears, effectively excluding the Punjab, the Indus river valley, and the northwestern borderlands."

So, both credible scholars and classical sources agree that Aryavarta refers to a restricted area within northern India. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan:Yes "Every book" related to Hinduism and the history of Indian subcontinent calls this nation as Aryavarta & / Bharath.I can easily gave you 18 Puranas and 18 Upa Puranas and 2 Epics that calls this nation as Aryavarta.They dont call this country as India!!!.You can throw many books published by Princeton University Press or Oxford Univ Press claiming it as WP:HISTRS,but every citizen of this country knows that this nation is also called Aryavarta and daily basis used all around in the country and temple culture.In 1949, the Constituent Assembly had debated the possible name of the newly independent country. Names suggested during the debate had ranged from Bharat, Hindustan,Bharatvarsha and Aryavrat. If anyone says that the name "Bharatvarsha" is also not widely used in the country in a daily basis then they have absolutely no knowledge about this nation and its culture.I will also say that in the Etymology if somebody argues that "Bharatvarsha" is the other name of this country and is widely used ,they are absolutely true.Bcoz in daily basis the common man of this nation use Bharatvarsha and Aryavarta widely!!!Arjunkrishna90 (talk) 11:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Arjunkrishna90, I accept that "Aryavarta" is ancient name of India mentioned in some scriptures. But in those times that name was mainly came after Aryan race suggesting that this is "land of our race". As Joshua Jonathan saying that "Aryavart" means only north India, his statement has point because even today we see people of Dravidian race in south India so in technical terms South India is not "land of Aryans" or "Aryavart". Translating "Aryavart" as "Land of Nobles" is just POV of that writer which indirectly signify that all "non-Aryans" are "not noble". And Indians are "Aryans" or not is questionable. You can read this "India Today" article Indians are not descendants of Aryans, says new study. So we can't keep such questionable or biased things in featured article. I suggested you to improve Names of India, it can be part of that article.--Human3015 Say Hey!! • 12:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Human3015 If thats the case then i would like to point out another discussion in the Talk page, above section Edit proposal in the Ancient India, second paragraph, to add few essentially necessary words to the existing sentence regarding Indo-Aryan Migration.In the article,on History section - Ancient India : says Most historians also consider this period to have encompassed several waves of Indo-Aryan migration into the subcontinent.[28][26] .As per user BodduLokesh it is right to to add Most historians also consider this period to have encompassed several waves of Indo-Aryan migration into the sub-continent, though the present archaeological evidence doesn't testify it. We are debating on a Hypothesis about Aryan Invasion.Nobody is sure.There are many counter opinions on Aryan Invasion theory.Why dont we add it the article.As per the words of BodduLokesh and i quote else it may mislead people reading the article to think that what is mentioned is true and there are no issues regarding it .As i went through the Talk:Indigenous Aryans#RfC: the "Indigenous Aryans" theory is fringe-theory and User:Kautilya3/sandbox/Indigenous Indo-Aryans and the Rigveda i dont find any consensus regarding this matter.At the same time serious mistakes are still in the article itself!Arjunkrishna90 (talk) 12:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah, here we are again, at the Aryan migration! Well, the Aryan culture didn't enter India by boat via southern India, did it? Actually, there's a clear concensus that the Indo-European languages entered India from outside, via north-western India. It's also clear that those "Aryans," whoever they may have been, did not comprise large groups, and left only a little imprint on india's genetical make-up. But this imprint was not nihil! The likely scenario is that the Aryan culture offered a very attractive economical alternative to the dwindling agrarical culture of the Indus Valley civilisation, and that members of that culture joined the Aryans and their pastoral culture.

Anyway, it's clear that "Aryavarta" refers to a limited part of northern India, the part where the later Vedic culture flourished. Calling the whole of India "Aryavarta" is historically incorrect. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

NB: Sharma, in his IndiaToday article, doesn't understand what he's writing about. "Aryan invasion" is indeed a myth, perpetuated by ill-informed Indians. "Aryan migration" is a well-established scientific theory. The really interesting fact from those recent genetic studies is that between 2,000 BCE and 200 CE a dramatic mixture of ancestral north Indians and ancestral south Indians took place. After 200 CE, Indian society got fixated in the caste-system - that is, economic stratification. Why's that? think about it, and consider the simple coincidence of the breakdown of the IVC, due to drought, and the start of this genetic mixture. Consider also the socalled second urbanisation, around 500 BCE. What happened in ndia in those 2,200 years? The oldest archaeological artefacts in India may be millennia-old, but India as we know it today emerged no earlier (but also no later!) than around the 2,500 BCE - 200 CE, no matter what the puranas say - which emerged exactly in that period! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Dear Arjun, three points:

• As per Wikipedia consensus, the Indigenous Aryans theories are fringe theories. You haven't said anything so far to challenge that consensus. (If you want to do so, you need to produce high-quality, reliable sources, such as papers in leading international journals, not your own opinions.)
• My draft page on Indigenous Indo-Aryans and Rigveda has a talk page. If you want to make any comments on it, please do so there. The only way you can identify any "mistakes" in it is for you to read the journal papers in question and challenge my summaries of them for accuracy.
• As for the Aryavarta terminology, I have read all the Puranas myself and it is my opinion that it was a term used to vaguely describe the lands of civilized people, excluding the forest-dwellers surrounding them. As the Aryan culture spread, the so-called "Aryavarta" expanded, but it never encompassed South India. The geographical term for India has always been Bharat Varsha. I suggest that you wp:drop the stick because the consensus is against you. No matter how strongly believe in your ideas, you can't put them all into Wikipedia.

Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 13:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah, there you are! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Arjun, and to (perhaps unnecessarily) add to what Joshua, Kautilya and Human have already said, here are two books that you cited for your edit and to support your thesis on the talk page,:

• Sanskrit & Prakrit, Sociolinguistic Issues by Madhav Deshpande: Quoting Manusmriti 2.21-22 "The tract between those two mountains [Himalayas and the Vindhyas] which extends as far as the eastern and the western oceans, the wise call Aryavarta" See also map in book on page 98.
• Discovery of India by Jawaharlal Nehru An earlier name was Aryavarta, the land of Aryans, but this was confined to Northern India up to the Vindhya mountains in Central India.

Abecedare (talk) 16:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2015

plz allow me to edit this document 49.249.55.244 (talk) 17:34, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Please indicate what you would like changed/added/deleted from the article and someone will do it for you. If you would like to edit it directly, you can create an account. --regentspark (comment) 17:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mr.IP, no one here is boss to allow or disallow you to edit this article, you just create an account as said above and learn some basics about how to do proper editing from reliable sources, then you can edit any page.--Human3015 Say Hey!! • 18:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Economy

Someone should revert India's economy figures back to 2014 GDP figures. We are still in 2015 so any 2015 figure are projections 128.233.13.205 (talk) 22:15, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

To the above: The current figures are April 2015 figures released by IMF. We should keep them rather than going to 2014.

In addition, I think we should add a couple of sentences about the economic history of India:

India is estimated to have had the largest economy of the ancient and medieval world between until 17th century AD, controlling between one third and one fourth of the world's wealth up to the time of Maratha Empire, from whence it rapidly declined during European colonization. According to economic historian Angus Maddison in his book The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective, India was the richest country in the world and had the world's largest economy until the 17th century AD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.228.119.92 (talk) 21:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Indian Colonization of Asia

There should be a section on Indian colonies as Chola and Majapahit, etc Why no section on Indian Colonization of Asia

Is this wikipedia biased towards europeans who migrated out of india ?????? see Out of India theory

thank you, Jay

"Europeans who migrated out of India"? Nice one! Why should there by a section on "Indian colonies"? - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Indigenous Aryans might be what you are looking for. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Most of the civilizations in south east Asia were influenced by Indian Kingdoms and can be considered indian colonies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.49.157.227 (talk) 22:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this discussion is of no practical significance. We need reliable sources for anything on Wikipedia and I don't see any listed here. --regentspark (comment) 23:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Infobox

Can the British Raj period be added to the infobox under Independence? Egypt includes the Unification of Upper and Lower Egypt c. 3150 BC and China has the First Unification of China under the Qin Dynasty 221 BCE. I hardly think that these are related to the modern day Arab Republic of Egypt and People's Republic of China but we realize that articles on countries are not only about the modern day countries. Is the article on Russia only about the modern day Russian Federation? Clearly not.

Some say that India as a political/legal entity simply did not exist before 1947. This is clearly wrong. Note, the crown colony of India (not really a colony) comprised of British India and the Indian states. British India was under direct British rule while the states were under de facto rule by local rulers but they were still de jure part of Britain's Indian Empire. The British Raj merely means the rule by the British in India (1858-1947). The British Raj wasn't at all the name of the political entity, it's just a common name to denote the British rule of the political entity, India. So I shouldn't see 'born in British Raj' in articles on people born before 1947. In the case of people born in the princelty states, you don't really have to include India but it is clearly wrong to say that they were born in British India, as is the case with Mahatma Gandhi.

Nevertheless, the British Raj was the direct predecessor to India as it had been a founding member of both the League of Nations and the United Nations under the name 'India' and also participated in the Olympics as India since the year 1900. All medals obtained from then to 1947 are awarded to India as they shared the same IOC code 'IND'. British Indian Passports issued by the Government of India had 'Empire of India' stamped on each page and on the front, under British Indian Passport, it said Indian Empire. The Indian Empire was a more informal name, never used in legislation, but I think India clearly existed as an entity before 1947.

So like all other countries that have a wikipedia article, we should include the political predecessors of the Republic of India in the infobox. We already have the Dominion of India in the infobox but I think we should add the British Raj as well.184.148.72.132 (talk) 01:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2015

Sir this is a article of our country India regarding this article i want to make changes that in the beginning the full name of india-independent national democratic intelligent area because it can express the country india in details that which type of country our india is. Androner philips (talk) 05:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

•  Not done Please read writing an article to get an idea of what's included in articles. —SpacemanSpiff 05:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Civilisation?

I believe we may have succumbed to hypercorrection in spelling civilization with an s in the article and the protestors (whom I too almost reverted) may have a point. OED's main entry is for civilization (although some of the cited examples do use the s-variant); Google ngrams didn't even find Indus Valley Civilisation in its databse; and our article is at Indus Valley Civilization. Abecedare (talk) 06:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

It's been that way a long time I guess, more importantly it's across multiple spots within the article and was the spelling used at the time of FL promotion and the latest FL review. I remember a discussion on this at some point (I didn't participate), should be on the archives here or at INB I think. —SpacemanSpiff 06:14, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

This is one, but not what I was referring to above, that discussion had Fowler in it. —SpacemanSpiff 06:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Just a quick look at some of my books shows that Stein uses "z", Kulke and Rothmund "s", Thapar is mixed with older publications using "s" and newer ones "z" (or it could be geographic, since my newer ed is an American print) while Guha uses "z". —SpacemanSpiff 06:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

with apologies to anglophiles, ize is actually the traditional spelling of most ize/ise words. The use of ise over ize is came to UK English via France sometime after the formation of America which is why ize persists in the US. Still, this ain't going to go anywhere because nothing is going to stop the spelling change war. --regentspark (comment) 10:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, my feeling is that "ize" and "ise" are both correct for British/Indian English, with a preference for the latter, but "ize" is the only correct spelling for American English. - Kautilya3 (talk)

As RP says, this is a can of worms. I had initially thought that we would simply be able to follow OED spellings since Indian spellings usually equal British English spellings. But on the -ise vs -ize issue, the OED is totally in the latter camp and uncharacteristically prescriptive about it. (OED:"But the suffix itself, whatever the element to which it is added, is in its origin the Greek -ιζειν, Latin -izāre; and, as the pronunciation is also with z, there is no reason why in English the special French spelling should be followed, in opposition to that which is at once etymological and phonetic. In this Dictionary the termination is uniformly written -ize.")

So unless we decide to go the OED way, we are left to determine the relative use of -ise/-ize in Indian sources (both are certainly "correct" in Indian English), which is pretty tough to do and can be endlessly argued. So the best we can do is pick one suffix almost arbitrarily, and simply use it consistently within articles. I am fine with either spelling options. Abecedare (talk) 14:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't care one way or the other (I use -ize personally), but we have to ensure consistency, not change just one and leave the rest as was being done these past 24 hours. —SpacemanSpiff 14:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I reverted an edit back to "...Civilisation" in large part because the previous editor hadn't left an edit summary. I, too, naturally spell it "civilization", but have come to see "civilisation" as British, and therefore Indian, spelling. The Indus Valley Civilization article may have its title that way, but the article text spells "civili{z|s}ation" inconsistently. Using Greek spelling as precedent seems problematic with regard to pronunciation, as "zeta" was a double consonant, but the "z" in "civilization" not so much so. Dhtwiki (talk) 08:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Environment

Under Biodiversity section, I propose to add below: India ranked 24th out of 70 countries in the first Environmental Democracy Index for her progress in enacting laws to promote transparency, accountability and citizen engagement in environmental decision making. Please provide consensus if anybody wants to add or delete anything in the above statement.hey_pal (Friend.hey)^(talk) 17:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

References

Not worth mentioning. Such indexes are produced on a daily/weekly basis by some advocacy group or the other and unless there is a rich independent, secondary literature on the subject (as for "Human Development Index, even though much of the reviews are critical) they are not worth mentioning anywhere on wikipedia except possibly on the source organization's own page. Abecedare (talk) 17:51, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Even if I say that India has the third largest onus of controlling carbon pollution and protecting environment. It is worth mentioning to encourage such arrangements. Rest is up to you, friend.hey_pal (Friend.hey)^(talk) 07:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC) This querry needs to be completed, please provide your comments.hey_pal (Friend.hey)^(talk) 08:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• If India come under top ten ranks in any survey of any category it is worth mentioning but 27th or more is not worth mentioning unless it is an esteemed survey which is ecologically or economically very important.Prymshbmg (talk) 08:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Removal of national language = none from infobox

There is no point in keeping a none data field in the infobox. But if there is a data field none there must be a reference for it that we do not have any national language.Instead of none feild without reference and confusion official jurisdiction language or all the languages in the 8th schedule should be treated as national language.Please guide and comment.Prymshbmg (talk) 14:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I've already explained to you that the reference is there in the general bibliography and the fact that there is no national language should be noted. —SpacemanSpiff 15:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• None is useful because it clearly states that there is no national language. There is no need for a specific reference in the infobox if a citation is available in the main article. --regentspark (comment) 15:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Delhi status

I notice Delhi is not mentioned in state list but mentioned in Union Territory . Why is that ? Drsoumyadeepb (talk) 02:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Because it's officially a UT. —SpacemanSpiff 04:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

UT= Union territory which is not a state. Also, please add new discussions to the bottom of the page. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2015

India iIs golden Birds.

223.183.191.207 (talk) 00:18, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done—SpacemanSpiff 02:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

FAQs

"The map shows the actual borders and all related claims" Could this be changed to "de-facto borders" or something of that ilk? "Actual borders" sounds like it says that anything else is false, and I don't think people would object to "de-facto". I don't want to change it, because someone might think I'm just changing things to fit one POV or the other. 192.12.149.16 (talk) 15:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

"De-facto" wouldn't be applicable to most of the border as the disputed section is minimal and the rest of it is, well, de jure. On the Chinese side, it appears that actual appears to be the preferred term. But this is just an FAQ, the article deals with it properly in that it talks about territories and not borders. I get your point though, probably a better explanation would solve it, not just change in words. —SpacemanSpiff 15:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I've modified it a bit, think it might be ok now. —SpacemanSpiff 15:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I misunderstood and thought the answer was just talking about the disputed areas, not the undisputed borders elsewhere. I like the new wording. 192.12.149.16 (talk) 19:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request (June 26 2015)

I make a request to change the official name of the country to Union of India instead of Republic of India.

Reason: The Constitution of India does not contain the words Republic of India. Although popularly sited as the official name, and seen on various offical documents (including the Passport), the term lacks sanction The citation provided on the Wikipedia page is actually a reference to Dunlop illustrated encyclopedia of facts, which is hard to verify because the source is not publically available (is copyrighted). However The Constitution of India Art. 300 states that the Government of India can be sued by the name of Union of India, giving the term an official status in Indian jurisprudence.

The introductory sentence, hence, would read

India (/ˈɪndiə/ ), officially the Union of India (Bhārat Sangha), is a country in South Asia.

instead of

India (/ˈɪndiə/ ), officially the Republic of India (Bhārat Gaṇarājya), is a country in South Asia.

Samitus mallicus 20:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm marking this as done but that's only procedural, but we can discuss the request itself as it's not a simple edit request and shouldn't just be done by someone.

The reference to "Republic of India" is within the Constitution itself, referring to the Union as "Republic of India" starting from the Third Amendment. There's some missing context in this one, we've had a brief discussion on it in the archives somewhere about the Republic bit. —SpacemanSpiff 20:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I had myself wondered about the question some years back and User:Lexmercatoria had convinced me that RoI is indeed used as the official name for the country in formal documents, treaties etc. Should we change the citation from Dunlop Encyclopedia to CIA factbook? Abecedare (talk) 18:16, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

The CIA factbook and EB might be better sources than Dunlop. I think Lexmercatoria used the same point I was trying to make, amendments to the Constitution, and therefore the Constitution itself refer to the country as Republic of India from the third amendment. It's perhaps something to do with the fact that the Constituent Assembly adopted the Constitution while it was the Dominion of India and therefore couldn't refer to itself off as a Republic, therefore making that change possible after the initial adoption and subsequent coming into effect on 26 Jan 1950. The current accepted long form per both the Constitution (viz the amendments), government usage, and external verification such as through the CIA factbook, EB, etc does point to "Republic of India".—SpacemanSpiff 18:30, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Makes sense. Btw, there have been on-and-off discussions about removing Ganarajya from the lede and mentioning Bharat alone. So how about this:

India (/ˈɪndiə/ ), also known as Bharat and officially the Republic of India, is a country in South Asia.

The CIA Factbook reference also supports the "Also known as Bharat" bit, but if needed we can add a reference to Article 1 of the Constitution. Comments and tweaks welcome, since this is the lede sentence of the article, which should ideally be stable and have wide consensus. Abecedare (talk) 18:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm ok with this, seems reasonable. Though I'm guessing the same long form would be applicable in Hindi too, I just haven't been able to find an online copy of the amendments in Hindi. —SpacemanSpiff 18:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I support the Bharat bit (without the Ganarajya). I also want to point out at this point that although several (not all) Constitution amendment bills mention the term 'Republic of India', they do so only in the introduction to the bill. None of the amendments insert the term in the Constitution itself. Also, As this is the lead sentence, and Bharat is indeed a widely known endonym of the country (in all official languages of country except for English and probaby Tamil), I think it is very important that it should stand out in at least an equal eminence to the name India. Samitus mallicus 09:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

(I've re-closed the edit request as this is clearly something that needs to be debated and decided on this page. You might solicit more input from the wikiprojects listed at the top of this page. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 12:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC))

The Indian Constitution is obviously the authority on these matters. As per the constitution, the official name is just India. Bharat is an alternative name (used in Indian languages). This India is described as a Union of States and a Republic of a certain kind in the first couple of sentences. Hence the "conventional long name" Republic of India. But I think it is wrong to say that it is the "official" name, thereby implying that India by itself is not official. The term Union of India is only used in legal documents. I believe that, in this case, it is a reference to the Union government. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2015

i want to change the population stat from 1,210,193,422 to 1.252 billion because the latter being more recent. Rakshit34sharma (talk) 06:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Mz7 (talk) 06:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2015

The National anthem should be of 52 seconds and thus i request you to adhere to this request. 43.251.85.39 (talk) 16:33, 3 July 2015 (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. ‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The OP's point is regarding the .ogg file which is 64 seconds long as opposed to the mandated "about 52" seconds (closer to 52.6 in reality). Valid point, but there's no other available recording of good quality. It is the same recording used in the Jana Gana Mana article too. —SpacemanSpiff 17:32, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Required a section on Transport

Surprised to see that there is no section on Transport/infrastructure. Brief statistics of the SHs, NHs, expressways, rail including rapid transit, airports & ports including inland waterways is required. Just a link is given at present. Request the editors to add a section for it with few images. Lot of content is already there in wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.205.167.174 (talk) 20:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

new photo

Please see the photo

Indian art sold by children

, Is it not great for the art section? Rafael Guri (talk) 01:43, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The current list of pictures have been chosen for a variety of reasons including their ability to enhance the text of the article and the quality of the images itself, with many of them being Featured Pictures and/or of high quality or significant historical value. This picture doesn't seem to fit in that, more importantly I don't think there's much of a link between the caption and the picture itself, not saying it's not true, but the link between the caption and the image itself is not there -- however, that's beside the point as I don't think this image adds significant value to this summary style article. —SpacemanSpiff 17:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Population Density

From the box:

Area

• Total
  • 3,287,590 km2
  • 1,269,346 sq mi
• Water 9.6%

Population

• 2011 census 1,210,193,422
• Density
  • 383.6/km2
  • 993.6/sq mi

The density should be calculated as Population/Area = 1,210,193,422/3,287,590km2 (1,210,193,422/1,269,346 sq mi) = 368.1/km2 (953.4/sq mi). If you reduce the area by the water you get 407.2/km2 (1054.6/sq mi). Please explain how the values in the box are calculated --78.35.240.145 (talk) 09:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

We don't do the calculation here, it was apparently taken from this source. I don't have access to it, so I can't comment on whether it matches or not. —SpacemanSpiff 12:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Hmm - that doesn't seem to make sense to me. If you easily can calculate a number by yourself, you never should rely on references. If the calculation does not match the references, you should search a different reference. --78.35.240.145 (talk) 14:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Current rotations

I've once again consolidated the sports images under rotation, it doesn't make sense to have three image sets for such a small section, it shouldn't have been split. —SpacemanSpiff 10:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Addition of Revolutionary movement for Indian independence

It is generally accepted that the Revolutionary movement for Indian independence has a major contribution towards the final goal of achieving independence for India. This includes (but is not restricted to) War for independence in 1857, the contribution of Bhagat Singh, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose and INA, and Royal Indian Navy mutiny (among others). This oft-ignored chapter of Indian history deserves due recognition. The line in the introduction seems that independence of India was achieved only through non-violent movement, which is definitely not the only movement which was going on at that point of time in history. It is thus deserving that mention be made of a few of these revolutionary leaders/movements alongside non-violent movement. Johnyossarrian (talk) 18:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it is not generally accepted that the revolutionary movements had "a major contribution" towards India's eventual independence, at least by comprehensive histories of 19-20th c India. Please search the talk-page archives (eg the whole of Archive 14) for extensive discussion on the topic including survey of standard texts, which do not give the subject enough weight for us to include it on this page. Of course, the movements are notable enough to be covered in other more specialized articles on wikipedia. PS: You should also take a look at WP:HISTRS, since citing IBN and wikia isn't very useful in such discussions. Abecedare (talk) 19:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2015

182.65.63.157 (talk) 15:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC) 69th Independence Day of India it is great and memorable moments in the minds of each and every indian.feeling proud to be an Indian.revealing each and everygreat leaders who fought for our freedom and laid foundation in development of India..it is our responsibility to provide honor and homage to the leaders. starting from Kings of india who fought for freedom to the Gandhi, Nehru,kamaraj, patel,VOC,Tilak,bharati,many more. regret if i miss somebody..everybody is as important as Gandhi.we cannot neglect anyone. they sacrificed thier sole to the country and people.please share each and every moment to our successors and kids..it is must to know our countries history.we cannot avoid showing interest on forign countires and welfare of the family.. but we need to show our little interest to those who showed thier interest Special thanks to bhaghat singh, vanchinathan, thirupur kumaran who sacrificed thier lives and fought for our indian freedom.atleast some 5 min of time.knowing the history of mother country is more important. we do not make any comparmise. Lovemother my India each min and second.

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. Supdiop (Talk🔹Contribs) 15:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

national language= Hindi

A small column in Wikipedia information about India National Language is given as None so please change it as Hindi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.114.129.242 (talk) 11:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Please read the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) section at the top of the page, it explains that India does not have a national language, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 11:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2015

Please change the "Official Language" of India from "Hindi" to "there are more than 20 officially recognized languages in India and the most common language is Hindi" Santhoshkmr88 (talk) 13:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

 Not done please see FAQ Q9 above - the others are "Recognised regional languages" not the "Official Language"- click "show" in the infobox for fuller detail on each of these points - Arjayay (talk) 13:50, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2015

National Game is Hockey 120.59.0.10 (talk) 13:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Inomyabcs (talk) 13:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

There is no reliable source, as India has no national game, contrary to popular perception - please see FAQ Q9 above, or read it here - Arjayay (talk) 13:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Addition Required

I think we Should Include more about Armed forces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hitch Hicking Across Sahara (talk • contribs) 15:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Already in Indian Armed Forces we cant include everything in what is just an overview article. MilborneOne (talk) 12:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

What is the name of most important place for agriculture in India ?

What is the name of most important place for agriculture in India ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.23.62.98 (talk) 12:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

We dont normally do homework type questions, have you tried reading Agriculture in India. MilborneOne (talk) 12:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2015

61.12.82.106 (talk) 10:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

No request. —SpacemanSpiff 11:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Area number and map in infobox should reflect present realities on the ground, not claims?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is no consensus in this discussion. To little participation and not enough agreement for any of the opinions. AlbinoFerret 14:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

---

Should the area number be made consistent with other encyclopaedias/sites' country profile ([9][10][11][12][13]) as well as the wiki article listing nations by Land area? This number reflects area under de-facto control by the country, just like other country articles on WP.

Naturally, the same logic extends to whether the infobox should display the version ([14]) which neither shows other claims on Indian controlled territory, nor Indian claims on non-Indian-controlled territories. A map to display claims is already shown later in the article under 'Subdivisions'.

By leaving the current map (and area number) as is, it subtly pushes a POV only showing Indian claims on other territory, whilst not applying the same to disputed territory controlled by India (Indian controlled J&K + Arunachal Pradesh in dark green). Not to mention that it is inconsistent with how other encyclopaedias and even WP conveys such information. 45.65.11.53 (talk) 01:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• This is standard practice, the different area definitions are mentioned in the notes. And it's no different from Pakistan or China map usage. Not sure why there's an RfC for this when there wasn't even a discussion. —SpacemanSpiff 03:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes those articles have similar map usage. For better or worse, disputed area controlled by the country is shown in the same color as areas which are not disputed. I guess this is the wrong place for a suggestion on policy changes for maps, so perhaps we can focus on the area number.
    Please check the article infobox for China and Pakistan where the given area number excludes both states' respective claims. In fact those articles are on the other extreme— the number even excludes disputed areas that they control, whereas this article shows a figure that includes all disputed areas (ie. whether controlled by India or not). Should it not be made (across the board preferably) such that area figure quoted should only be the land under actual control of the state? It would be the 3166414 figure for India. I mean even the note does not mention this factual number of area under actual control, which is definitely misleading for an 'encyclopaedic' article. 45.65.11.53 (talk) 03:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Not sure where the 3,166,414 sq km cited by Britannica Book of the Year comes from (none of the other sources you cited are worth much), especially given that it is contradicted by Encyclopedia Britannica uses 3,166,391 instead. I think we are better off going by the more "official/authoritative" sources such as the Indian government, CIA factbook/LoC Country Studies, UN's World Statistics Pocketbook etc, listing and attributing the varying claims in the footnote (as is already done). Abecedare (talk) 03:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict)I'm not sure what numbers you're using. Our article uses the CIA factbook numbers and map and that's here -- [15], this clearly classifies the parts of Kashmir not under Indian control as being out of the territory. The UN Data numbers are hardly any different. The de facto map is no different from EB. The full country listing from the CIA factbook is here -- [16] and these are de-facto borders. —SpacemanSpiff 04:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Yes there is a complex history behind the number stated by the UN, which I believe is followed by the CIA world factbook. The number 3287240 claimed by government of India in fact includes the disputed area under administration of China and Pakistan. [17] The UN I believe went with the claimed number on the basis that the instrument of accession included the whole princely state, pending resolution of the dispute. For instance, the CIA factbook link shows Pakistan with 796095 area which actually excludes Pakistan controlled Gilgit-Baltistan/Kashmir (it would be 881912 if both these areas were included). Hence, the UN and CIA factbook numbers erroneously quote the Indian claimed number, not controlled (neutral) number.
      • Abecedare, the contradiction with the Britannica article and book is because of the net 10559.966 acres (or ~42.7347 sq km) that were transferred to Bangladesh with the land boundary agreement this year ([18], p.5). It is uncertain whether both governments counted the other country's enclaves as part of its state territory during survey/census all these years, or the extent to which they did so, and therefore the numbers don't quite add up. But, we can probably trust the editors of britannica to have researched the correct number (3166391) that resulted from the agreement. Moreover, I hope both the GoI census link I provided above, as well as the britannica number, clarifies that the current number includes all claimed territories, whereas the 3166414 (or 3166391 after LBA) number is only territories under control of India.
      • If you need more proof, please go to States of India by urban population, note the total area (3287240) and area for J&K (222236), then click on Jammu and Kashmir you will find the Indian administered portion of Kashmir is 101387. So the widely quoted area number includes J&K in its entirety (Chinese and Pakistani controlled areas too), whereas the true number under control is 3287240 - (222236-101387) = 3166391 (post LBA britannica number). In fact the list of states by population is a featured list, such nationalist POV pushing should have been picked up and corrected there as well. 45.65.11.53 (talk) 05:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

In summary: It is hopefully clear now that 3,287,240 km² (current) is territory including areas of AK/GB/AC not controlled by India,[19] whereas 3,166,391 km² is the area controlled by India, excluding claimed but non-controlled territories held by Pakistan/China.[20] The difference between the two numbers can be verified from the Jammu and Kashmir page, or from the above conversation with Abecedare and SpacemanSpiff. As the user to propose changing the infobox number to area controlled, rather than area claimed as presently displayed, I obviously SUPPORT this change. 45.65.11.53 (talk) 02:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that that the 3.287M sq km area includes the whole of J&K (the Indian government could hardly be expected to exclude that from its official figures), and if other authoritative sources cited a number without the disputed region, I would have preferred quoting that more "neutral" number instead. However as US and UN both use numbers close to 3.287M (while using a map separately marking the disputed regions just as we do), I think we need to go with what these high-quality, independent sources say, rather than cite one of the numbers of unknown provenance picked by Encyclopedia Britannica. Abecedare (talk) 20:30, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The UN, CIA and obviously the Indian government have compulsions related to politics and international law (esp. regarding the Kashmir dispute). So even though they are 'high quality', 'independent' sources, they reflect the facts of political claim, rather than on-ground control. Now, we have to evaluate whether as an encyclopaedia we should convey those political claims (as is currently done in the infobox), or facts on the ground like another encyclopaedia and Indian government census clearly indicate. Mind you, even the note at present does not even hint at the 120,849 sq km difference in dispute, nor the 3,166,391 sq km under control. If a reader is trying to find the actual de facto area held by the Indian state, they should not have to scour the internet or various pages and do arithmetic. It should be the first number they see. So do you advocate no corrective edit whatsoever, and thereby misleading readers at first glance? 220.255.3.185 (talk) 08:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

The previous comment above me is in accordance with my point of view, which is that both numbers should be used, with a clear footnote added that explains the discrepancy. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I concur with that. It's our "job" to be informative, not to WP:GAME things like "high quality" and "independent" (the latter of which the Indian govt., the CIA, and UN really are not; the first is also a primary source, while the latter two are tertiary sources) at the expense of being an encyclopedia. There's far too much "There Can Be Only One!" argument with regard to infobox parameter values. Use WP:COMMONSENSE: If there are two kinds of conflicting values, different readers can reasonably be expected to be looking for either or both, then give both values and distinguish & source them; nothing to argue about.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:30, 7 September 2015 (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.

Ganarajya

@SpacemanSpiff: I see some old discussion about whether ganarajya should be mentioned or not, but it seems to have been inconclusive. Since the term is mentioned in the lead, a short explanation of it in the Etymology section is appropriate. I agree that it doesn't need to be a big Sanskrit lesson. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

See Archive 12 for the disputed etymology discussuion. Let's also note that the term is there because of it's use in Hindi, not Sanskrit. —SpacemanSpiff 12:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Do we have a better source for the Ganarajya in Bharat Ganarajya? Dunlop encyclopedia doesn't inspire confidence. Especially since Britannica uses only Bharat in Hindi.[21]--regentspark (comment) 12:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

SpacemanSpiff, it is a Sanskrit term imported into Hindi. So it is in both languages. The discussion in Archive 12 was about whether it was Sanskrit or Hindi, which doesn't impress me very much. I have cited two regular history books, which cite two ancient texts using the term (in Sanskrit/Pali). It is useful to mention Sanskrit because all people of India relate to it, whereas only Hindi speakers relate to Hindi.

Regentspark, if I am not mistaken, all Indian passports are labelled as "Bharat Ganarajya". There is nothing controversial about it. Here are a bunch of sources that mention it: [22], [23], [24]. Bharat/India is the name of the country. Bharat Ganarajya/Republic of India is the name of the State. - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Ganarajya is just a common noun and the Hindi word for republic, and I don't think its etymology is worth mentioning anywhere in the article, just as explaining the etymology of "United States of America" would not get into the roots of united and States. Ditto for it "dating back to the ancient times"; is there any source or even reason to believe that it was chosen for that reason as opposed to, again, being the Hindi word for republic? Abecedare (talk) 18:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I am suprised at the amount of "heat" that this edit is inviting! We are not writing the Wikipedia just for Hindi speakers with their common knowledge. We are writing it for everybody. I don't know what was common knowledge when the Indian Constitution was written but I do know that all the freedom fighters of India including Nehru had studied ancient Indian history quite thoroughly and they knew that there were republican states in ancient India. On the other hand, even most Hindi speakers today would not know that. So it is worth mentioning. We are after all trying to impart knowledge to people through the Wikipedia! - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:38, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya, the "heat" is solely due to the fact that changes in articles, esp. high-profile ones such as this one, are scrutinized much more rigorously than the existing content (which may in fact have more serious problems). And we wiki-regulars are an opinionated argumentative bunch. :)

As to the issue itself: I agree that since we shouldn't presume that the article reader knows Hindi, we should provide a translation of ganrajya, as in the lede. I wouldn't have had much problem with an addition in the Etymology section that just did that; I would consider it redundant but not worth arguing over. However the topic of organization and administration of states and kingdoms in Indian history should be discussed directly in wikipedia articles related to the subject, rather than implicitly though the "dating back to the ancient times" gloss. And what we should certainly not do is impart/imply knowledge that we don't have, based on unsupported surmise, as in, Indian freedom fighters studied Indian history + ancient India had some republican states = the word republic was added to India's name as a subtle homage to those ancient states.

I haven't found any such discussion in the proceedings on the constituent assembly, and the only place the 1950 constitution even mentions ganrajya/republic is in the preamble where "प्रभुत्व-संपन्न लोकतंत्रात्मक गणराज्य" are used as one-to-one substitutes for "sovereign, democratic republic". Of course, my "research" is also deeply flawed since the online debate records I searched are incomplete (missing all the proceedings of the various sub-committees), and there may be other reasons for reaching a conclusion such as yours that I have overlooked. That is the reason we should not be playing amateur historians on wikipedia, and should rely on secondary sources to draw conclusions, and help decide weight issues. Abecedare (talk) 20:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I have added better references, including one that makes the connection between the constitution and the ancient history. The point is that the use of gana in this sense, "assembly" for some people or "people of equal rank" for others, is only limited to the ancient times. It hasn't been used in that sense in the Common Era. It is certainly not in Hindi at all. The term came into use only because the Indian nationalists tried to find roots in Indian traditions for all their ideas. (And, I first learnt about the ancient republics from Nehru's Discovery of India.) - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Lots of interesting material in those refs (and at least on a superficial read, Thapaar and Sharma seems to have different interpretations about how close those ancient Ganarajyas were to class-less democracies). Perhaps the best solution would be to add all this material to the Gaṇa sangha article (Gana is mainly about the use of the word in religious, as opposed to political, context), and then wikilink to it. Abecedare (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Just noticed that User:Kautilya3 is already on the task! Abecedare (talk) 22:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I like the Thapar reference as an explanation for ganarajya so that part is reasonably well sourced. But we still need a good source for Bharat Ganarajya (passports notwithstanding!) as a name for India. Kautilya, there is no heat here, just a desire for good sources. Well sourced statements, like pickled vegetables, last longer :) Coming to think of it, should we be sourcing "officially the Republic of India" to the Dunlop Encyclopedia of Facts. Surely, we can do better than that. --regentspark (comment) 03:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

RP, see this section for the latest prior discussion on that topic; not that it took us anywhere. —SpacemanSpiff 04:13, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2015

I request that the line " In North India, Hinduism asserted patriarchal control within the family, leading to increased subordination of women." from the Ancient India section be removed as I believe it does not adhere to the neutral point of view. Thank you ArunK93 (talk) 03:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

 Not done The statement is well sourced to Stein, B. (16 June 1998), A History of India (1st ed.), Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, ISBN 978-0-631-20546-3 and Singh, U. (2009), A History of Ancient and Medieval India: From the Stone Age to the 12th Century, Delhi: Longman, ISBN 978-81-317-1677-9. Reliable sources cited in articles do not need to adhere to Wikipedia policies concerning neutral point of view, Wikipedia editors do. Unless you have a reliable source to offer that contradicts the sourced statement or can show that these sources are not reliable, the statement will remain. General Ization ^Talk 03:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Images

Thank you for referring me to Talk Page. I have few proposals for five sections, particularly for Ancient India, Medieval India, Early Modern period, Geography and Biodiversity and I really hope you will consider some of it. It will be both informative and give a basic idea of Indian civilization, architecture, geography and biodiversity in images.

Ancient India

I want to contribute these two particular images in Ancient India section. The importance of Mauryan Empire in Indian history is notable, I don't think it needs any convincing but Mauryan Empire unified much of Modern India into single realm and their art, architecture and contribution to Indian civilization is notable.

Rock-cut Buddhist architecture represents more physical idea of ancient India. Ajanta painting in that particular image is largely faded and it has also been under ancient India section for as long as this page has existed, it would be good to have some changes to images on this section. However, again i would like to note that architecture gives a more physical idea of ancient India than a partially faded 2d painting.

• 
  Lion pillar at Vaishali, edict of Mauryan Empire 3rd century B.C.
• 
  Chaitya Griha or prayer hall at the Ajanta Caves, 2nd century BCE. now an UNESCO World Heritage Site

• Not sure of the significance of the the Lion pillar at Vaishali (as opposed to the one at Sarnath). Also image would need to be colour-adjusted to remove the yellow-tint (smog effect?), if it is to be included.
• Subject is fine but the image is is low resolution, inadequately composed, and has overblown highlights. Not a good candidate for this page, where we can be choosey and stick to FP or FP quality images.

Abecedare (talk) 18:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, Abecedare.

• This particular image of Buddhist rock-cut architecture from Ajanta is Featured Picture, would it be okay to add it?
• I tried to add at Sarnath edict but it's a non-free image. Lion pillar from Vaishali is significant considering it's still standing and gives an idea of what Mauryan pillars and edicts looked like. I have fixed the yellow tint in Lion Pillar image and have cropped the image as well. If there are any problem then let me know.

• 
  Lion pillar at Vaishali, edict of Mauryan Empire 3rd century B.C.
• 
  Chaitya Griha or prayer hall at the Ajanta Caves, 2nd century B.C. now an UNESCO World Heritage Site

I have adjusted colour & re-uploaded lion pillar image, but it keeps changing back to its original state when it's viewed on media. How can i fix this?

Thanks for the follow-up. The Ashoka Pillar image is improved, but I still don't see its significance to this article.

Will let others weigh in. The new Ajanta cave image is quite good (surprising, it is not used anywhere in article space on wikipedia. I am going to replace all occurrences of the old image, with this one soon) and is a possible (part-time?) replacement for the Ajanta painting already in the article. I suggest that the current discussion be used to select a few addition/replacement candidates such as this one, and then a wider bunch of editors be surveyed on which options they prefer.

Aside: we should do a better job writing captions for these and existing images, not simply describing what the image shows, but the context or significance. Some of the current captions in the article already do this ("The Rashtrapati Bhavan is the official residence of the president of India."; "Fishermen on the Chinese fishing nets of Cochin. Fisheries in India is a major industry in its coastal states, employing over 14 million people. The annual catch doubled between 1990 and 2010."), while others do not ("Writing the will and testament of the Mughal king court in Persian, 1590–1595"???). Abecedare (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, Abecedare.

• I have changed captions, please let me know if it's okay to use or does it need any improvement?

• It's important to have Mauryan pillar in Ancient India section as they were one of the first unifying forces in Ancient India. Another option would be adding Map of Mauryan Empire instead. That Lion pillar in Vaishali in particular is one of the surviving ashokan edicts still standing, the city of Vaishali also dates back to Vedic period and important Buddhist pilgrimage site.

• Would it be okay to replace the current Ajanta painting with new Ajanta cave image in Ancient India section then? I would also like to add Mauryan Empire map replacing Vedic period map until we decide on Mauryan Pillar image, would that be okay?

• 
  Map of Mauryan Empire would also be a good option other than Mauryan Pillar

Anyone other suggestions would be welcome for Ancient India section, do help out.

I have added these two images in Ancient India section for time being, and have refrained from adding Mauryan pillar as Map seems like a good option for now until we discuss on adding Mauryan pillar.

• 
  Map of Indian subcontinent under the Mauryan Empire 322–185 BCE.<ref>{{Cite book
• 
  Chaitya Griha or prayer hall at the Ajanta Caves, 2nd century BCE. now an UNESCO World Heritage Site

I don't like the idea of using a user created map in a featured article since the accuracy of the map is not backed up by reliable sources. --regentspark (comment) 19:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• Hello, regentspark. Would Mauryan pillar be a good option then? However, This map in particular gives an idea and extent of Mauryan Empire based on inscriptions and Ashoka's pillars.

That looks ok but I think we should see more images before fixing on any one. Are there any other representative images for that period? Harrapan bulls? Gandhara art? A few representative images in a gallery would work well here. --regentspark (comment) 20:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm also not in favor of the pillar, it's not a great image and of course it's not the pillar. It's probably better to just add a note against the emblem image to highlight the source. —SpacemanSpiff 04:10, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• I have tried to find good quality images from this period, there are very few and there aren't any good quality images of Harrapan seals either and I have refrained from adding Gandhara art as it lies in border between Afghanistan and Pakistan today. I feel it's best to add something from India's imperial history from this period. Also, Avantiputra's maps seem reliable considering his work on Indus Valley Civilization maps and Northern Black Polished Ware maps.

Feel free to add more images to the gallery for options. I'm adding architectural images of Sanchi Stupa along with the ones already proposed.

• 
  1. Lion pillar at Vaishali, edict of Mauryan Empire 3rd century B.C.
• 
  2. Chaitya Griha or prayer hall at the Ajanta Caves, 2nd century B.C. now an UNESCO World Heritage Site
• 
  3. Sanchi Stupa where Buddha's relics were found, 3rd century BC. now an UNESCO World Heritage Site
• 
  4. Torana of Sanchi Stupa, Mauryan Empire, 3rd century BC. now an UNESCO World Heritage Site
• 
  5. Torana of Sanchi Stupa, Mauryan Empire, 3rd century BC. now an UNESCO World Heritage Site
• 
  6. Map of Indian subcontinent under the Mauryan Empire 322–185 BCE.<ref>{{Cite book
• 
  7. visitors at Sanchi Stupa, 3rd century BC. UNESCO World Heritage Site

• The Sanchi images are possibly better additions, though I don't see something particularly stand out from these choices, but that's more of an editorial call you could say that I could be persuaded on 3 or 4. —SpacemanSpiff 04:10, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you for your input, SpacemanSpiff. I will add few more images but there aren't so many options from this period and quality images on wikicommons is also limited. Image 4 was part of Wiki Loves Monuments 2013. - Pebble101

• I would also like to point out that Map of Mauryan Empire has detailed reliable sources in the description, it should not be discredited just yet but someone should look into it just to make sure. - Pebble101

Any one would like to contribute to this section as well? do help out Pebble101 (talk) 17:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Adding image of Chaitanya Graha and Map of Mauryan Empire would good idea as both of them would cover some highly artiestic nature and imperial history of this period. I suggest looking at Map of Mauryan Empire image's description for reliable sources Pebble101 (talk) 23:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Note about map: I reviewed the Map of Mauryan Empire and have some concerns. Although the image description cites numerous sources (which prima facie raises WP:SYN concerns), it appears to be largely based on the inset map on page 18 of Schwartzberg Atlas, albeit with some deviations I don't understand (eg, Gangetic Delta region; north-west region etc). More problematically though is the change from showing the boundary limits of the Mauryan Empire circa 250BCE, to shading in the region the Mauryas supposedly controlled. This change may seem minor but introduces a content error, since as the map on page 69 of Kulke & Rothermund shows, roughly 40% (eyeballed figure) of the geographical region within those empire boundaries were occupied by unconquered "autonomous and free tribes". The error was made in good faith and is not egregious by wikimedia map standards, and there possibly is even a justification for this, but unless such issues are resolved, I wouldn't support adding the map to this article.

PS: The caption used when the map was recently added to the article had issues of its own. (a) this is not the map of the empire 322–185 BCE but the map of the empire ca 250 when it was at its largest, and (b) the two cited sources are not the relevant ones, and arguably are even inconsistent with the map. These of course are easy issues to resolve (unlike the previously mentioned issue with the map itself) but highlight the need for discussing and obtaining consensus for image additions/substitutions before implementing them. Abecedare (talk) 17:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Just mark the images you would like to see in Ancient India section

User	Image 1	Image 2	Image 3	Image 4	Image 5	Image 6	Image 7
Pebble101 (talk) 03:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)		✓				✓
user name
user name
user name

Medieval

• In Medieval India section i want to contribute Mahabodhi Temple in rotation along with Chola Temple, the importance of Mahabodhi Temple in Indian architecture style is notable because it's one of the earliest examples of Nagara style of temple Architecture dominant in Northern India, it also marks the spot where Buddha attained enlightenment. Pebble101 (talk) 22:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• There is also lack of information on Jain contributions, Rastrakuta Dynasty (Elephanta and Ellora caves), and Rajput Dynasties particularly - Chauhan Dynasty in Medieval section, therefore i would like to add images in rotation in this section which would be good representation of diverse contributions. Pebble101 (talk) 22:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• 
  Mahabodhi Temple marks the spot where Buddha attained enlightenment, 6th century AD.
• 
  Ranakpur Jain temple, 15th century

• Article already has an image of the Mahabodhi temple. Could be discussed as a replacement though.
• Poorly composed. Also, significance to history of India? Just being old should not suffice.

Abecedare (talk) 18:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

• I would like to replace it with this particular image and move it to Medieval section, since it's important historical and architectural feature in Indian civilization. Would that be okay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pebble101 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Here are some good options for medieval period, I have specifically picked UNESCO sites as it covers important aspects of Indian civilization from this period. Pebble101 (talk) 22:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• 
  Mahabodhi Temple marks the spot where Buddha attained enlightenment, 6th century AD. an UNESCO World Heritage Site
• 
  Brihadishwara Temple, Chola Empire 10th century AD. (new replacement?)
• 
  Khajuraho Group of Monuments, 10th century AD, an UNESCO World Heritage Site
• 
  Elephanta Caves 5th-8th century AD, an UNESCO World Heritage Site

• I suggest we add Mahabodhi Temple and Brihadishwara Temple in rotation as they are both of architectural importance, it will be good representation of Northern and Southern styles of temple architecture and that spefic image of MahaBodhi temple also shows sacred Bodhi tree Pebble101 (talk) 22:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
• And to the left i suggest we add Khujour temple as it's fusion of Jain and Hindu temples and UNESCO site, in rotation with Elephanta caves another UNESCO site. Pebble101 (talk) 22:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
• I have picked best quality images i could find from this period, along with good representation of architectural contributions from this period.Pebble101 (talk)
• I would also suggest editors to check out India Article on Portuguese-wiki, they seem to have done a wonderful job. https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%8Dndia Pebble101 (talk) 22:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Should we replace current Chola temple image with this new one? The one on medieval section looks rather old and outdated Pebble101 (talk) 17:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Early Modern Era

In this particular section i want to contribute image of Taj Mahal on the right, and to the left Sikh Golden Temple and Udaipur Rajput Architecture on switch mode. All of them represent some important periods of Indian history along with their architectural contribution. It also show cases evolution of Indian civilization from Ancient to Early Modern India through images.

• 
• 
• 

• The Taj Mahal image is "beautiful" to look at but not as encyclopedic/informative as other available images, including the one already in the article.
• Ok with the Golden Temple image, but it may be a better fit in the Culture or Art and architecture section. Also there may be other candidates of the subject to choose from; see Harmandir Sahib, where this image is not even included. Update: Just realized that the article already has an image of the Golden Temple. Open to considering this one as a replacement.

The current Sikh pilgrim one is a better image. We should keep that. --regentspark (comment) 20:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

• The City Palace, Udaipur is not of any great historical significance (for India, as a whole). I am indifferent essentially. (Again, the image will need colour adjustment if it is to be included)

Abecedare (talk) 18:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Geography and Biodiversity

The switch mode for images in these two particular section does not give basic idea of India's geography and biodiversity as it gives only one point of view where images don't change unless you refresh the page. It would be good idea to have them lay out under their specific article which showcasing basic ideas of Indias geographic diversity and biodiversity with information of their importance in Indian civilization.

Here is rough example*** showcasing geographic diversity

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

I really hope you will consider these proposals or ideas. It show cases evolution of Indian civilization, architecture and religion from Ancient to Early Modern. and, having layed out gallery showcasing India's geography and biodiversity gives a quick view on India's diversity and their importance in Indian civilization.

Many of the images you're requesting or suitable replacements are already included in the article. Most images are in rotations, meaning that a different image loads for different visits (this is also dependent on how your browser is set up wrt caching), but I'll just give you some examples of what's included based on your suggestions above: File:GroupFromNorthEastIndiaAtTaj.jpg, File:Indischer Maler des 6. Jahrhunderts 001.jpg, File:Mahabodhi Temple Bodh Gaya Bihar India.jpg, File:Sikh pilgrim at the Golden Temple (Harmandir Sahib) in Amritsar, India.jpg, File:KedarRange.jpg, File:Brahminy kite.jpg, File:Nelumno nucifera open flower - botanic garden adelaide2.jpg, File:Pfau imponierend.jpg, File:Shola Grasslands and forests in the Kudremukh National Park, Western Ghats, Karnataka.jpg. There are a lot more images in rotation, I'm just using some samples that cover yours already, these images have come about after a lot of discussion on both quality (almost all of them are Featured pictures) and relevance. —SpacemanSpiff 09:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

To add, I can see that the Thar image along with the Shola grasslands could be moved under the geo section and placed under rotation along with the Kedar ranges. I'm not in favor of the snow tourism image. —SpacemanSpiff 10:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Ancient India, Medival, and Early Modern

I just checked how there is no particular rotation in this sections, it would not be a bad idea to have one. It's also important that we have something of Mauryan history on ancient section along with architecture around this period, and for other two periods. Can i add those proposed images in Ancient India, Medieval and Early modern history? I hope you will consider it.

As for Geography and Biodiversity section, i was giving a rough example of gallery layout rather than images, I hope you understand what i mean because a single rotation in this particular section can be one sided point of view. A layout with image gallery on roation would be much more informative and do a good job showcasing geo and bio diversity in India next to eachother. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pebble101 (talk • contribs) 11:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Bumping thread for 30 days. —SpacemanSpiff 15:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

References

Security

Please add a section in the article of SECURITY . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolvipman6 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

India-Bharat Ganarajya

Dear team During My browsing I found a letter miss in Bharat Ganarajya.so kindly add this letter so it can be got right..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranajeet r (talk • contribs) 12:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

sports

The game of Polo is believed to be originated from Indian state of Manipur. The British popularized the game later in the world platform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.203.38.118 (talk) 02:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Rankings

Hello, should this article not include rankings of India on various aspects like this? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 03:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2015

The National Language for India is Hindi. 174.95.173.30 (talk) 20:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

•  Not done Please see the Frequently Asked Questions, point 9 at the top of this talk page. Thanks. --regentspark (comment) 20:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Map of Indian States needs to be corrected

At the time of formation of Telangana, boundaries of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh state maps are not correct. The correct boundary is http://www.mapsofindia.com/maps/schoolchildrens/statesandcapitals.htm. You can find the correct boundaries on the Survey of India as well. It is unfortunate that the Indian govt makes mistakes of its state map boundaries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kannadabheri (talk • contribs) 08:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Sports

A picture of multiple grand slam winner Sania Mirza or the totally legendary cricketer Sachin tendulkar, or the 5 time World Chess Champion Anand or the former World number 1 badminton player Saina Nehwal would be better than these girls playing some unknown game? 37.140.228.18 (talk) 23:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2015

"Please change the following phrase below:" The name India is derived from Indus, which originates from the Old Persian word Hinduš. The latter term stems from the Sanskrit word Sindhu, which was the historical local appellation for the Indus River.[18] The ancient Greeks referred to the Indians as Indoi (Ινδοί), which translates as "the people of the Indus".[19]

"Please replace the above statement with the one below:"

The name of India is a corruption of the word Sindhu. Neighbouring Arabs, Iranians uttered‘s’ as ‘h’ and called this land Hindu. Greeks pronounced this name as Indus.

Sindhu is the name of the Indus River, mentioned in the Rig-Veda, one of the four Vedas, which are considered the oldest Hindu texts. Scholars believe that they were written down some 2,500 years ago, though the tradition often dates them to the beginning of Kali-yuga (circa 3000 BCE). Some Hindus say that there was originally only one Veda, the Yajur, which was later divided into four. Scholars, however, usually consider the Rig-Veda the oldest of all Hindu writings. The English term is from Greek Ἰνδία (Indía), via Latin India. Iindía in Byzantine ethnography denotes the region beyond the Indus (Ἰνδός) River, since Herodotus alluded to "Indian land"

BharatVarsh2015 (talk) 07:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done. Please provide reliable sources for the new information. For the wording changes, please explain the rationale. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Note also that "corruption" is not scholarly notion. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Tourism

Tourism contributes 5.9% to India's GDP (in the world's ten highest GDP that is). Therefore, given that there are a huge variety of and a huge number of tourist sites, tourism should be here on the article? HEre on wiki itself are the citations-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_India 37.140.228.18 (talk) 23:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I created a new section- Tourism with appropriate citations(from government websites and journals like New York Times etc). Last year, the only reason stated for not including it was "Tourism did not contribute significantly to India's GDP". This time, I found out and cited that it actually contributes more than 5% to India's GDP. There is no reason why someone should delete the section and say ""It deserved one line at maximum"". Really? More than 5% of the world's tenth highest GDP?? 1 line?? And I will start to look like an idiot if I say several tiny European countries have paragraphs on their most famous MNC? (sorry forgot to login) 37.140.228.18 (talk) 18:42, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Ancient India edits

After reading some discussion at [25], I have removed new editions on Ancient India section, nearly whole section depends upon Witzel who also considers that nearly half of Vedic tribes had no Indo-European names.[26] [27] [28] Capitals00 (talk) 04:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

"it continues to face the challenges..." ...terrorism

Let's see. "poverty, corruption, malnutrition, inadequate public health, and terrorism." are supposed to be mentioned in the article body since the LEAD is just a summary. Of this, I just cannot find "terrorism" mentioned anywhere in the body. I'm going to remove it. ‑Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Or rather, could we find a good source which talks about terrorism. I have a feeling it's relevant here. ‑Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:50, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• Can be removed, because terrorism is clearly an issue, but not as major as other named problems. Capitals00 (talk) 10:49, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
• Agree. Terrorism doesn't need to be discussed in this article. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

LANGUAGE SECTION ???

NOT ANY INFORMATION ABOUT OFFICIAL LANGUAGE... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.67.232.250 (talk) 13:15, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Official languages are listed in the infobox on the top right of the page. --regentspark (comment) 13:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2015

plesae ad lookson facebook to Anand,Gujarat,India

14.194.69.111 (talk) 09:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Not done: although your request is unclear, we rarely link to Facebook as it is generally not reliable, whereas your request appears to relate to Anand not to India as a whole. - Arjayay (talk) 11:16, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Official language

@Akhila3151996: you have been edit-warring about the official language in the infobox. By your own admission, English is a "subsidiary official language." So, I don't see why you removed it. You have also added a citation to a Government act. That would be considered a WP:PRIMARY source, and interpreting would constitute WP:OR, which is not permitted. There is already a citation to a Government notification from 1960. That is clear and sufficient. - Kautilya3 (talk) 01:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Hi, sorry about the edit-warring. I edited the article because according to a few articles and the Government Act I cited, it states that Hindi is the official language of the Union. It also says according to the 1963 act that English usage is allowed to continue for use in the central government after 1965. So basically I interpret this as Hindi is the main language but as I had left there, English is allowed to function alongside it. This is what I think is accurate, but if you think differently from me I would appreciate additional feedback so that there is clarity. Thank you.

Please do not interpret, it isn't for you to do so. —SpacemanSpiff 02:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff: Yes, I definitely would not like to sound biased to agree with my view. But this is what the information I gathered from the sources is. Would you tell me if there is something missing or unclear that I am not aware of? -Akhila3151996 (talk) 16:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

http://india.gov.in/india-glance/profile <= the page linked. It does not say that Hindi is the main official language; it just HAPPENS TO BE in both scheduled and official languages set. It does not say anything about Hindi being more important than English in its official status. From the page: "Hindi in the Devanagari script is the official language of the Union. English is an additional official language for government work.": This is written in a biased way. There is nothing to be considered "additional official language"; English has the same official status as Hindi. Hindi is NOT "the" official language; it is just "an" official language. Please change the definite article.112.135.91.156 (talk) 19:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

And in the FAQ, it says that Hindi is the official language, which is wrong. English is not a subsidiary official language; please cite references for that according to WP:V. English is not a scheduled language, that's all. The statement should have been "... an official language ...". 175.157.192.70 (talk) 16:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done. The reference has been added already. - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3: Was not done: The definite article "the" was not changed. Hindi is "an" official language; not the official language of the union.112.134.225.119 (talk) 09:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Article_(grammar)#Definite_article

The only working citation provided shows There are 22 different languages that have been recognised by the Constitution of India, of which Hindi is an Official Language. Article 343(3) empowered Parliament to provide by law for continued use of English for official purposes.. It has an indefinite article, not a definite article.

And, it does not say anything about English being a subsidiary official language.

@Kautilya3: That isn't what it says on the Government of India Website http://knowindia.gov.in/knowindia/profile.php?id=33 "Article 343(1) of the Constitution provides that Hindi in Devanagari script shall be the Official Language of the Union." That is a definite article. Another one: http://www.constitution.org/cons/india/p17343.html I don't understand the source that you have recieved your information. I think it was maybe in reference to the continuation of English alongside Hindi. But it is made clear that they said that Hindi was "the official language of the Union". -Akhila3151996 (talk) 08:56, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Why did you ping me? - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:14, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I was answering to your response above me from earlier.-Akhila3151996 (talk) 22:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Technically the official language should just say Hindi in the infobox, since it was specifically designated "the official language of the Union". However we should still note that, as it says in the official languages act, ". Article 343(2) also provided for continuing the use of English in official work of the Union for a period of 15 years (i.e., up to 25 January 1965) from the date of commencement of the Constitution. Article 343(3) empowered the parliament to provide by law for continued use of English for official purposes even after 25 January 1965." What do the other editors think about this change? -Akhila3151996 (talk) 00:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

No, I didn't give you any response. It seems that you were responding to an unsigned post by an unregistered user. Coming to your new point, the infobox can't deal with all these technicalities. The article text explains the situation. You have been warned by SpacemanSpiff earlier not to interpret the laws. That is WP:OR. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:06, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

It isn't interpreting anything that is exactly what the text on the official languages act listed on the government website says. How is this WP:OR?-Akhila3151996 (talk) 17:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Copied from User talk

@Kautilya3: First thing is that I can't find your source on this 1960 act that you are speaking of. It seems to be a broken link. I did research and did find this link: http://www.rajbhasha.nic.in/UI/pagecontent.aspx?pc=Mzc=. This is an official language act from 1960 which states,"English should be the principal official language and Hindi the subsidiary Official Language till 1965. After 1965, when Hindi becomes the principal official language of the Union, English should continue as the subsidiary official language." However, this is an old order, as it was amended by the official languages act in 1963 which I quoted in the talk section, and a document in 1968 called the official language resolution states, "under article 343 of the Constitution, Hindi shall be the official language of the Union, and under article 351 thereof it is the duty of the Union to promote the spread of the Hindi Language and to develop it so that it may serve as a medium of expression for all the elements of the composite culture of India":http://www.rajbhasha.nic.in/UI/pagecontent.aspx?pc=Mzg=. This is the most current language act in use and rules and provisions were listed in a 1976 act which was amended 3 times: http://www.rajbhasha.nic.in/UI/pagecontent.aspx?pc=Mzk=. Therfore, I am not making any assumption or interpretations. It clearly says, quoted directly, "Hindi is the official language of the Union of India", therefore, no I am not assuming or interpreting things, it is a logical conclusion that Hindi is the official language. I hope I have cleared it once and for all. I hope you have no more objections. Please get rid of the 1960 source unless you are talking in relation to before 1965. I think my edits are reasonable and correct. I don't want to get in disputes with you, but I urge to you to compromise reasonably.-Akhila3151996 (talk) 23:20, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The 1960 citation in the article is a government order. The =Mzc= link above is pointing there. I accept that it seems to have been superceded.

The =Mzg= link is a House resolution. It is neither an Act nor a Government order. It doesn't seem to have any bearing on what the official language is.

The =Mzk= link is a Government order again from 1976, but it is saying that both Hindi and English will be used by the central government. I am fine with using it as the citation, but it doesn't support deleting English from the infobox. So, we are basically back to square-A.

- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:22, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Think it's a bit misleading to say just "Hindi". If mentioning English is opposed, at least an explanatory note in the infobox should solve the problem. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 16:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2016

82.178.57.160 (talk) 18:21, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

hello the arunachal pradesh belongs to India and it is not disputef area please make the changes This is an insult to india

 Not done The area is well known to be disputed, as the Chinese do not recognize the Simla Accord (1914) - which was one of the causes of the Sino-Indian War of 1962. Stating the truth is not an insult, lying would be. - Arjayay (talk) 18:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Please also see Q6 of the FAQ at the top of this page:-

Q6: The map is wrong!

A6: The map shows the official (de jure) borders in undisputed territory and the de facto borders and all related claims where there's a dispute; it cannot exclusively present the official views of India, Pakistan, or China. See WP:NPOV.

There are, of course, several border disputes, not just Arunachal Pradesh - we do not take sides - Arjayay (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2016

India is a Potential superpower. Royqeiur (talk) 11:45, 18 January 2016 (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. Cannolis (talk) 12:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Official Language 2

User Akhila's edits rely heavily on primary sources and constitute OR. A host of secondary sources specify that both Hindi and English have official status in India.
"The Indian Constitution recognises 15 national languages, with Hindi as the official language and English as the associate official language" - Sahgal, Anju. "Patterns of language use in a bilingual setting in India." English around the world: Sociolinguistic perspectives (1991): 299-307.
"However, it was politically infeasible to make Hindi the sole official language of India, as it was thought to be disadvantageous to states where Hindi was not prevalent—Hindi is spoken by most in the north, but by few in the south. Thus, the Constitution of India names both Hindi and English as the official languages of India. Individual states legislate their own official languages, but communication among states and in the federal government would take place in Hindi or English." - Azam, Mehtabul, Aimee Chin, and Nishith Prakash. "The returns to English-language skills in India." Economic Development and Cultural Change 61.2 (2013): 335-367.
"The attempts to create a Hindu nation and to promote Hindi as the sole official language of India are very real and important political forces in India, but neither have yet achieved success." - Brass, Paul R. Language, religion and politics in North India. iUniverse, 2005.

The idea that the use of the article "the official" in the Constitution implies "the sole official" language is very much an interpretation, and the user has not supplied credible references to demonstrate that this is the canonical, default or even a widely held interpretation. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 18:39, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The consensus version seems to be restored partially in the infobox. Though the para still states "Hindi, with the largest number of speakers, is the official language of the government. English is used extensively in business and administration and has the status of a "subsidiary official language";" --A little rewording should do the trick. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I have undone the very same edits to Languages with official status in India too and directed the discussion here. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@Fundamental metric tensor: I never said it was the "sole" official language, because there are 23 officially recognized languages, which is included in the infobox. I know that it is a widely held belief that India is bilingual in its "official language" policy, but in reality it does say that English is to be used alongside Hindi, but Hindi is the official language. There are provisions which call for the eventual "phasing out" of English from the government work. There are sources that say that Hindi is the official language of the Union. Some of these laws are disputed and controversial, but that is what it currently says. I don't feel that this constitutes WP:OR because it is specifically said. I know that there is no national language, but it is the official language infobox.-Akhila3151996 (talk) 17:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

note: {{ping}} does not work without attaching your signature.

I think this is not worth the effort. Afterall the wording in prose states it accurately not giving weightage to either side; what else is left to do? Now arguing over the accuracy of just this infobox field reminds me of WP:LAME. Come on, let's focus on other important areas to edit. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2016

I want to add more pictures of natural biodiversity in India. Major cities of India with their important statistics Please give me permission to edit the page Maverikindian (talk) 04:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done This is not the right page to request additional user rights.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 08:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments invited on additions to Modern History section made on 26 January 2015

The last paragraph of the Modern India subsection use to begin with:

Vital to India's self-image as an independent nation was its constitution, completed in 1950, which put in place a secular and democratic republic.{{sfn|Metcalf|Metcalf|2006|p = 231}} In the 60 years since, India has had a mixed record of successes and failures.{{sfn|Metcalf|Metcalf|2006|pp = 265–266}} It has remained a democracy with civil liberties, ...

This was the version that passed the featured article review in 2011, and had remained stably in the article until 26 January 2015 when in two edits, first and second, it was changed to:

Vital to India's self-image as an independent nation was its constitution, completed in 1950, which put in place a secular and democratic republic (on independence in 1947 George VI ceased to be Emperor of India, rescinded retroactively by Act of Parliament 22 June, 1948, and became King of India until January 26, 1950){{sfn|Metcalf|Metcalf|2006|p = 231}} In the 60 years since, India has had a mixed record of successes and failures.{{sfn|Metcalf|Metcalf|2006|pp = 265–266}} It has remained a democracy with civil liberties, ...

In the highly compressed summary of modern Indian history on the India page, I believe, this is an unnecessary addition, especially as the relevant British Raj history section, summarizing a much shorter history, makes no mention of it (George VI's title change), nor does the cited source (Metcalf and Metcalf). Moreover, the usual condideration for adding significant content to a featured article was not shown (i.e. there was no previous discussion the talk page, (see here)), although it is quite likely that the editor was not aware of it. I noticed the addition yesterday and undid it (rather rudely, I must admit), but my edit was reverted by another editor.

I believe this addition would be more appropriate for the British Raj page. I would like to invite comments from all interested editors. I will be informing the original editor, as well as he reverting editor, about this discussion. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I think the old version is perfectly fine and appropriate. The new additions are undue. - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the king stuff is an unnecessary addition. This is a summary article and a mere titular change is too trivial (in historical value terms) to be included. It may be of value for readers interested in arcane aspects of the British Monarchy but has no significance toward the history of India. I suggest deleting it while this discussion proceeds. --regentspark (comment) 16:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

It does not warrant inclusion on British India as suggested by Fowler&fowler since that article is about an entity between the period of 1858-1947, this information relates to after 1947 India and should be in this article, maybe with some adjustment. I am not very much fan of parentheses in prose, they can be removed, here is my suggestion:

Vital to India's self-image as an independent nation was its constitution, completed in 1950, which put in place a secular and democratic republic thus ending George VI's term as King of India who assumed this role on 22 June 1948 by an act of Indian parliament.{{sfn|Metcalf|Metcalf|2006|p = 231}} In the 60 years since, India has had a mixed record of successes and failures.{{sfn|Metcalf|Metcalf|2006|pp = 265–266}} It has remained a democracy with civil liberties, ...

Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

It is still undue. - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Kautilya3. The reader who reads the above quoted text may conclude that the King had an important role to play prior to India becoming a republic and that is undue and unwarranted.--regentspark (comment) 17:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Good point by @SheriffIsInTown:. I just checked the page Dominion of India, the political entity that existed between 15 August 1947 and 26 January 1950. It is mentioned there. The London Gazette announcement cited there, however, states that Emperor of India was removed from his formal regnal title on 22 June 1948 (ie. George, by Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and NI, etc., ... Emperor of India). It doesn't say anything about the title "King of India." He obviously remained the constitutional monarch of India, but K of I, was not a part of his formal title. Since this information is already there in the relevant page, I suggest that we remove it here, and double check that the citations in the D of I page are okay. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I believe Indians never attached any significance to having had a King till 1950 or having lost him afterwards. Neither do I think Indians saw Britain as a monarchy. The real event from the Indian point of view was a transition from being a British dominion to a sovereign State. But that is already clear from the text we have. Nothing more is necessary. - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I don't believe that is entirely true. Indians were certainly very aware of the King Emperor/Queen Empress, especially of those who had reigned long, e.g. Victoria (1837–1903) and George V (1911–1937). Indians living in the provinces of British India, for example, were reminded of the monarch every time they paid for something. Most coins had the monarch's pictures (see Coins of British India) The awareness of the monarchy, and likely of its significance, was greater in the period from 1858 to 1937 (until the death of George V). Then, the monarchy itself became less visible everywhere in the British Empire (with the abdication of Edward VIII and the less assertive, retiring, style of George VI). In India, with the nationalist movement, attention shifted to Gandhi.

The point here, however, is that an encyclopedic history—especially one written in a compressed, summary style—pays more attention to the ruling state, i.e. The Crown, than its living embodiment, the (British) constitutional monarch. The Crown is implicitly mentioned in the India page history; in fact, whenever the word "British" is used in the history of the period 1858 to 1947, what is meant is the Crown, not the British parliament, the British prime minister, or the British monarch. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

@F&F, I agree. When the British Parliament first took over India, with Queen Victoria proclaimed the Empress of India, it was welcomed (and thought of as a liberation from the Company Rule). But once the Indian nationalist movement got going, Indians mostly saw Britain as a State (which is probably a bit more abstract than what you mean by "The Crown.") For the "princely India," of course the Monarchy mattered a great deal. But British India quickly transitioned into some form of a State controlled by a foreign power. The speed with which the Indian princes disappeared after independence is also an indication of how monarchies lost their truck with the Indians. (Things could have been different if the "princely India" had progressed in step with British India.) - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

But if the British had not treated the princes as little boys and turned them into degenerates, the princes might have been more assertive, and Mountbatten and Patel might have found themselves in the boots of Dalhousie. Of course, there are those who say that the princes were a creation of the British, chieftains who had been turned into glamorous little kings, mainly to ensure islands of calm in a future storm. (Just shooting the breeze, which I shouldn't here, since this page is for the improvement of the article only.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

The larger point is that it matters not a whit that the Emperor became the King. The salient historical milestones are Independence in 1947 and Republic in 1950 and that's all that is necessary in a summary article. --regentspark (comment) 14:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2016

Harishdewasi43 (talk) 13:38, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 13:55, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2016

No relevant change to article requested
So that i can see and know about how to write a big codding Gavishpoddar (talk) 09:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC) Not done, no change requested. MilborneOne (talk) 11:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Please change the definite article to indefinite article.

Hello, on the right infobox, it states that Hindi is "the" official language while one of the cited sources claim that it is "an" official language. Please change the definite atricle into an indefinte one. That source: https://india.gov.in/india-glance/profile. Moreover, I think it's improper to cite an article that was circulating in 1960, especially after controversies and official amandment of the act in 1963, officializing English (therefore it does not make anything emphasizing that English is somehow a secondary official language, much valid in the sense of 1960, unless it is written after 1963).

Thank you. 112.134.170.237 (talk) 23:44, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Infobox: Formation

Hi,

I recently changed the 'Formation' section of the infobox from this:

"Independence from the United Kingdom"

• 	Dominion	15 August 1947 
• 	Republic	26 January 1950

to this:

"Formation"

• 	Indus Valley Civilisation	c. 3300 BCE 
• 	Vedic period	c. 1500 BCE 
• 	First Unification under the Maurya Empire	322 BCE 
• 	British Raj	1858 
• 	Independence from the United Kingdom	15 August 1947 
• 	Republic	26 January 1950

- My reasoning was: "'Formation' is now fair, balanced, and adequately depicts both pre- and post-colonial milestones in history. Previous one was just 'Independence from the UK' and lacked local political structures"

- My edit was later undone by a user, RegentsPark, and their explanation was: "This article is for the republic of India. Not the pre-1947 entity known as India"

- I reverted it back to my edit, using the article for China as an example, because China's article is about the People's Republic but the Infobox covers the earliest formation of the entity known as 'China'.

- It was undone again, this time with the explanation being: "The pre-1947 india was broken up into three entities. This article is about the part that named itself India."

However, I would like to make a case against that and support the reinstatement of my edit. Russia's infobox, for example, mentions the Kievan Rus even though the Rus is now part of the nation that calls itself 'Ukraine'. I can infer from this that it would be perfectly acceptable for me to include the Indus Valley Civilisation and the Vedic Period in India's infobox because the two can be comparable to the role the Kievan Rus played in spawning off the modern-day state of Russia.

As for the partition of India, that is true, although it would be worth mentioning that India did not 'name itself India', but was rather chosen as the successor state to the British Raj in the same way that Russia is the successor state to the Soviet Union, as the capital falls within the entity known as 'Russia' and not Kazakhstan, and this is listed in many sources, with the book 'India-Pakistan in War and Peace' being one of the many

It would therefore be under wiki guidelines for me to include the Maurya Empire in the infobox, as the capital was at Pataliputra (current-day Patna, Bihar, India), and that India is by default the successor state with the bulk of the Empire's territory being located under the modern-day Republic of India. Egypt's article perfectly demonstrates this: Ancient Egypt is indeed included in the infobox even though the civilisation stretched over the Northern Parts of Sudan - but the capital(s) were still located in modern-day Egypt.

Thanks!

References

Your change was challenged so you need to gain a consensus to make a change as you suggest, but note that if you read the article it is clear that the India described in this article did not exist before 1947. MilborneOne (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

That is true, although as I mentioned above, the same could be said for China and Russia, both of which have been referred to under different names (Qing Dynasty, Tsardom of Russia) - and the territory held by the Tsardom of Russia was in no way as extensive as the territory held by Russia today, yet it is still recognised as a precursor to the modern Russian Federation in the infobox. It wouldn't exactly be wrong for me to therefore say that the Mughal or the Maurya empires were precursors to the formation of the entity known as India today - the British Raj in particular annexed former Mughal territories to the entity known as 'India', and both entities follow the same geographical outline. The Xia dynasty of China covers an incredibly small area and is a far cry from the PRC today yet it occupies a place in the infobox.

There has to be some level of standardisation across all wiki articles in this genre, and given that most of them support my rhetoric behind my edit, I suppose it makes sense to include that information as a summary.

Tiger7253

Russia as described in the the article title Russia not only includes the the modern Russian Federation but also predecessor entities and states that existed in what is now Russia. The Russian Empire article still exists but the Russia article covers it quite well and is included in the "Formation" section of the infobox The same way "India" in this article covers ancient/vedic/medieval/colonial/post-colonial in the same article. This is a standard in most articles for countries and is required of them to discuss its history, at least in the English WP.

For Singapore, the Chola Empire is added to that same section. Is it a predecessor of the Republic of Singapore we know today? No. But the Empire played an important role in defining Singapore as we know today and the territory controlled by today's Singapore was once formerly part of it. Did India exist before 1947? India as a direct predecessor in this article came into existence with the Government of India Act 1858 by the British parliament. It was an entity what we commonly call now as the British Raj. The Dominion of India was created in 1947 as part of the Partition of India. India was seen as the official and legal continuation of the former "India" in virtually all international organisations, including the United Nations, as they kept their seat and didn't have to reapply like Pakistan did (and later Bangladesh). Later, the India transitioned into a Republic in 1950. Did India exist before 1858? Yes, geographically, culturally and occasionally politically. India has been periodically unified many times by numerous dynasties and their empires in no form different to China.

I am interested to see what arguments may come up in the discussion that oppose such a sensible inclusion. Filpro (talk) 01:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Filpro - Thank you for the support, and yes, it would be a sensible inclusion indeed. India is the only major country article to have its predecessors completely excluded from the infobox. All I did was merely bring the article up to the standard that is reflected in most articles on the same standing, so I would be surprised to see such an inclusion opposed even further, as there is no sound basis whatsoever to such an opposition. It is imperative that the infobox provides an accurate and balanced summary instead of just abruptly starting at the point of independence – that is in no way accurate when talking about the 'Formation' of a country. Tiger7253

I'm not sure this is a workable proposition. The bottom line is that the geographical boundaries and ethnic composition of India today are different from what they were in the pre-1947 India. The issue then arises - what should be included. I note that tiger starts with the Indus Valley Civilization but that was centered in modern day Pakistan and is only peripherally in what is India. Technically, the IVC should be in the formation history of Pakistan rather than India. The Southern and North Eastern parts of India have had their own independent histories. Shouldn't we include the Chola and Vijaynagar empires? Ethnically, the Sikhs are in India but their former empire is in modern day Pakistan. Unlike France or China, where ethnicity and geography are closely related and well tied together, India is not monolithic. My suggestion is that unless reliable sources can be found that clearly delineate the various formative stages of India, we avoid doing it ourselves. That way we don't get into the obvious trap of original research that Tiger7253, in perfectly good faith, has fallen into. --regentspark (comment) 02:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid that my views have been taken entirely out of context. The infobox is but a mere reflection of the article itself, and the main article includes the IVC and the Vedic period as important epochs in India's history. All I merely did was summarise the major events and then transfer them to the infobox. The IVC might as well be taken off the main article if RegentsPark thinks it isn't a part of India's history. Furthermore, as an Indian, I am well aware of the empires of the South, but the infobox I proposed merely outlines:

1. the earliest known starting point of 'India' - which is the the IVC, and no, it is not a part of Pakistan's formation. This would be the equivalent of me saying that the Kievan Rus should be in the formation history of Ukraine rather than Russia, simply because the catalyst that spawned 'Russia' does not exist within the state's modern-day borders.. The bulk of the IVC indeed lies in the state known as 'Pakistan' today, but Pakistan came into being in 1947, and the 'Formation' of India and Indian civilisation is not simply limited to the borders of the modern-day Republic.

2. another major epoch that set the foundations for much of Indian civilisation as we know it - The Vedic period, which predates every empire to have existed on the subcontinent, so it was included and it isn't biased towards the North or South in any way (and it is in the article as well).

3. the earliest known unification of the subcontinent, both North, South, East, and West - the Maurya Empire. The various smaller empires like the Sikh, Maratha, Chola and Vijaynagar empires aren't included in the infobox for that very reason alone - they covered specific areas, not the entire subcontinent. They weren't unifiers, but were specific in nature.

I would like to emphasise on the importance of number 3., as it is imperative that the infobox states a unification event prior to the arrival of the British, because the widely-held (and damaging) notion is that 'India' is an entity that was cobbled together by the British is false - the subcontinent has been unified numerous times and a concept of a unified 'Bharat' existed before their arrival. It is indeed the precursor to the modern-day state, and as I've said above, all I intended to do was transfer pre-existing information in the article to the infobox. Furthermore, the British held limited areas of India, and had no control over the princely kingdoms like Rajputana and Hyderabad, so the British Raj in itself does not exactly fulfil the role of a unifier. Tiger7253

There is a difference between the descriptive history of a region and formative or establishment events and, for example, the existence of the IVC doesn't necessarily make it an establishment event for modern India. Finally, we don't go around correcting wrongs or fixing what you may perceive as being 'damaging notions'. Rather, we look to reliable sources for what to include and what not to include in an article. Find comprehensive reliable sources that clearly and categorically delineate historical establishment events for the Republic of India, and then you may have a case for inclusion. --regentspark (comment) 15:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

All the 'historical establishment events' are laid out in the 'History' section in the main article with fully cited references, so I have my work laid out for me. I find it confusing that you keep using the Republic of India as a reason as to why the establishment events cannot be included in the infobox, as if the Soviet-influenced, Marxist-Leninist modern People's Republic of China and the Islamic Arab Republic of Egypt have anything to do with the Xia Dynasty and the Egyptian Nile Civilisation, both of which are included in their respective infoboxes. The IVC as a direct predecessor to Indian civilisation has more to do with the modern-day Republic of India than the way China and Egypt have turned out, so I suppose their infoboxes should be edited, too, unless India is pegged up to different standards - which I'd otherwise be unaware of. Tiger7253

The historical establishment events must be clearly identified as establishment events otherwise we're going to have to rely on your expertise to figure out what to include or not. That is not the case currently. Also, the reason why I keep referring to the republic of india is because there is consensus on the english language wikipedia to separate out the Republic of India (or, rather, the post-1947 India) from anything prior to 1947. Because the pre-1947 entity split into two (and is now three) different entities with overlapping histories. If you look around, you'll see that the History of India encompasses the history of all three entities prior to 1947 and then splits into three parts, one for each entity. --regentspark (comment) 17:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

That might have been the original intent, but things have changed of late. History of India now declares that it is the history of Indian subcontinent with a "focus on India." History of Pakistan and History of Bangladesh have their own articles. So, currently, I don't think there is any problem in each country page identify its own defining events. Wikipolitics aside, I don't think there is any serious problem in sourcing the defining events for India. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

If reliable sources clearly state that an historical event is a defining establishment event for India, then there shouldn't be a problem. We shouldn't be identifying the defining events ourselves. --regentspark (comment) 19:43, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Kautilya3 - thanks. Anyway, this (rather irrational) argument is going nowhere, since it is clearly beyond my capability to "prove" that the most monumental events in ancient Indian history did indeed set the foundation for the modern-day, Hindu-majority state. I have no idea how the Vedic period as a predecessor to a Hindu-majority state ever needed to be proved in the first place, but what do I know.

Everything I need to back my points up has been included in the article - it wouldn't be there otherwise. I shall pass the baton on to another Indian who can hopefully make a better case for the inclusion of the defining events than I ever can. Cheers. Tiger7253

All articles on Wikipedia can be edited by any editor of any nationality. No nationality has any special privileges even in country articles. I'm not sure why you have Indian in boldface. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since we clearly need to reach a consensus for this change to become a reality, I would like to re-visit this topic and propose adding at least one major unification event to the timeline in the infobox - the earliest unification, that is, the Maurya Empire, seems like the likeliest candidate. My reasons in favour of the change are listed above. All I can say now is just this: It does feel a bit odd and biased to not include pre-colonial key events in the infobox of a country with a history that stretches back millennia.

Tiger7253 (talk) 18:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

The infobox date section is not a timeline throughout all of history. (Even if it was, that would not be a list of "unification events", which is an entirely hindsight-inspired viewpoint of history.) It is a section to note the establishment of the sovereignty of the entity covered by the article, which is the modern day Republic of India. The Republic of India was not established by the Maurya Empire, nor is its present sovereignty a result of or a development from the Maurya polity. CMD (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Then I would appreciate it if this could be standard policy across all country articles. One standard has been set for this article while another standard has been set for China - an event from 2070 BCE has been included in that article's infobox - and I frankly doubt that has anything to do with the establishment of the People's Republic of China. So, should that article be cleaned to match the standards of this article, or should this article be updated to match the standards of that article? Tiger7253 (talk) 19:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

It would indeed be nice to have consistency across different articles, with the caveat that every modern state has a unique history. I have boldly removed the Xia dynasty date from the China article, and will look into that issue further. I will note that China's various empires did in fact lead to the modern state, through the passing down (and fighting over) the singular mandate of heaven, which is very different to India's history. CMD (talk) 19:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I suppose you do have a point about India's and China's empires relating differently to the establishment of the modern-day states, and would therefore like to forgo the prospect of including empires and propose something else entirely - the addition of either the Vedic period, or the Indus Valley Civilisation in the infobox. Neither of them were empires, per se, but were rather focal points for the establishment of civilisation in India. The inclusion of the IVC would make more sense as opposed to the Vedic period given that the IVC generally represents India as a whole as opposed to the strictly Indo-Aryan (Northern) aspect of Vedic civilisation. My basis for the inclusion of this is simple - The articles for Egypt and Sudan have the various civilisations of the Nile (eg. Ancient Egypt, Nubia) listed in their infoboxes, so there is already a precedent for the inclusion of such civilisations - unless those articles need to be cleaned up too, because as far as I am aware the civilisations have little to do with the modern-day Arab republics. Tiger7253 (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

If you want to include formative events, you need to get reliable academic sources that clearly state that XYZ empire was a formative event. --regentspark (comment) 02:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

The IVC is very important in the development of civilisation in this area of the world (and much of the rest of the world too but I digress), however the subject of this article is not the culture and civilisation of this area, but on the Republic of India, and the infobox is not about the growth of civilisation, but the important time points of the establishment of sovereignty. Egypt and Sudan do indeed need cleaning up, but I am not as familiar with their history and political development as I am with India's and China's, so I don't want to make precise comments on how. As a general point, note that this article is a Featured article, having undergone a huge amount of community scrutiny, and is lucky enough to have a group of editors who have maintained that status over time rather than let the article degrade. When in doubt, it's probably more often than not a good assumption that this article is doing something right that others are doing wrong (also good to go back and look at the article at the time of most recent community review sometimes). CMD (talk) 08:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

India did not exist until British creaated it. Anyone who disagrees, is leaving out South India. Mauriya was just a "regional" kingdom so as the Northerners would say Cholas were: It was just a part of India and does not include South India. Moreover, we cannot assert that the India, as it stands, is the rightful successor of the Mayriya empire. For example, someone may still go claiming that Pakistan is the rightful successor of the IVC because it holds (or the parts of) the Indus river. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.170.237 (talk) 23:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

IVC being a key point in establishing India doesn't mean that it is exclusively Indian - IVC relates to Pakistan just as much as it relates to the India. There is no reason to elevate the connection of IVC to India over connection of IVC with Pakistan. I don't have anything against IVC being inclided here, but in that case, it should be allowed to include it to article of Pakistan, as well. 112.134.206.65 (talk) 07:17, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Last time I checked, both Ukraine and Russia had Kiev Rus mentioned. It does not claim that Kiev Rus is succeeded by Russia - it seems to go with a rather neutral manner than saying that "Kiev Rus" is not Ukraine's, but Russia's. I don't think Mayurya, being a regional kingdom should be elevated to that status as first unification, though.112.134.206.65 (talk) 07:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Intolerance

Intolerance in society have been highlighted internationally. This needed to be covered in page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.32.15.49 (talk) 07:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2016

36.75.244.54 (talk) 14:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• Closed - no request made. MilborneOne (talk) 14:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2016

ഹലോ ഇന്ത്യ ലേഖനത്തിന് ഇന്ത്യ ഭാഗമായി എന്നും മറിച്ച് ആ എങ്ങനെ ഇന്ത്യ ഞാൻ മെച്ചപ്പെടുത്താമോ ഇന്ത്യ കഴിയില്ല പക്ഷെ ഒരു ലോക്ക് ലേഖനം പറയുന്നു ഒരു പിശകുണ്ട് 198.52.13.15 (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2016 (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. It seems to me that this request only states that there is a problem and that they could fix the problem. If you have a specific change to make in order to fix these problems, then please re-open this request with those details. I also suggest trying to contribute in English. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 21:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Alternate name Bharat

India is known by the name Bharat by billions people. It's constitution declare the name of country as 'India, that is Bharat' (please refer: [29]; Indian constitution writes: + "PART I-THE UNION AND ITS TERRITORY--1. Name and territory of the Union.—(1) India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States"}.

The name being recognized since origin of the country cannot be ignored in the lead Para. It is synonym of India and to be read along with India there.

The revision done was deleted on the plea that it is making leads clumsy and Sanskrit translation already exist. First of all "bharat" is not at all a Sanskrit translation of India and it is the name in itself being recognized by billions people. ' Bharat Ghanrajya' word is mentioned as alternate of Indian republic. The country's single word name is India that is "Bharat" and this is no where declared in the lead.

The article is on the country and it's main name recognized by billions of people in the world justify its inclusion.

It is suggested that First letter of the lead Para "India" to be replaced by "India that is Bharat".--Md iet (talk) 10:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

This seems to be not the first time this has been proposed. While making proposing changes on talk be sure to check the old discussions, for example a quick search for "Bharat" in the archives show Talk:India/Archive_32#India_that_is_Bharat, etc.Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Ugog Nizdast, There was fruitful discussion and if I am right the point arrived was that 'India' as well as 'Bharat' are name of the country and the only requirement is reliable consensus's secondary source. Let us try to find proper source and add the name 'Bharat' which is a 'personnel noun', being known/called by billions English speaking people, not a property of any particular language.--Md iet (talk) 15:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what is wrong with the current lead sentence which mentions Bharat, it doesnt need any more as it is clearly not the common name in English. MilborneOne (talk) 21:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for joining discussion. To know the right or wrong thing one has to go deep in the history of the country. To make the lead complete the name of the subject (country here) to be introduced properly. Name is name it cannot be related to one language. When the name is known to billions of English knowing people, to define it common or not is not a difficult task.

To make the inclusion justified here are the secondary sources and statement recorded which are self explanatory:

sources

1.Please refer [30] ‘India, that is Bharat…’: One Country, Two Names Catherine Clémentin-Ojha ; "In 1950, four years after the publication of Nehru’s Discovery of India, the drafters of the Constitution of the larger of the two successor states of British India decided how the country should be known. In the opening article of the Constitution of India they wrote: ‘India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States’.Two names: one, India, associated with the foreigners whose rule was coming to an end; the other, Bharat (skt. bhārata, also bhāratavarṣa), perceived as native because it was found in ancient Sanskrit literature. Henceforward no other name besides these two was to be used legally. In this juridico-political conception, India and Bharat were to be interchangeable terms." 2.[31] CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY OF INDIA - VOLUME IX Discussion in Indian parliament on Sunday, the 18th September 1949: "That in amendment No. 130 of List IV (Eighth Week), for the proposed clause (1) of article 1, the following be substituted : The Assembly divided by show of hands: Ayes: 38, Noes: 51. The amendment was negatived. Mr.President : There is no other amendment except the one moved by Dr. Ambedkar himself, as amended by his own amendment No. 197. "That for clauses (1) and (2) of article I the following clauses be substituted: '(1 ) India, that is, Bharat shall be a Union of States. (2) The States and the territories thereof shall be the States and their territories for the time being specified in Parts I, II and III of the First Schedule."' The amendment was adopted" 3. Indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-india-that-is-bharat[32]: "The Home Ministry has responded to a few RTI applications in the past wherein applicants had sought to know the official name of this country. In one response, the Ministry had said “no information on the subject”. In another, it had reproduced Article 1.1. - See more at: [33] It also cites Sanskrit literature and scriptures to argue that this country has been known as ‘Bharat’ since for time immemorial. - See more at: [34], Explained: The India, that is Bharat There were other objections on phraseology, but Article 1.1 ultimately got through in its original form."

The above reference clearly state that 'this country has been known as ‘Bharat’ since for time immemorial' and the name part 'India, that is, Bharat shall be a Union of States', is well debated in parliament as early as in 1949 and further clarified by home ministry in recent years as reported in well known English newspaper 'Indian Express'.--Md iet (talk) 16:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

And clearly the lead is fine as it as as Bharat is not a term used in English and as the country did not exist before 1947 then it is unlikely to have been called anything "since time immemorial" as it didnt exist. MilborneOne (talk) 18:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Reply: Please be serious, Sri Lanka was not a term used in English and not known to outer world doesn't mean that Sri Lanka did not exist before its official name change. Same is the case with 'Bharat', the name is existing 'from time immemorial' but officially adopted since 1949 along with 'India' and recorded as ' India, that is Bharat'.--Md iet (talk) 12:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Md iet: I don't know what you are going on about. Bharat Ganarajya is right there on the first line in bold. What more do you want? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Dear @Kautilya3: I am not trying any thing rocket science. Bharat Ganarajya is right there but as a alternate word of "Indian Republic" that too under explanatory bracket. This is article on the most populous democratic country known as India/Bharat amongst billion of English readers and clearly written in country's English constitution and well debated in secondary English sources pointed out above. I simply want that Wikipedia also as free and fair encyclopedia mention the same at least in the lead para and the lead should start with both name 'India' as well 'Bharat'. This is not something new. Look at other articles, even personnel names are written in full in the lead Para at least.--Md iet (talk) 12:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I added Bharat there, just like it is done for Germany. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Bharat is not a Sanskrit translation of India but name in itself. Now it is better; mentioned in some form or other, but it should have been mentioned as 'India(Bharat)' or 'India, that is Bharat' as mentioned for Myanmar as Myanmar(Burma) in the same lead.--Md iet (talk) 11:04, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Myanmar includes Burma because both are recognizable alternative English names for the country. Bharat is not an English name for India.--regentspark (comment) 12:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Fact that Bharat is alternative name, understood and referred by billions English literates is obvious and referred in well known sources. RegentsPark, could you elaborate about the recognizing authorities?--Md iet (talk) 11:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:RS. Reliable English language sources use Myanmar and Burma. However, they don't use Bharat instead of India. --regentspark (comment) 14:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)--regentspark (comment) 14:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Md iet, your concern has been taken care of. You need to move on. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Still dont believe that you had a consensus for the change as we have no evidence that it is a common name in English, big difference in dual-language Indians understanding the word and the rest of the English speaking world who clearly would not understand what you were talking about. MilborneOne (talk) 07:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

The point is that both India and Bharat are official names of the country. I had assumed that Bharat Ganarajya mentioned in a separate parenthetical remark was enough. But at least some people don't find it enough. I don't think we have any policy against including the other names used for countrie, irrespective of what the English speaking world understands. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. Bharat is not the English name for India. This article is really the Republic of India whose current popular name in English is India. We do mention the Hindi name for the Republic of India. Bharat is not the present-day popular name of the Republic of India in English. This point has come up many times before during the ten years I have been on Wikipedia and longer discussions have been held in the past. I noticed too that someone has added Angus Maddison's garbage to the lead. I will throw this in the trash where it belongs. That India was the world's richest, greenest, land of milk and honey is a good fantasy, but you have to realize that the Indian economy was largely stagnant from 1700 to 1757. During the previous two centuries, the European economies were growing. Mr Maddison's historical estimates have been widely criticized, and the critical reviews of which too I have added somewhere in the archives, if you sift through them. (Added later: I found a few. See here.) I am removing both Bharat and the Maddison garbage until there is scholarly consensus here on it. This is a Wikipedia WP:FA, the oldest country FA on Wikipedia. It has had three Featured Article reviews since 2004, when it first became an FA. Please read WP:Lead fixation. We too have read the preamble and the first paragraph of Article 1 of the Constitution of India, many, many times, more times in fact than the times people have attempted to enlighten us about the framers' original intent.

If you have a burning desire to add content to Wikipedia, this is not the place to start, especially not the lead. Find the millions of articles on India that are languishing in the gutters of neglect and disrepair, and fix them. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Fowler, for your valuable inputs and advice.

Bharat is quite common name in Indian Peninsula having billions of population knowing English and getting advantage of en. Wikipedia. If the popular name of the country in English is 'India', we should have alternate name of this in lead rather of 'Republic of India'. I think we don't need any further consensus for this and I am making the correction.

I suppose Wikipedia just present well sourced material in its articles and works on more with consensus rather then other qualified definitions like garbage, European/ non European or writer specific comments.

India/Bharat had enjoyed a great prosperity for centuries together during changeover period from BCE to CE period and "1700 to 1757" or "previous two centuries ..European economies.." do not make any difference to this fact. I am presenting this fact as per well known sources, hope this will be liking of most.--Md iet (talk) 04:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Mdjet, you don't have consensus for adding Bharat. You need to make the case that Bharat is an alternative English name for India. You need to provide sufficient numbers of English language sources that use Bharat instead of India to make your case. We can't merely work with what you think is correct. --regentspark (comment) 15:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Here at present I am not adding Bharat as alternate English name but as a Sanskrit translation common to billions of people. It was already there as of 'Indian Republic' and now I am making lead more simple by deleting Sanskrit "ganrajya" word which is not required here in lead. Hope this do not need any further English language sources and general editors may agree for this change.--Md iet (talk) 01:40, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Double standards against Hindi and other Indian languageson so-called neutral Wikipedia

अंग्रेज़ी विकिपीडिया पर हिन्दी के विरुद्ध दोहरा मापदण्ड। अंग्रेज़ी विकि पर देशों से सम्बन्धित सभी लेखो में यह चलन है कि उस देश की आधिकारिक भाषा(ओं) में भी उस देश का नाम उपलब्ध कराया जएगा। लेकिन इस लेख में ऐसा नहीं है। क्या ऐसा करने का कोई विशेष कारण है? क्या हिन्दी में भारत गणराज्य लिखने से पृष्ठ सही से नहीं दिखेगा?

It is an accepted practise on all English Wikipedia articles that in a country article page, name in its official languages is also provided. But in case of this article Hindi the first official language of India has been omitted. Can I ask any special reason for this or it is all an overall coordinated attempt to remove Indian languages? I don't think adding name in India's first official language will break the page while pages on all other countries articles are running smoothly even with their non-Latin scripts. रोहित रावत (talk) 17:27, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

See WP:INDICSCRIPTS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

There is a line that say"India has no national language." India's Official Language is Hindi - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.213.207.18 (talk) 13:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

See the answer to Q9 in the FAQ at the top of this page. --regentspark (comment) 13:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Request for adding translation of India

it is proposed that in the lead first sentence Sanskrit translation of 'India' is to be added and translation of 'Indian republic' can be deleted as translation of word republic is not so important and not required in the lead. --Md iet (talk) 04:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

 Not done. This isn't a semi-protected edit request, consensus above is clearly against this idea, unless that changes this shouldn't happen. —SpacemanSpiff 04:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Don't be in so hurry to reject the idea just on a first glance. As I was adding the format X to Y , you have documented your judgment, excellent. This is public English encyclopedia, only time will decide what should happen. The above discussion was for the addition of alternate English name but this request is with totally different criteria. Let the people respond and then consensus would be decided. I am presenting the request again as a perfect semi-protected edit request, let the people read it and then decide accordingly.--Md iet (talk) 05:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Request for adding IAST of India

Please change ‘X’:

'India, officially the Republic of India (IAST: Bhārat Gaṇarājya),[20][21][c] is a country in South Asia.'

to ‘Y’:

'India (IAST: Bhārat), officially the Republic of India ,[20][21][c] is a country in South Asia.'

IAST of ’India’ is only required then of the ‘Republic of India’. This will make the sentence less clumpsy and more fruitful.--Md iet (talk) 05:15, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Please stop misusing semi-protected requests, your behavior is becoming disruptive now. Establish consensus, that's all there is to it. —SpacemanSpiff 05:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for making me aware of the use of this template. I request editors to please go through the above change request and contribute with your valuable comments. --Md iet (talk) 05:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on India. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/India/
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://zsi.gov.in/right_menu/Animal_disc/Animal%20Discovery%202011.pdf
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.biodiversityhotspots.org/xp/Hotspots/hotspots_by_region/Pages/default.aspx

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

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

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
• http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/India/ [working]
• https://web.archive.org/web/20110520002800/http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/India/ [working, archive, different content]
• http://zsi.gov.in/right_menu/Animal_disc/Animal%20Discovery%202011.pdf [non-working]
• https://web.archive.org/web/20130116214754/http://zsi.gov.in/right_menu/Animal_disc/Animal%20Discovery%202011.pdf [working, archive]
• http://www.biodiversityhotspots.org/xp/Hotspots/hotspots_by_region/Pages/default.aspx [non-working]
• https://web.archive.org/web/20070708223143/http://www.biodiversityhotspots.org/xp/Hotspots/hotspots_by_region/Pages/default.aspx [working, archive]

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Belated note re my edit of 11:01, 1 April 2016. I noted at that time that there were two non-working, non-archival links, without putting under separate sourcecheck template. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:55, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2016

202.142.120.166 (talk) 05:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Blank request — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:55, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2016

Vital to India's self-image as an independent nation was its constitution, completed in 1950, which put in place a secular and democratic republic.

needs to be changed. remove the secular part. India isn't a secular state, Not all religions are allowed to practice their methods. For example the Beef Ban in states of India. ChampuNathc (talk) 07:19, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

This article isn't for rants, it's meant to document what reliable sources consider important and have to say about it. —SpacemanSpiff 07:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Request for updation of Neighbouring Country

Afghanistan is also India's neighbouring country

India and afghanistan don't share a border so it is not a neighboring country. --regentspark (comment) 00:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Indians

1. Mahatma Gandhi 2. Sunder Pichai 3. Satya Nadella 4. Indira Nui 5. Sachin Tendulkar 6. Amitabh Bachchan Dayfirst (talk) 04:07, 1 May 2016 (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. General Ization ^Talk 04:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Removal of Disputed Territories

As per a recent Government of India directive, depiction of PoK and Arunachal as disputed territories would mean jail time for the editor who puts up the image. Here's the complete source: http://www.businessinsider.in/PoK-and-Arunachal-as-disputed-territories/articleshow/52129850.cms — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethically Yours (talk • contribs) 17:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps needs to be mentioned at Censorship in India but not really relevant here. MilborneOne (talk) 19:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Representation of territories

The map shows the portion of Kashmir under the occupation of Pakistan as "Pakistani territory claimed by India". That is an incorrect description. The correct description should be "Indian territory occupied by Pakistan". Here is the reason: In 1947 when the British left India, the nation was split into Pakistan (East and West), India, and Kashmir was an independent state. The King of Kashmir had a choice to make to join one of the two nations and chose to join India (or was persuaded). After that Kashmir became one of the states in India. It is known that when this happened the population of Kashmir had a slight Muslim majority and the King was Hindu. However, that is beside the point. After this Pakistan launched a series of invasions into Kashmir and when the last war ended, the two sides agreed to a "Line of Control". So there is a large piece of Kashmir occupied by Pakistan. The Indian government still recognizes this part to be part of India but, controlled by Pakistan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pareshbh (talk • contribs) 20:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The article takes a more balanced view of the situation as covered by reliable sources rather than just Indian ones, have a read of Kashmir conflict and Territorial dispute for more background information. MilborneOne (talk) 19:43, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Infobox language

Should the infobox for official language just say Hindi with an explanatory note attached? Hindi is the official language of the Union while English is an additional language.-Akhila3151996 (talk) 21:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

The current content seems more accurate. English continues to be used as an official language of India notwithstanding the fact that it is supposed to be phased out. If we hide that in a note, we're doing a disservice to our readers. --regentspark (comment) 01:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

It's difficult to take the OP seriously when every few months they open the same discussion. —SpacemanSpiff 02:40, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I just really feel that it should say this since Hindi is the technical official language. Last time I had this discussion I had no consensus.-Akhila3151996 (talk) 17:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I guess the larger point is that, as long as it remains an official language, English will be listed as one in the infobox. --regentspark (comment) 20:56, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Even now though, English remains as a provisional sub-official language. Hindi was the language chosen to be the official language.I don't know but I just feel that this might be accurate. Of course we can still say that English is an auxilary official language.-Akhila3151996 (talk) 16:32, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Festivals in Society section

I wonder how the festivals para in the Society section has no references. Also, can we decide on what basis should be include each individual festival? Couldn't find any archive of this being properly discussed. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 16:08, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the recent addition was a bit much. I think only the festivals that get national holidays should be mentioned by name. The others can be stated as et cetra. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:17, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I restored the FAR text which was partially cited. --regentspark (comment) 22:09, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

As Kautilya3 said, I've got this list of festivals which are national holidays in the country from Public holidays in India. Perhaps these too can be mentioned. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:17, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Great. To clarify my point, what are called "compulsory holidays" should be mentioned by name, and the "optional holidays" only if necessary. The first list already illustrates the religious diversity of India. The full list will of course be available in the Public holidays page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

If we have to use that as a criteria, then some may have to go while a few new ones will be added: Thai Pongal, Holi, Vaisakhi and Durga Puja will be removed and the new format will be:

"...The best known which are national holidays include Bakr-Id, Buddha Purnima, Christmas, Diwali, Dussehra, Eid ul-Fitr, Ganesh Chaturthi, Good Friday, Guru Nanak Jayanti and Muharram". Ugog Nizdast (talk) 05:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Pity. The list is badly under-weighted on Hindu festivals. (Actually even Ganesh Chaturthi isn't in the compulsory holidays list.) How about if we add Holi and Makara Sankranti, and add "and a large number of other Hindu festivals"? My rationale for picking these two is that they are not about specific deities. If we include festivals of specific deities, we wouldn't know where to stop. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:11, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, I think the present version is the best. Adding "a large number of other" is not a good idea: it's vague and encourage more additions, where do we draw the line? This national holiday source is underrepresented. I guess the statusquo is the best until some better source is presented. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

References

Terrorism

Terrorism needs to be mentioned in the main description as a problem India faces. There are countless sources that can be used for this. 1) http://www.ibtimes.com/major-terrorist-attacks-india-over-last-20-years-timeline-1752731 2)http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/india-6th-most-affected-by-terrorism-in-2014-isis-boko-haram-behind-more-than-half-attacks-report/ 3)https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/india/terrorism -Akhila3151996 (talk) 16:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't have much opposition to this unless it validly sourced. Others may have though, See here. Would suggest waiting a few days till we have no objection before adding it. I do oppose the way it's currently put.

No doubt you can get n number of new sources saying so, what we need here is a scholarly reference which gives an overview of India saying that terrorism is indeed a major problem; see WP:NEWSORG second bullet point. Also, we don't add new content to the lead section unless it's already mentioned below. A lead only summarises the article body. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 05:06, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

The 3rd source from the UK government can be added to Terrorism in India. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:20, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Marathas as the single most important power

This statement "The "single most important power" that emerged in the early modern period was the Maratha confederacy." is going to be removed because:

1. Already previously mentioned that the Marathas emerged along with the Rajputs and Sikhs.
2. Sourced to a tertiary reference Brittannica.
3. Directly quoted without attribution as to who said it.
4. At the present state, it looks WP:UNDUE.

• Yup. Agree. --regentspark (comment) 13:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

  Yup. Also agree. It was added later by a drive-by. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:42, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I object to the statement "Marathas emerged along with the Rajputs and SikhsIn the 1700s". it was the Marathas who were the most powerful indigenous group in the region. The Rajputs used to pay tribute to the Marathas. The sikhs emerged as an independent power under Ranjit singh when the Maratha influence was on the wane. I am just citing one book but I am sure there are tons of references that would show Maratha influence over the Rajputs, the Sikhs and other rulers in the subcontinent. I am sure others will weigh in on the subject. Thanks. Jonathansammy (talk) 14:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

References

Alexander

I propose the addition of "....favoured by Alexander's death and the end of his Indian campaign." to the statement "Politically, by the 3rd century BCE, the kingdom of Magadha had annexed or reduced other states to emerge as the Mauryan Empire...". Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Ugog, this is unclear and I don't understand what you mean by 'favored by'? Could you revert and discuss a rewrite that makes the meaning of the sentence clearer? Thanks. --regentspark (comment) 13:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not clear? I mean to say one of the reasons of the Mauryan rise was Alexander's death and end of his Indian campaign. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

That seems to me to be a far-fetched causality. What does the source say? Google Books isn't showing me the page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:40, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure of this either. Perhaps Alexander's conquests in north-west India left a power vacuum that the Maurya's were able to fill but that's just one factor in the rise of the Maurya Empire. We'd need to see a solid source that explicitly indicates that the death of Alexander was an important factor. (Note also that Alexander's India campaign ended first and he died later, not the other way round.) --regentspark (comment) 15:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Here's the quote: "Political developments in the region west of India aided the rise of the Maurya power. On 11 June 323 BC Alexander died....(omitted two statements, see below)...This in turn weakened Greek authority in the region around the Indus and Punjab, which in turn facilitated Chandragupta's rise." What was omitted to prevent copyvio I'll summarise: how his empire's extent was and the ensuing civil war. Any possibility of rewording it for inclusion?

I don't have with me any solid sources so I weakly support this. I was struck by his absence in the section Ancient India. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 16:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Let's see what @Fowler&fowler: has to say. We probably need a source evaluation as well. The basic tenet does make sense since Alexander's conquests did weaken the kingdoms in North-West India and leave them ripe for picking; but perhaps the Maurya's were already strong enough. But, of course, what matters is what the source says, how reliable the source is, and how much of a factor that was in the Maurya's rise. --regentspark (comment) 16:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I think we can add "... Mauryan Empire, whose initiation in Punjab was facilitated by Alexander's death and the weakening of Greek power." I think it is important to mention Punjab because, without it, it looks like coming out of the blue. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:32, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Awkward phrasing. And I'm still not sure whether the "facilitation" was important enough to rate a special mention in this summary article. --regentspark (comment) 19:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me RP. I'm traveling, someplace antipodal to WP head office, and don't have my sources. My sense is that historians today don't assign that much weight to Alexander's invasion in the subsequent political history of India. It is more important in the political histories of some Central Asian countries, and Iran, and Afghanistan, and through the subsequently established Indo-Greeks states therein, to the cultural history of India (viz. Gandhara Art, Megasthenes, etc). To be sure, his invasion was one of the factors in the collapse of the Mahajanapadas (MJs), the collection of 16 states run by ruling clans, that constituted much of north India at the time. But the clan politics of the MJs had already become eroded by two other more significant factors: the increasing trade between these MJs ("It is always the economy, stupid!" was the conclusion drawn by a bright young observer, Chankya Clinton, who would later become an adviser to royalty), and the powerful new religious ideologies of Jainism and Buddhism, which were finding support among the commercial classes. In fact, the Nanda ruler of Magadha had already united the MJs east of the Beas river before Alexander's invasion.

There are those (conventionally Indian historians) who think that Alexander decided against crossing the Beas because he was afraid of the Nandas' spanking new elephant brigade, which like today's NATO standard had between 3,000 and 6,000 war elephants, and was far and away stronger than anything he had encountered before. Others, more conventionally (in the western view), think his army rebelled, or mutinied, because they were homesick. (I myself think, it may have been Col (Real) Indian Summer, which (I should really say "who") was blasting the Greeks with 120 degree winds straight from his loo, and the Alexander did not want a Battle for Stalingrad to be fought on the banks of the Beas, without receiving a bigger group discount on the Rooh Afza being sold by the itinerant Kabuliwallahs.) In any case, within the year, both Alexander and Nanda were dead. The latter's sons proved too quarrelsome to stop the new power, Chandragupta Maurya, whose empire also sounded the death knell of the MJs. And Chanakya Clinton began work in his magnum opus (what else) on Economics. I myself would not add anything new for now. I'll take a look at the history section when I get back home in three weeks time. It probably needs another look. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Makes sense F&f. We should, imo, anyway avoid getting too deep into causes in a summary article, unless the causality is clear. --regentspark (comment) 15:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

References

Update of info needed

Under the "Foreign relations and military" the section for defense has the following line "As of 2012, India is the world's largest arms importer". Also I think the number of ports India has control over and the addition of Maitri Antarctic mission should be added under a separate heading. The recent help India provided in evacuation of citizens from Yemen and help provided to people of NEPAL during the earth quake should be added in foreign relations. Also I think the fact that the largest observatory is coming up in India and that India is fast becoming a space hub should be mentioned in the article. ISRO and its achievements like the MARS mission etc should also be part of this article or atleast should have subsequent links for the same. India's relation with Afghanistan and the fact that India recently gifted it a new parliament building should also be acknowledged. This needs to be edited as it is no longer so. Please make changes to this section. Also I believe the entire page of "India" has not been updated with the latest info. I have been reading the same content for last two years. India has gone through a lot of changes.

The Jaipur Literary Festival is one of the biggest literary festivals in the world. I believe this should also be added under the section, "Literature". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siddharthamm (talk • contribs) 07:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Images and section

Hi,

The article is well written and offcourse it is a featured one. But I think it lags behind in case of some more good images. So, I request someone( especially regentspark) to add more images. Apart from that, a mini article of science and technology section makes it more delightful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.248.117.10 (talk) 00:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Request for adding IAST of India

If there is no further improvement suggested to the change proposed just above, can we presume consensus on above?--Md iet (talk) 04:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The consensus above is clearly against what you are proposing, nothing has changed, no new reasons have been put forth to support your proposal. —SpacemanSpiff 04:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

As reasoned above, the new change proposed is :

Please change ‘X’:

'India, officially the Republic of India (IAST: Bhārat Gaṇarājya),[20][21][c] is a country in South Asia.'

to ‘Y’:

'India (IAST: Bhārat), officially the Republic of India ,[20][21][c] is a country in South Asia.'

Explanation which was not discussed at all is: I am not adding 'Bharat' here as alternate English name but as a IAST common to billions of people. It was already there in term 'Republic of India (IAST: Bhārat Gaṇarājya)', now I am making lead more simple by deleting Sanskrit translation "ganrajya" which is not required in lead sentence, in place required translation 'Bharat' is added for India, in beginning itself. Hope this do not need any further English language sources for justification and, editors may agree for this change.--Md iet (talk) 02:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:IDHT. —SpacemanSpiff 02:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

There is no specific objections to this simplification suggestion so far, making the first sentence of the lead short and less clumsy. Any further comments if any are welcome.--Md iet (talk) 03:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Hope by now I can presume having consensus for doing above simplification, and proceeding for the same.--Md iet (talk) 06:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)--Md iet (talk) 06:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

No you cannot. Simply repeating the same argument multiple times doesn't get you consensus. In addition to WP:IDHT suggested by spacemanspiff above, you need to read WP:TE and then follow that up with a read of WP:DE. --regentspark (comment) 14:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Please forget about my all old arguments and compare the first sentence of lead para of article on Germany :

“Germany ( i/ˈdʒɜːrməni/; German: Deutschland, pronounced [ˈdɔʏtʃlant]), officially the Federal Republic of Germany or FRG (German: Bundesrepublik Deutschland, listen (help•info)),[e][6] is a federal parliamentary republic in West-Central Europe.”

V/S suggested change "Y":

“India (IAST: Bhārat), officially the Republic of India ,[20][21][c] is a country in South Asia.”

If the first one on one country is acceptable to all and sustained, there should not be any issue with the second one of another similar country. If any, elaborate.--Md iet (talk) 12:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

It is more than a week by now and, there is no response to my above query. Hope there are no issues left with suggested change and, I can presume consensus for the above change of namely 'X' to 'Y'.--Md iet (talk) 03:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

No one is under obligation to respond to your incessant pestering. You've been answered multiple times and I don't think anything more is required, if you continue this then you are likely to face some sort of action with regard to your editing privileges. —SpacemanSpiff 03:22, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I have been answered for adding "Bharat" as alternate English name. I understand that at present there is lack of consensus and the request was dropped.

Now this request is for adding alternate name(within the brackets in small letters as per Wiki norms), in official language ([35]; Hindi in the Devanagari script is the official language of the Union; Ministry of Home Affairs 1960), which is justified as per example given of the similar country (Germany). There are no answer on the issue till date.

With this explanation, the above request may be considered. Anybody still having any suggestion/ issues may like to respond.--Md iet (talk) 12:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Bharat is not only alternate name in the official language of India but common to billions of people of origin of Indian peninsula living all over the world. Most of these people are English literate and covers very big part of English Wikipedia user. We can't deprive them of their alternate name being referred in the lead Para as being done for Germany. The name is so common amongst Indians that it is part of many international organization's name ( BHEL, BSNL, BEL) representing 'Bharat' as alternate of India. Only Tamil people of India which are a minority part are against Hindi for political reasons and they can not force their POV. --Md iet (talk) 11:40, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Editors/ users not agreeing to above additional reasoning given may point their concern.--Md iet (talk) 03:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:, The main name of the country "India" not indicating most common name "Bharat" seems to be unjustified. Mentioning 'Bharat' word at "Republic of India" is not one and same. Either it is to be indicated at both place as done in case of Germany or for making sentence less clumsy it is to be mentioned with main name first as suggested in above change. your comment substantiating your earlier view, may further clarify the issue.--Md iet (talk) 04:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC)